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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82123
|
Potato Starch Coating water to starch ratio?
I made some General Tso's Chicken last night using a batter of potato starch and water then frying in peanut oil. I used just enough water to wet the starch and make it somewhat pliable but if I let it sit for a minute it was so thick but if I gave it a bit of stir I could coat the chicken.
My question is, what is a good water to potato or corn starch ratio to be able to coat the chicken easily and give it that amazingly crisp coating even after tossing with the sauce? The type of coating I'm after is light and crispy, not doughy.
"Best" is difficult standard to judge objectively. It largely depends on what you are aiming for, tempura batter or something more 'KFC'. What other ingredients (if any) are you using? Whatever anyone here may say you are going to have to exercise a little 'trial and error' to get to what you think is 'best' for you...
I've updated the question to better clarify @CosCallis
Very related, but I don't know enough chicken frying to say if it is a duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5764/how-to-make-extra-crispy-and-crunchy-breading-like-kfc
@rumtscho - I'm sorry but there isn't any egg or flour in this recipe and that question relates to southern US style chicken, not Chinese fried chicken which uses either potato or corn starch. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.126966
| 2017-05-31T16:46:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82123",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100727
|
What's the difference between "English" & "American" bacon?
Prompted by Is it possible to cook bacon without melting as much fat? where I answered in an "English" way…
I've had crispy bacon - you can get it on pre-made sandwiches or in chilled packs in the cooked meat section in supermarkets, but bacon in the UK isn't normally served that way, it tends to be 'wetter', for want of a better term.
Smoked or not, back or belly, dry-cure or wet-brined, fried, grilled or even done in the oven [mass-catering-style] it still comes out "English".
Cue images of greasy-spoon cafés the length & breadth of our motorway system…
Credit: The Telegraph - The 15 most British foods ever
Also cue jingoistic comparison from a chat site -
So, national pride aside, what's the difference?
I'm aware there's a cultural element, but does it come down to cooking method or curing method? Can I take my "English" bacon & cook it like "American" bacon, or do I have to look for a different 'type' altogether?
Note that I usually cook what in the UK is called streaky bacon - which looks like the same cut as "American" bacon - as opposed to back [as in the pictures of "English" above] but I still have never attained that complete crisp end result.
If I just keep cooking it until it's crispy, I don't get the same end product - I get 'over-cooked' [or in extremis, 'burnt'], but still recognisably "English".
Google for this seems useless - it serves up page after page of opinionated "which is best" with no facts at all.
Late Edit:
Prompted by a recent upvote for this question, I did recently discover that pancetta cooks similarly to American bacon. It still starts out looking very much like English 'streaky' but the slicing is thinner.
i'm beginning to wonder if that might be it - simply the thickness of the slice.
As I understand it: Imagine that you turn the American bacon sideways and lay it on the crumpled end of the English bacon. That's actually how the meat exists on the pig. Slice only left and you get American bacon, only right and you get Canadian bacon, mostly right with a bit of left is English bacon.
There are many things called bacon in many places, and all cook different. I will hit a few and hope I am mostly right, please feel free to edit where I may be speaking from mistake.
British Rashers is typically made from the loin with a bit of the side to belly still attached. This would be a meatier cut and tend to have more of the taste and texture of ham to those used to American style bacon.
Irish Bacon, from my limited exposure to it is similar to Rashers but tends to have more of the streaky belly included.
What I know as Bachelor or Cottage bacon is really more of a ham, made from the shoulder, cured, usually smoked and sliced thin and fried like streaky bacon but with far less fat and more of a ham taste unless a very high heat is used.
Canadian bacon in the US, or just Back Bacon to all Canadians I have known it the loin round, cured and smoked. Much more of a ham flavor than that of streaky bacon and mostly very lean. Typically a fairly firm cured product.
Pancetta and similar products I would personally call a ham, not bacon, but it is your choice how you choose to classify. I would never fry and serve like bacon though.
Jowl Bacon is common in Southern and Soul cooking in the US, if from the fatty jaws of large hogs and is typically used as a flavoring component in other dishes and to add fat and salt. It would typically be sold as slabs.
Old West Bacon as talked about in old western movies being cooked over the fire is not what most Americans would think of as bacon, it is more Salt Pork. Leaner than streaky bacon and heavily cured to allow for preservation without refrigeration and cooked as a main protein, not a side dish.
Streaky Bacon can me from side bacon or belly. In the US it will almost always be belly which will normally be more fatty than side. Commercial stuff is fast force cured and will often be from older hogs so very fatty. Home of custom butcher cured will often be from younger, leaner animals and therefore a higher percentage lean.
These are very different cuts of meat, and you are never going to get belly and loin to test the same, well at least not other than burning both to inedible. ;) Even within the types, curing, smoking, seasoning, and other ways of treating will result in different products. Was the belly cured with nitrates, nitrites, both, neither, not cured at all, smoked, etc.
Having cured my own, even with two slices off the same cure and belly, I learned though that heat makes a huge difference in flavor though. Higher heat with a searing pan or cast iron on a fatty piece of belly meat brings out what as an American I think of as bacon flavor, while lower, slower heat on that same piece is more of a cured ham flavor in my experience. If through I take a piece of Cottage bacon, cured the same way, to get close to that same bacon flavor, I need a pan at or very near smoke point and added fat or it will taste like ham to me.
You didn't clarify which of these, if any, is the typical "American" bacon.
You may have missed it as I did go long and may not have been clear enough, but it is streaky or belly bacon. Others can readily be found, but they will not be called just "bacon" in the US. They will be called Canadian bacon, back bacon, cottage bacon, etc. Just called "bacon" it will be streaky, belly bacon. Same is likely true most places in Canada.
Yes you've got a paragraph on streaky bacon, and said it's found "in the US" but you said the same thing about jowl bacon, so it wasn't clear which one is the typical "American" bacon as pictured in the original question. I also wasn't familiar with the "streaky" term, adding to the confusion.
They are 2 different cuts of meat; they cook differently.
Back bacon (UK type) contains a lot less fat in each slice so it does not crisps as much as Side bacon (US type) does.
If you cook it too much (UK bacon), you will dry out the meat before it becomes crispy.
and how do UK and Canadian bacon compare? about the same?
'Streaky' bacon [UK] is the same cut as US bacon, - both types are available here. It still doesn't do the 'American thing' when I cook it.
What do you mean by 'American thing'?
@Bee The bacon gets all crispy - British bacon does not crisp all over
My very limited experience with European Streaky bacon (2 samples, very limited), it was definitely side bacon rather than belly. More lean. It should still crisp if you try. The cook for me did not try. ;) It should be a very similar product and if cured the same way should behave the same, just a bit leaner than belly bacon.
@Mark thin sliced steak under the grill does go crispy all over
@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica in Canada, bacon means what Americans call bacon. So I would say same. However, when Americans say Canadian bacon they mean what Canadians call "back bacon" which is very different, like the large round lean part of English bacon.
American bacon is also generally smoked in hickory or apple wood. That imparts the smokiness we love.
bacon comes from the curing process. bacon is not a cut of meat. if you cured pigs ears the same way youd have ear bacon. in europe they prefer pork loin bacon where in the us we slice them thicker and eat as pork loin chops. there is more fat on us bacon making it tastier than the leaner euro bacon
Isn't this just repeating the other answers?
…and itself ;))
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.127112
| 2019-08-13T18:52:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100727",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Italian Philosopher",
"Kate Gregory",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayne",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"miken32",
"mmmmmm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26030
|
Any tips for degassing blended soup?
I find creamy soups and many other thicker liquids too fluffy for my liking after blending.
I could do it the old fashioned way by forcing through a mill/sieve; must I?
Any other tips to knocking out a few more bubbles besides a few bangs of the pot. I tried whisking and bubbles were at the surface but not sure if whisking indeed created them.
Use a vacuum pump. People who pour liquid rubber into moulds use a vacuum chamber to get the bubbles out; I've heard of people degassing wine with a vacuum pump (see these youtube videos, for example); I wouldn't know why it wouldn't work for soup.
The question is of course where you get a vacuum pump. If you're doing this in a commercial kitchen I'm sure there are channels where you can get a professional one. For the home cook (like me), one option (inspired by one of those videos) would be to pour it into a wine bottle and then use a wine saver; Vacu Vin is a well known brand. You probably won't want to fill the bottle more than half full, especially if the liquid is very thick; the bubbles in the liquid will expand a lot if you lower the pressure, and it will raise the level of the liquid.
An aspirator hooked up to the kitchen sink will do the job as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirator_%28pump%29
I'd love for someone to give this a try before I consider such equipment. I was thinking maybe something along the lines of a paint mixer on low setting -jiggle out the bubbles!
With a paint mixer I'd be worried I'd be incorporating bubbles into the soup rather than letting them escape - but who knows, it might work!
For the record, the point of paint mixers over stirring the pot is avoiding bubbles, as those would be prone to give an uneven coat in painting.
Separate the liquid from the solids before blending. Use a fine colander, or coarse sieve
Use a chopper style food processor or a sturdy masher to blend down the solids in a strong bowl, and then add that blend back to the soup. I always leave some extra chunky bits for interesting textures
Blending with a gelatinous liquid (typical of soup) will result in a heavy foam, which may not dissipate for quite some time
Note: In general, most vegetable matter will become softer and breakdown quicker with just cooking if it is in an alkaline liquid. A pinch or two of baking soda may help. e.g. A 1/4 tsp of baking soda will render two onions to mush in about five to ten minutes
Add some neutralising acid (a splash of vinegar or lemon juice), and oily and other acidic components (e.g. tomatoes) near the end of cooking if possible
I'll have a think how to alkalinize... soda impairs some flavors and colors, helps others. cheers.
VacuVin has vacuum pumps and containers for food as well as wine. I purchased a 1.3 liter container and their super pump and used them on a food mixture I prepare to feed my cat through an e-tube. This pulled the micro-bubbles (created by the "liquify" setting on my inexpensive blender) to the top and I mashed them against the side of the container with a flexible spatula. Got rid of most of the bubbles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.128011
| 2012-09-06T23:20:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26030",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"Pat Sommer",
"Purnendu Buch",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"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
}
|
120295
|
Best Texture for Vegan Ceviche
Which main ingredient is most reminiscent of fish for Ceviche?
Recipes out there with hearts of palm, tofu, cauli and young coconut. Or some other?
I hated fish when young, and certainly won't try it now as a vegan but would like to know how much chew, snap etc is appropriate to ceviche.
What's "cauli"?
Sorry, cauliflower
Speaking as someone who adores real ceviche, I would say that avocado is actually the best texture substitute for whitefish ceviche. Most fish cured in citrus acids is actually quite soft and buttery in texture. Ripe mango or ripe plantain would also be a good texture match, but has a strong flavor.
Shellfish, however, toughen up in the curing, so I'd use hearts of palm for those. Young coconut would also be good texturally, but also has a very strong flavor that would throw people off. Underripe jackfruit, the standby for vegan everything, might work well also.
So ... if you're preparing a "vegan ceviche", I'd recommend a mix of avocado and hearts of palm, in lime juice and spices. Which is a good salad even if you weren't trying to imitate anything.
Tofu is just wrong for all varieties of ceviche.
I've had sushi with mango, more on the green than on the ripe side, and it's an excellent choice.
Seems my café customers enjoy oyster mushroom most, followed by hearts of palm. Avocado tomato and onion are the 'fixings' that garnish.
English walnut and konnyaku (konjak) were a fail. But if someone has hints how to make them work, love to hear it.
Also, there is Lupini Bean that apparently has a fishy flavor. Trying to track that down next.
brined jar of Lupini Bean has interesting flavor -almost olive like- but texture is crunchy like raw walnut. Fail. Ceviche de chochos: http://wildgreensandsardines.com/2020/03/lupini-bean-ceviche-recipe.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.128291
| 2022-04-10T18:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120295",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"phipsgabler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117583
|
Egg Yolk Sub for Vegan Potato Gnocchi
Attempts at potato gnocchi Piedmont style -no egg- has yielded rubber bullets or baby mush.
Tips from this site may help (ie old potato,freshly baked and riced) with a vegan version but their recommended egg yolk recipe has me hoping for a breakthrough:
Would other egg pasta substitutes have the desired effect of producing resilient pillows?
EVOO or Aquafaba show up in a few 'egg' noodle recipes; would that help? Or perhaps a potato protein based whole-egg replacer like Panaceg?
https://www.countrytrading.co/blogs/home-cooking/tips-to-make-perfect-potato-gnocchi
Have you searched for vegan gnocchi recipes? I appreciate that it's interesting figuring out your own substitution but your research will go much faster if you compare it to what others have done too.
I would go with a vegan gnocchi recipe, honestly - no need to reinvent the wheel. The one I use is not in English, but I can send you a link if you want
Yes, done the stated vegan Piedmont style for years. The binding gluten-softening power of a yolk is well substituted for in 'egg noodle'; why not extend the search?
I prefer egg-yolk gnocchi but I’ve been successful in making yolk-free, pillowy, fluffy gnocchi by subbing out a couple of the russets (~1/5 the total weight of the potatoes) with yams or sweet potatoes in combination with my own invention that my spouse calls it “yuck yolk” because it looks like pet vomit. It's a combo of finely ground flax or ground chia seed soaked in a little aquafaba. The high Omega 3 content of flax can impart a fishy flavor so don’t overdo it.
The resulting gray mush should have a pudding-like texture. I lay riced potatoes on a cookie sheet as soon as they’re baked to let the steam out of them.
Then I sprinkle a small amount of the pudding-like ground seed/aquafaba mush over the potatoes and work it in with my fingers until it’s well distributed. I use about the same volume I would if I were using yolks (meaning, if I were using 1 yolk/lb potatoes, I’d use a seed/aquafaba pudding volume equivalent of 1 actual yolk).
Finally, I work in the flour until it feels right (holds together well enough to be rolled into the dough snakes from which the gnocchi is cut).
I’m afraid I can’t provide measurement guidance as I cook by feel, smell, taste, and never measure anything (unless I’m baking). I vary my recipe depending on intended use.
For example, if I want an ultra fluffy gnocchi for a light dish, I’ll use old dry potatoes and very little flour. If, on the other hand, I want to bake uncooked gnocchi in a sauce, I’ll increase the flour so that they hold together during a long submerged baking (this is a great thing to try with larger gnocchi baked in a marinara sauce).
Anyway, just have fun. Gnocchi is very forgiving. You can just make small batches and play around with proportions and egg substitutes until you nail it down.
Several online recipes call for adding olive oil to the dough to soften it. Is this something you've tried?
Yes in 'Egg' Noodle not potato gnocchi and why I referenced EVOO -extra virgin olive oil-
Found a couple recipes that add a teaspoon EVOO for a kilo potato so I imagine doesn't do much
The one I linked uses 2 Tbs.
Unsweetened Applesauce will do the trick. 2 Tbsp for one egg.
please tell me more: have you actually done this with POTATO gnocchi or is this a substitute for muffins?
Assuming that your recipe includes some flour as well the applesauce binder should work. I would use both flour and applesauce so that they dont become too chewy. I have not done this but it is what i would try. There are also many vegan gnocchi recipes that show up with a google search.
I'll wait until you try it.
The recipe linked was vegan when doing Piedmont style. They recommended Veneto style by adding egg yolk. As stated.
The juices in a can of chickpeas has enough plant protein in it that you can use it for a egg sub in a meringue. Try chickpea juices.
When you have dumped a can of aqua faba into riced potato and tried to make gnocchi, let us know.
Unless you are an actual teenager you can replace your thinly veiled sarcastic comment with an actuall critique.
Sorry to offend, Neil. I know aquafaba is super popular but it works only in a narrow spectrum of applications. Any fat, for example, deflates. It must be dried carefully to maintain structure. I was looking for the more gelling quality of yolk rather than white. Gnocchi were successful using piedmont technique: old potato baked riced, right amount of flour.
When making gnocchi it’s important to keep the moisture level as low as possible. This seems like it would result in soup, not gnocchi. Do you have experience with this?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.128470
| 2021-10-21T21:28:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117583",
"authors": [
"Adam Wheeler",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Neil Meyer",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125188
|
Silica gel to dehydrate soft cheese safely?
To firm up a soft cheese round, I bagged in fine nylon mesh (nutmilk bag) and buried in silica beads in a sealed container in fridge.
'Aged' nicely in 3 days.
Any food safety issues?
ie brand of beads not labeled for food service.
Can I dry beads and reuse for this purpose safely?
Officially, you should be using food-grade silica gel to dehydrate foods; this is why some countries have a certification system that distinguish between food and non-food grades.
That said, though, many countries consider silica gel to be harmless enough that they do not distinguish a food-grade version. And even the FDA, which recommends using silica gel marked food-safe, doesn't actually regulate it at all as long as the weight of the gel is less than 2% of the food that it accompanies (also, if you look at that regulation, you can see that some gels can even be used in food). So, while you should use food-grade products where you can get them, the risk associated with using non-food-grade appears to be low.
The exception here is color-changing silica gels. If the gel you used is blue or orange and changes color in the presence of moisture, it has highly toxic substances (like cobalt) that should be nowhere near food.
drying and reusing, any risk?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.128827
| 2023-09-09T00:37:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125188",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114569
|
Removing long-term residue from teflon
Over time, teflon manages to become coated by polymerised oils, similarly to the intentional seasoning on an iron pan. This tends to make the pan just too sticky for such as fried eggs.
I have tried the usual suspects - nylon mesh pan scrubs, Barkeeper's Friend & similar, those little bricks of melamine, bicarb. - and all work to some extent, but none get it right back to the original 'teflon'. The substrate is aluminium, so even though a heavy oven cleaner will work well, it also damages any areas with scratches.
With cheap pans ($£€ 25 or so) I usually throw them out once they get to this stage, but for the last few years I've had a really good, expensive one. I retired it to dry frying only & replaced it a while ago, but it turns out it's still actually better than a new cheap one after just a year.
So, I'm back to trying to get this one back to an as-new state on the inside (the outside I really don't care about).
Does anyone have any sure-fire method I've not yet tried? Good for aluminium, bad for organic polymers.
Good question, I've been there myself.
Sounds like my omelette (etc. etc.) pan. Ammonia will also attack the scratches, like oven cleaner; unfortunately most strongly alkaline solutions will
I was under the impression that you stop using teflon pans when they get scratched as it starts to flake off into your food.
Cheap pans flake, good ones don’t
I went in the other direction: my best non-stick pan is now seasoned, like cast iron, and has an entire black smooth layer. It's as non-stick as new. Granted, it's one of those ceramic coated, not teflon, so not sure if it applies here.
I use cast iron. Non-stick, everlasting.
It's never as non-stick as teflon. I use cast iron for some things, egg is not one of them.
Providing this as an answer even though it's not really what I was looking for.
I didn't want to go the harsh chemical route - I ruined a previous version of the same pan that way, so I just got down with the old 'elbow grease'.
I went through about half a block of melamine foam, a lot of Barkeepers Friend & another 'Astonish' cleaner with orange oil, and after about 40 minutes' work I got it back to a state where I could slide an omelette around in it with just a gentle shake, didn't even need to run a spatula round the edge.
I'd call that good enough.
You cannot use physical methods (scratching), so you are only left with the chemical ones. And for this kind of gunk, the only thing I know to work is a strong enough base.
In the mildest cases, oven cleaner sprays might be sufficient. If not, somebody suggested ammonia in the comments, and then there is lye.
The big problem is that any base strong enough to clean this stuff will corrode aluminum too. If your pans are teflon on steel, go ahead and clean them. If they are aluminum pans, maybe you can try the oven cleaner as a last ditch effort, but you are risking the pan itself. Else, all you can do is continue use them as normal sticky pans.
The usual modus operandi is actually not to clean them somehow, but not to let the gunk happen. Just like you don't use metal on Termin, to prevent the failure mode of "scratched pan", you don't use techniques which produce gunk, to prevent the failure mode of "gummed up pan". This means that you have to avoid anything with small amounts of oil, and either use the pan without oil (at low temperatures though, or you'll burn the coating), or with lots of oil at moderate temperatures, or for wet cooking.
can you please explain or link how is "lot of oil" more protective than "a little oil" ? Thank you !
@CiprianTomoiagă if you use too little oil, it will polymerize and gum up your pan. If you use enough, it will stay normal oil, which you can throw out and wash the pan.
Ironically, I've seen that cooking spray (recommended for use in low-fat cooking along with nonstick pans) actually makes nonstick pans become "sticky" faster than regular oil/butter/etc because of the additives in it.
Here's a suggestion I haven't tried (but might). If there are only a few scratches, protect them with a dam made of flour/water paste*, heated gently to dry it. If there's only one burnt-grease region, build your dam round that.
On the dirty side of the dam, apply any corrosive cleaner you like. Some, meant for ovens, are quite gel-like anyway. The scratched side can be left dry so you can see if the cleaner leaks, or can be wetted to dilute it.
Of course, you may have scratches and burnt regions together - but you might not, in my experience, burning in thin-based non-stick pans happens towards the edges (not much stirring, but a wide flame is almost underneath), while scratches happen nearer the middle (where more action takes place).
*Assuming you don't want to use Blu Tack, plasticine, or Play Doh on Cookware; we use them in work for making similar barriers (non-food).
According to this Reader's Digest 2/14/2020 Article, you should discard non-stick pans with significant scratches. The Teflon has been damaged and the chemicals can be flaking into your food. If there are scratches you are concerned that oven cleaner would get through, I would throw it away. Article Snipet Below.
The scratches are not ’significant’ and the Teflon is not flaking. The pan is also not pre 2014
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.128971
| 2021-03-03T13:20:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114569",
"authors": [
"Austin759",
"Candid Moe",
"Chris H",
"Ciprian Tomoiagă",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91692",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9503
|
why roast marrow bones at 450F?
Many of the recipes for roast marrow bones suggest a short (20min), high temp roast. Are there any reasons to cook them at such a high temperature instead of, say one hour at 350°F?
Bone marrow is made up of a large portion of fat. If you roast it low and slow, you render out a good portion of that fat and are left with a liquidy mess. Also the high heat will start to carmelize the bone marrow, providing much flavor.
I don't see why you can't cook your bones as low as 350F. I've seen roasting temperatures all over the place in recipes for making stock, between 350 and 450. However, roasting the bones for longer doesn't really buy you anything -- it's not like you're roasting a meat, where you want connective tissue to break down over a long period of time. So the question I would pose is: why do you want to do it this way?
Your point is well taken, and now that I have tried the standard recipe, I can see where rendering the fat and use it as such might be an alternative to using small spoons to scrape it out. Still, the reason for the question was that I was surprised that the instructions were so consistently for cooking marrow at high temp since recipes for meat are so variable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.129499
| 2010-11-26T21:02:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9503",
"authors": [
"Chef Mark",
"Christopher Maeda",
"David LeBauer",
"Deshawn",
"Frameshifter",
"Jim Cummings",
"Paweł",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17013
|
What is the most efficient way to remove kernels from a corn cob?
I have access to as much sweet corn as I want, so I would like to remove the kernels and store them in the freezer.
What is the most efficient (low time, high recovery) way to remove the kernels from the cob? I would prefer to get whole kernels if possible.
I have been using a paring knife, slicing down the sides of the cob onto a cutting board but I find that this slices through most of the kernels, leaving a good bit on the cob and allowing the liquid to escape.
What's wrong with letting the liquid escape? The liquid is good! When I freeze sweetcorn, I slice through just the outer part of the kernels, and then turn the knife sideways and scrape to release the rest of the delicious gooey liquid inside them... I'm not particularly fond of the flavor or texture of the cob-side anyway, and the creamy result can be packed and frozen with a minimal amount of air.
I highly recommend using a chef's knife instead of a paring knife though. A big cutting board and a bench scraper also come in handy. If you're doing a lot of corn at once, a baking sheet works well to catch the juice.
Growing up, we'd get a bunch of people together and do bushels of the stuff in an afternoon - cooking, icing, cutting, scraping, and packing simultaneously. With a bit of practice, you become quite fast at it.
But, if you're simply looking for a quick way to process the ears alone, there are specialized tools made for this job: search for corn creamer or corn cutter.
You could probably use a mandoline as well, provided you're able to adjust the depth of the blade. Frankly though, this seems cumbersome. Practice with the knife...
I have read that if you get a bundt pan (see image below) and stick the cob in the middle hole, and then cut the kernels off as you have been, the pan then catches them quite easily. how to get them off the cob without slicing, though, I really do not know.
The up-side of this is that it holds the end of the ear firmly and catches all the corn and juice. The down-side is that it can be a bit awkward. The (lift-out) center of an angel food cake pan also works for this, and sits flatter.
whoever fixed my entry so the image was here, thank you. i didn't know i could do that, or (to be honest) HOW to do that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.129649
| 2011-08-21T14:27:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17013",
"authors": [
"Bob Switak",
"Heschoon",
"Licorice Lovin' Peter",
"Rick Moncada",
"Shog9",
"alexw",
"annemartijn",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"kato potato",
"triniq",
"user36508"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18331
|
Is it necessary to skim the scum off of fermenting pickles?
The sour (fermented) pickle recipe that I am following states:
Check the crock every day. Skim any mold from the surface, but don’t
worry if you can’t get it all. If there’s mold, be sure to rinse the
plate and weight.
The only change that I have made to the recipe is to add 3 med tomatoes along with 4 lbs of cucumbers.
The pickles do seem to have more surface mold than sauerkraut. However, is there any real advantage to skimming the mold off of the top? It seems that if the mold is aerobic and restricted to the surface, then any skimming, especially if combined with removing the stone weight on top of the pickles, would simultaneously mix both mold and air in.
I would prefer to skip skimming every day, and the shape of my crock makes it somewhat awkward to do: the crock curves in at the top, and there is < 1 cm of brine between the surface and the stone weight.
Is there any disadvantage to not skimming every day?
Never made pickles, so I don't know if the name is accurate. But if it is really a mold, chances are it produces toxins, which end up in the brine.
@rumtscho according to the NC Cooperative Extension a white scum on the top is a harmless yeast and/or fungus. The presence of harmful molds is indicated If the pickles themselves become slippery.
Is that 'tomatoes' tag accurate?
@KateyΨ yes, I put a few green tomatoes in the crock.
Oh okay - I am not familiar with this kind of pickling (my grandmother is the queen of bread and butter pickles) but maybe mention that in the question? I am not sure if the acidity of the tomatoes affects anything notably, and I can see other people having the same confusion.
@KateyΨ changes made. Thanks for pointing that out
From what I've read, leaving the scum on reduces the salinity of the brine, which changes fermentation. Skim the scum so that the salt level stays the same ... check out "Wild Fermentation by Sandor Katz.
this seems implausible; I have about 10 liters of brine and <50ml (0.5%) of scum. I have read Katz' fist book and am looking forward to reading his latest "The Art of fermentation"
I make pickles similarly, but not quite the same way: I usually make half-sours, as even the 5.6% salinity of that recipe would be way too salty for my family's tastes. I boil the brine before using it, letting it cool before adding it to the cucumbers. I use a clear glass jar rather than something opaque like stoneware, which might change the mechanics a bit. The biggest difference, though, is that I add a slice of bread, which really gives the fermentation a head start. Usually, the pickles are ready in two days, three at most. Perhaps it's this shortened time period, but I've never encountered any scum that needs to be skimmed off. Sometimes, if it was a particularly hot day or something, there will be mold, either on the bread or on the liquid; if this happens, the pickles are thrown away — it's just not worth the risk.
That said, scum does not equal mold. If it's anything other than white, and/or if it's fuzzy, it's mold, and I personally would not eat whatever it occurred on, unless of course it was rotten moldy milk blue cheese. If it's really just scum, then it's probably a cosmetic issue: if you don't skim it off, the brine might turn cloudy and unappetizing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.129881
| 2011-10-12T03:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18331",
"authors": [
"David LeBauer",
"Desik",
"Katey HW",
"Norm Williams",
"RJo",
"Sam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"mercutio",
"rumtscho",
"salilkumar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19111
|
Brining a kosher bird
How should I adjust the salinity of a brine when using a kosher turkey? Some reccomendations suggest decreasing the salinity of the brine, but how much?
My recipe is two quarts of water with 1 c. of each salt and sugar.
I'll try to weigh on in this as much as possible with a non-authoritative answer:
First of all, I simply can't state this emphatically enough: kashering is not brining! A kosher bird is not "pre-brined", and professional chefs who claim that it is are either misinforming their audiences or simply misinformed themselves.
Kashering (sometimes called koshering) has the principal aim of drawing blood out of the meat. This page explains the process but to summarize: first the unkosher parts are removed (feathers, blood vessels, etc.), then it is soaked without salt for 30 minutes, then it is coated in kosher salt (AKA kashering salt) and left to rest for 1 hour, and then finally it is thoroughly washed again to remove the salt crystals (in theory, anyway - sometimes the salt is not thoroughly washed off).
This could not possibly be more different from brining! In the kashering process, moisture is drawn out and the meat generally ends up tougher. This is especially noticeable with red meats as opposed to birds; ask anybody who's ever tried to cook a moderately-priced kosher steak from the supermarket and they will likely tell you without a hint of irony that not even a strong acid marinade, several minutes with a mallet and several hours in the crock pot can turn it into anything other than shoe leather.
But I digress. Brining is a long, slow, steady process which adds moisture to the meat. Its aim is both to add flavour and to tenderize. According to McGee, brining increases the weight of the bird by 10% or more; of course, moisture is still lost during the cooking process, but the same amount of moisture is lost whether it is brined or not, so a brined bird will be 10% more moist after cooking.
Kashering is roughly equivalent to "dry brining" when the meat is simply coated in salt. In my opinion this "dry brining" has absolutely no business being called a "brine" at all, which is defined as:
a : water saturated or strongly impregnated with common salt
b : a strong saline solution (as of calcium chloride)
Proponents of this method argue that it's technically a brine because once it starts to draw out moisture from the bird then it creates a solution (brine). While not wanting to sound overly nit-picky, I think it's very obvious that when people talk about "brining" a bird in the traditional sense, that isn't what they mean. It's a vastly different method that produces a vastly different result - imparting a different flavour and leading to a very different texture.
I'm sorry to have dwelled on this point for so long, but I think that background is necessary to really understand the question. Kosher birds may come out with a similar flavour to non-kosher brined birds in the absence of any other preparation - emphasis on similar because no sugar is involved in kashering - but brining a bird is not simply about adding salt, it's about adding brine. Brine, by definition, includes water.
So what do you do if you have a bird that's already been salted but not actually brined, and you want to achieve a result that's somewhere in the vicinity of a real brining?
Add water.
That's really the only missing ingredient here - that and sugar, if you like to use that in your brine. You've already got the salt. You might want to add some salt as well because kashering does not increase the salinity of the bird as much as brining due to the extremely short exposure. Exactly how salty the kosher bird will be is anyone's guess, because it depends on the exact amount (and consistency) of salt that was added during the kashering process, how long it was left to rest, and how thoroughly it was washed afterward. A traditional process like kashering doesn't lend itself well to automation which means there is going to be a lot of inconsistency from distributor to distributor and even from bird to bird.
My best suggestion would be to err on the side of caution. A kosher bird doesn't need to be brined for flavour - that point is not in dispute. I've seen "rules of thumb" that suggests using half as much salt and brining for half as long. I think that's a good starting point, but if you know for a fact that the kosher birds you buy are already fairly salty (in the sense that you could roast one straight out of the package and never need to reach for the salt shaker) then use less - say 1/4 of the amount that you would normally use. But don't reduce the sugar, because the kosher bird definitely hasn't been exposed to any; and additionally, a generous amount of sugar in the brine will help to prevent the weaker brine from drawing salt out of the bird.
But all told, it's way easier to add salt to a slightly bland bird than it is to try to save an over-salted bird. So use as little salt as possible if you plan to brine a kosher bird, at least for your first attempt. Again, my rule of thumb would be 25% of the normal salt and 100% of the normal sugar, and follow the usual advice to brine for only 50% of the usual time. If you find that it comes out a little bland, then next time you can let it brine for a little longer or increase the salt to as much as 50% of normal.
50% salinity should probably be your upper limit; kashering (or dry-brining), despite its shorter duration, tends to incorporate a good deal more salt, proportional to the time. As per the link that Jefromi posted, some people claim that the salinity of a kosher bird is already approximately equal to that of a brined bird; another 15-25% increase won't make a huge difference but another 30-50% almost certainly will - and not in a good way.
If you want to be really scientific about this, get yourself a salinity meter such as this one, start with a mild brine, and measure both its volume and its exact salinity before and after the brining process. That will tell you without bias exactly how much additional salt is actually being added to (or removed from) the bird. Obviously I don't have time to do this experiment myself right now, but if anyone owns a salinity meter and wants to try this out, feel free to report the results and I'll do the number crunching and edit this answer with the findings.
I will see if I can borrow a salinity meter to try this -- I'm now quite curious. Thanks for the explanation, Aaronut!
Generally, I hear that process referred to as "dry curing," not "brining," but I can understand your irritation if you hear it referred to that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.130258
| 2011-11-24T04:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19111",
"authors": [
"Deepshikha",
"KarmaEDV",
"Martha F.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dark stuart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39926
|
How to make curly homemade flat noodles
I know how to make egg noodles, and I either roll them out or use my pasta machine with the fettuccine cutter. This gives me flat egg noodles.
I like the curly ones that I buy at the store for some dishes.
Is there a technique I can use to make my homemade noodles curly when I want them to be curly?
To clarify, I would like them curly at the edges, but still mostly flat, similar to most of the wide egg noodles in the store.
Do you mean curls on both sides of the noodle, yet alternate? So that the middle of the noodle still lays flat?
At the industrial level I think the curly noodles are made by having flaps drag along the sides to warp the noodles as they're extruded. I'm not sure that it's something you can do easily at home.
You can curl them at home with a little effort.. Cut your pasta into ribbons and then cut those ribbons into smaller ribbons. Let them dry for just a little while (not so dry that they have lost all moisture) and then pull them gently, twisting them slightly as you do. Let them dry again to set and you should have what you're looking for.
I would think that it'd be easier to leave them as long ribbons , as you could twist the whole thing, let it dry some more, then cut them shorter once they've dried enough to hold their shape.. (but I've never tried it myself)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.130790
| 2013-12-02T17:46:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39926",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michelle Marie Anderson",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96095"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10019
|
What is bakery emulsion and how is it different from flavoring extract?
I was in Ross for Less and saw (and bought) a bottle of lemon bakery emulsion because it just sounded good. Looking online it seems that it is a one for one replacement for extract, but I have not found a real difference online. I haven't had the chance to try it in anything yet.
What is the difference between bakery emulsion and a flavoring extract (there were other bakery emulsion flavors on the shelf, so it is not just lemon that comes this way)? Are there certain types of recipes that benefit from emulsion over extract, and why?
I've added a bounty for this question, but I need an answer based on experience. I know how to search the web.
A flavoring extract is flavoring disolved in alcohol, while a flavoring emulsion is flavoring suspended in water with an emulsifier. Citrus oils like lemon have a stronger flavor when placed in an emulsion than an extract, and that is why they often come that way. (source)
As far as uses go, bakery emulsions keep the incorporated flavors more stable while your mixture changes temperature, and they combine more easily with other emulsions (butter, sugar, egg for example) than extracts do. As this book indicates those characteristics make them especially useful for pastry cremes.
"Specially formulated for use in bakery products where exposure to heat during baking tends to flash-off flavors. The vegetable gums in the emulsion base helps to retain flavor during baking." (from: http://www.kitchenkrafts.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_FL0930). Whether this is at all valid, I can't say. I'm skeptical.
Read the ingredient list for all the flavourings & do a simple water test to be sure. My Irish Cream one has almond oil in it and would not blend with water. My Watkins Butter flavour has no oil listed in it but behaved like oil when added to water. It's a complicated & tricky business to get Royal Icing to actually taste good (my fave flavour for icing right now is Irish Cream) without destroying it's attributes in the process.
I have been using lemon bakery emulsion off and on for about 6 years as a substitute for vanilla in my sugar cookies and in a lemon glaze also for said cookies. I have also used it for cream cheese icing for lemon cake. Whether baked or not the flavor is very consistent and I usually double it for more pop in baked goods. Very easy and simple to use for a great lemon punch when paired with powder sugar for a glaze without adding any dyes.
Emulsions are oil-free and therefore can be used to flavor specialty royal icing, whereas extracts are oil based and therefore ruin total icing.
This answer does not pass my gut test. The definition of emulsion in physics requires the presence of two different types of liquid which don't normally mix. In the kitchen, the one liquid is practically always water-based, and the other one is practically always a fat. I would be surprised if this is an exception where the producers managed to find two different liquids which are a) edible, b) mutually unmixable, and 3) none of them is fat.
I do not know the difference. Emulsion is thicker and I prefer it to flavoring in my pound cakes. I use lemon emulsion over lemon flavoring.
I think that the "emulsion is thicker" and the anecdotal claim of it flavoring better are enough to qualify the post as "real answer" instead of deleting it. But it is not really useful, so -1.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.130951
| 2010-12-12T03:00:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10019",
"authors": [
"Daniel Lawson",
"Judie Meltzer",
"Paris Putrino",
"Quora Feans",
"Sissie",
"Wayne Williams",
"aaaidan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96908",
"rumtscho",
"user20516"
],
"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
}
|
103901
|
How to make soft-boiled eggs without breaking them?
Here's the difficulty:
If I put the eggs in a pot with cold water, then I can't reliably control how they cook. There are too many factors: amount of water, pot size, heat setting, etc.
If I put them in already boiling water, then I can get good results by controlling only the timing. The problem is that too often the eggs will crack from the heat shock.
I tried placing the eggs in warm water (from the tap) for 5 minutes so they wouldn't be fridge cold, and also laying them gently in the pot with a spoon, but sometimes they still crack. Is there a way to avoid this?
@Sneftel The two suggestions there are: 1. put them in cold water 2. lower them with a spoon. I explained why I cannot do 1. and that I already do 2.
There are, in fact, a great many more suggestions there. In any case, please read https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/253924/what-to-do-when-the-question-you-want-to-ask-is-a-duplicate .
Please do not vandalise your post.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.131263
| 2019-12-04T08:22:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103901",
"authors": [
"Megg",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79838"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100674
|
Cake without baking powder made 2 layers in a cake. Why?
Yesterday I baked a chocolate cake. Fifteen minutes after it went in the oven I realised I'd left out the baking powder, so I quickly made another one, this one with baking powder.
This cake recipe only uses 2 eggs (unlike most cakes I've baked that use 4 ) and only 2 teaspoons of baking powder instead of a whole packet (3-4 teaspoons). This means it will grow less (eggs grow when cooked, as well as baking powder).
This means there is more batter and it is more liquid, instead of the typical thick batter that grows a lot in the oven. In those cakes in the past (thick batter, 4 eggs and a whole packet of baking powder), whenever I forgot to put baking powder, it literally ended up in a hard and one-finger thin cake, difficult to eat.
But this cake baked quite well. After it was baked I made another one, exactly the same but with baking powder. The difference it was basically that it was a bit (just a little) bigger and quite spongier. But the MOST representative thing was that it all looked homogeneous (like a cake should, I did not take a picture of the second one). But look at the no-baking-powder cake. You can literally see 2 different layers of cake (one more choco-flavourful). This did not happen to the second one.
Does the baking powder have something to do with this? I guess so, but I do not fully understand how can baking powder solve the issue of the "mix batter". Like, my logic tells me once you put the mold in the oven, if it is not homogeneous, the thicker part will go down, but it did not happen in the second one...
Ingredients: Eggs (2), cocoa powder, sugar, flour, milk, water (sounds weird but gives the thing!), vegetable oil, some melted butter!
It would help if you posted the other ingredients to the recipe. Otherwise we can only speculate as to what happened.
Sure thing! On my way to edit the question! @ender.qa
There are other variables....did you mix them exactly the same? How long did you preheat the oven for the first bake? Was the oven left on while you prepared the second bake? Were they at the same temperatures? Did you use the exact same pans? Did they bake for exactly the same amount of time? Were the eggs from the same production?...It's hard to isolate the cause if you can't account for all of the variables.
Sorry for the delay. Everything was the same except mixing, the first one by hand and the second one with a blender. That might be it but I want to make sure... The rest was the same! @moscafj
I think the mixing might be the issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.131384
| 2019-08-11T13:20:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100674",
"authors": [
"M.K",
"ender.qa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95812
|
Cast Iron Skillet / Pan stains
I just bought a new lodge cast iron skillet today and used it to cook a Japanese Waghu A5 10+ BMS Ribeye... was worth the hype, yummy.
I washed the Skillet with hot water and salt and then heated it again to dry all the water, but there are some stains left... Do I need to clean this or is this normal and leave it ?
Please see pictures:
It looks like you tried to season it 'all at once' rather than let the oil build up in thin layers, so the excess is easy to damage, as it is still soft - but there are many questions here on seasoning pans correctly, so have a look through this list - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/seasoning-pans?sort=frequent&pageSize=15
Hi.. i wasnt seasoning it.. this is just how it looks after i cleaned it after I used it
Possible duplicate of Maintenance and safety of cast iron skillet
But there is some stains left... do I need to clean this or is this normal and leave it ?
As long as the "stain" is hard and dry rather than gummy or sticky, it's probably fine. As commenters have noted, it looks like polymerized oil. You probably cooked your steak at very high heat with some oil in the pan. If you didn't use oil, the stain might just be from some of the fat that rendered out of your well-marbled ribeye. Either way, some of the fat/oil polymerized on the bottom of the pan due to the high heat. This is exactly what you'd do on purpose if you were to season the pan yourself -- coat it in a (very!) thin layer of oil and then stick the pan in a hot oven for a few hours.
As you keep using your pan, it'll acquire a lot of those stains, and it'll eventually be black all over. That's completely normal — it's what a cast iron pan should look like, and the black seasoning is a good non-stick surface.
Ok thanks for the response... just cooked with no oil but its 10+ A5... lots of oil came from that
I cleaned it with hot water and salt and that polymerized oil as you mentioned didnt come off.. but now i know its ok
That looks like oil, from cooking, that was polymerized to your pan. The idea behind seasoning a cast iron pan is to have a polymerized layer of oil evenly coating the interior of your pan. From your description, it doesn't sound like you've seasoned your pan, or maybe, as pointed out in the comments, you did not complete the seasoning. While a well-seasoned cast iron pan can take occasional soap and water cleaning, you probably want to treat a newly seasoned cast iron pan a little differently when cleaning, avoiding soap and water, and just using salt, wiping out, and heating up. If you can remove it, go ahead, then resume the seasoning process. I'm guessing this will be fairly difficult to accomplish. I would continue to season, use, and avoid soap and water for a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.131611
| 2019-01-20T09:56:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95812",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Tetsujin",
"VICK B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72282"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109889
|
What are ‘fresh noodles’ in a salad
I am missing my favourite salad. It’s 5 hours from my house so I am stuck trying to recreate it at home. It’s called an Asian Goi Mi Salad. As you can see by the photos it’s loaded up with yummy stuff. I will be able to figure out how to create most of it but the ‘fresh noodles’ has me hung up. What type of noodle are they? They were tasty and I would love to include them.
Here’s the ingredient list and hopefully you can zoom in and see the noodles (there’s bean sprouts in there too).
Sweet chilli pulled pork
Fresh noodles
Spicy sesame peanut dressing
Crisp veggies
Mint
Cilantro
Crispy shallots
Organic greens
Hi everybody, here used to be a long comment thread with suggestions what these noodles may be. I would like to remind everybody that comments are for clarifying the question, and definitely not to suggest possible answers when you feel uncertain about them. Please decide if your guess is worth sharing - and if so, write it as an answer - or not, then don't mention it. Answering in comments circumvents our quality control measurements and makes everything worse.
Fresh - as opposed to dried.
Specifically in the UK, 'noodles' can only be Chinese/South-East Asian. Pasta is pasta, it is never called noodles over here, so we don't have the confusion the US has with the term.*
Fresh noodles you can find in the supermarket, usually refrigerated slightly, in with the 'delicate veg' section - near mangetout, pak choi, beansprouts, chillies etc.
There are usually a minimum of three types, The one you want will be just labelled 'Chinese noodles'[1] [pretty much the same as fresh spaghetti, made of durum wheat but has been through a fermentation phase giving a darker yellow/brown colour & stronger flavour, then tossed in oil to prevent sticking] alternatively, rice noodles [usually very skinny, vermicelli, very white, less oil] & then the bright yellow, pre-flavoured, Singapore noodles [again rice vermicelli but with 'flavourings' (avoid;)]
If you can't find them in the fridge in your store, then second best is 'vac-packed' which will be near the 'insta-food' sauces - [pad thai in a bag, just add chicken] type of things. These are similar to fresh, often with monikers like "straight to wok" etc. They're nowhere near as nice as fresh & always look to me more Japanese than Chinese, as they're quite white by comparison, so possibly not fermented].
If you can't get either of those, then it's back to dried. Soak in hot water 5 minutes, stir-fry.
Sometimes, I actually prefer dried. It depends on what I'm making.
The difference is very similar [unsurprisingly] to fresh vs dried Italian pasta. Some dishes are OK using dried, some have got to be fresh. Fresh doesn't have the bite, or al-dente that dried has. Just the same with noodles, except the 'bite' can often be slightly more rubbery [not in a bad way] compared to pasta.
One additional tip - you can pretty much pick the strength of flavour in dried noodles just by the colour. The browner they are the stronger the flavour [assuming no-one cheated & put colourings in them.]
If you're really really stuck, ramen noodles are very close to 'Chinese noodles' but only if they're good ones. Most ramen in cheap foil packs you can't see what's in it until you open it. Avoid unless desperate ;)
*Just to keep a balance, we have many other things we can get linguistically confused over… coriander, chili, to name but two ;)
[1] After comments, it's quite likely that these would be called 'chow mein' noodles in the US.
Thanks that’s a fantastic answer. I was leaning toward the chow Mein noodles they have in the salad section of my grocery store. That sounds like a what your describing. Thanks for the fantastic information. I didn’t know all that. I have some dried vermicelli noodles. Do those also come not in the fried section. I’m more curious than anything. Cheers! Making it this week.
In the US, I'd guess a leaning towards identifying as 'chow mein' rather than just 'stiry-fry noodles' would be more culturally appropriate [The UK doesn't have big chow mein 'thing' but we do a lot of stir-frying… basically the same thing with a different name ;) Vermicelli [borrowed Italian name, of course] can be rice or wheat, the 'chinese' variety in supermarkets here will likely be rice, Italian will be wheat. Same deal, dried or fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.131954
| 2020-07-27T01:45:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109889",
"authors": [
"JollyGoodTime",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85854",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108157
|
Selling mini crème brûlées
This may be a difficult question to answer but if you have any recommendations, I would greatly appreciate it.
I’m going to be opening up a small a home owned desert business and I would like to sell mini crème brûlée. It’s hard to keep the top crunchy and if you pre-torch it and leave it in the fridge the topping will be ruined.
I was thinking of torching them right before the customer picks an order up, but if they decide to put it in the fridge, when they go back to it and bite into it it’ll be really soggy. Or if they order a dozen of them for a party the next day, the next day the topping will be super soggy.
I was just wondering if there was a way to keep the crunchy sugar top crunchy for long-ish periods of time especially because the dessert itself needs to be refrigerated and can’t really be outside the fridge for too long. Please help!
Why not ask them if they will be eating straight away - if they aren't just sell with one of those packs of sugar you get with your coffee and tell them to sprinkle and put under the grill for a few minutes
Can you torch them and remove the crust? Then place he crusts in a separate container and tell the customer to apply the tops right before consumption?
Depending on your jurisdiction, selling food can have significant legal requirements. I strongly suggest you investigate the laws and regulations in your area. For example, the areas I'm familiar with don't permit selling food which wasn't prepared in a commercial kitchen, and require a variety of inspections and certifications of both the facility and the individuals in charge. I wish you good fortune in your venture, but in many places there's a lot more to a food-based business than just making the food in your kitchen and selling it.
@Makyen: indeed, some people in the US get some legal trouble for their kids' lemonade stand -- these need business permits, adhering to health codes, kitchen inspections, stuff like that.
Thank you all for your great answers, I really appreciate it! @Makyen great point, you’re absolutely right and I’ve done the research on that for my state.. thank you so much for listing that though! :)
Since you made the nice effort to actually write "crème brûlée" the French way, you may want to correct the plural which is "crèmes brûlées" (with an "s" at both crème and brûlée") (→ https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cr%C3%A8mes_br%C3%BBl%C3%A9es)
@WoJ I actually didn’t know that and I’ve been making them for years! Thanks!
The question you are asking has no technological solution - you cannot put caramel on something wet and preventing from becoming wet. So you are looking at logistical solutions, and you have basically listed them already.
For eating on premises, you keep the custard in the fridge and add the sugar and torch just before serving, as you mentioned. This is so well-suited and common, that I don't think anybody has had the need to develop any alternatives.
For eating later at home, there are two options. One is as you said - you caramelize when selling, and the buyer has to live with the choice between eating it soon or eating it later without a snappy crust. The second is the one used by supermarkets and mentioned in comments - you package coarse dry brown sugar separately, and the customer has the choice between producing a good caramel crust at home (which is time-consuming and not everybody has the needed tools) or eating a custard with sprinkled brown sugar that has not been actually caramelized into a crust.
A variation of the "package the sugar" along option is to package caramel along, either as a whole disc or ground into sugar-sized crystals. It doesn't require the customer to caramelize at home (so the tool and time drawbacks are eliminated), but it is clearly separate from the custard, making it less like real creme brulee.
All two (or three) solutions fall short of the ideal, but as far as I am aware, you can't do better than that. You can just choose which negative is the most acceptable for you and your customers.
Maybe a caramel cage or disk? Or some kind of cookie that it can be topped with at home? Or crumbled caramel?
I've had the supermarket type and a few seconds under a very hot grill works OK. Once (in France) I've had a version with a caramelised sugar disc to drop on top. That's a 3rd option.
Take an example from Japanese Onigiri - filled rice balls wrapped in seaweed. The seaweed would get soggy in minutes, so the seaweed is wrapped separately and you put it together just before eating. I think something similar may work for you @Mckenna, although it may be more effort than it's worth.
@GdD Solution I've seen in the shop, but not tried, was caramel rings packaged separately. Customer just had to put them on the custard before eating. Customer was supposed to open foil package with caramel ring just before eating. It has been done, so we know it is at least possible.
I considered suggesting a caramel plate, was unsure whether it is doable in the sense of achieving a thin enough caramel plate that it can be bitten through easily, and whether it is that different from the "toasted" or brown sugar in the packets. Thank you everybody for confirming it is doable, I'll mention it in the answer for completeness.
Thank you all SO much for your amazing answers! These are all seriously great comments and I’ll definitely do some testing. @rumtscho thank you for your detailed answer, i’ll probably just torch right before serving and they’ll have to live without the crunchy top. I may try some intricate caramel designs if I can. Luckily it still tastes pretty good regardless if the top is crunchy or not.
Personally, I would experiment a few-times with:
Boiling sugar to different degrees close to "hard-crack" temperatures, pour into "discs" on parchment paper.
Place disc on top of crème brûlée and tape a piece of quality paper-towel (Viva) over them and refrigerate.
See how long they remain fresh looking.
nice idea but please Do Not Write Long Texts in Title Case Form, it just makes it more difficult to read.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.132322
| 2020-05-06T07:03:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108157",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gamora",
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Makyen",
"Mckenna",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Mołot",
"Quora Feans",
"Rob",
"WoJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84150",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108589
|
I added olive oil to my cake, but I haven’t baked it yet
The taste is so strong, and I haven’t even baked it yet.
How do I make it taste better?
I added it as a butter substitute... now what do i do?
Did you use extra virgin olive oil? EVOO has a much stronger grassy taste than "ordinary", cheaper olive oil.
Better than what? What are the other flavors in the batter? Maybe they can compensate the strenght of the olive oil maybe not. As Stephie says, bake and taste ;)
What color was your oil?
The darker in color, the stronger the flavor. The lighter shade has a more delicate taste.
First, you could bake it as planned. The taste may become less pronounced, especially in comparison to the other, still developing flavors from caramelizing and the Maillard reaction during baking.
There are quite a few cake recipes that use olive oil (so it’s not necessarily a bad idea), and often they use citrusy and slightly savory flavor combinations, e.g. a pound cake with rosemary and orange or a lemon cake. (Not sure whether olive oil would work too well with, say, milk chocolate.) You could take that approach as an inspiration: If there's still time, add e.g. some lemon peel. If not, you can combine the baked cake with a citrus marmalade or a glaze.
I think it would go quite well in a lemon and rosemary cake, or possibly even lemon and lavender (delicious in a cake and rather rare). Or you could probably mask it by turning it into a ginger cake.
@ChrisH Done both of the former ;-)
I've got them growing in the garden but my baking these days is to suit a child's taste and I don't think they'd tempt her. A special batch may be in order, probably a small one if it's all for me
Lo - it is become crust. And there was cake pizza!
Bake it thin. Then get it out and put sauce on and cheese. Pepperoni if your child is digging it.
It is cake pizza. You will be hailed down the generations of your family as the semidivine inventor of cake pizza. I feel like it might be a cousin of bacon pancakes.
Can we make cake pizza today?
dang now I really want cake pizza.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.132859
| 2020-05-24T07:47:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108589",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David P",
"Evie",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84633",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104105
|
Are soft boiled eggs and poached eggs identical?
Today I heard from a friend, that poached eggs are simply glorified soft-boiled eggs and that there is no way to distinguish between the two except for the form. The only reason anyone does poached eggs is because soft-boiled eggs are kind of hard to peel.
He then told me that you can make a hole in an egg, soft boil it, than because of the small hole you can peel it easily basically eliminating the main disadvantage of soft-boiled eggs: difficulty when peeling.
The result is supposed to be identical to a poached egg.
I have had both soft-boiled eggs and poached eggs many times, and I always felt that poached eggs have a unique taste and texture.
Or is the hole in the egg mimicking the poaching because it lets water in?
You are supposed to make the hole on the flatter side of the egg, where the air pocket is.
Please rewrite your question to clarify what you actually want to know. It's not at all clear -- you make three statements and say "is this true", and then follow up with another question.
poached egg is done without the shell while soft boiled with the shell, 2) soft boiled egg can be done with a combination of aggressive temperature and fine controlled timing, while poached egg is done with fine controlled temperature and relaxed timing. As a result, with the equal doneness of the yolk, soft boiled egg can have a much firmer white. The theory of soft boil is, you stop cooking before heat reaches the yolk.
@user3528438 what stops you from using the same approach with a soft boiled egg?
I'll answer the question in your title. Poached eggs are eggs, removed from the shell when raw, and cooked in a liquid. The consistency of the yolk can vary depending on the poaching time. The consistency of the white is generally the same each time. Poaching usually happens at a temperature below the boil.
Soft (or medium, or hard) boiled eggs are eggs that are left in the shell, but cooked in boiling water. The assumption in the comments, that the cooking is stopped before heat reaches the yolk, in not correct. Soft boiled eggs can certainly have yolks of varying consistency, it is just that they are not hard. The white, is of course, protected by the shell to some degree, so the consistency can vary depending on the cooking time. It is often more done near the shell, and of a looser consistency as it approaches the yolk.
Egg yolks and whites are very sensitive to cooking time and temperature, so small variations produce different results. In addition, the yolk and white behave differently. It is why many have found cooking eggs sous vide so interesting.
So, yes, the processes produce different results and should not be considered the same.
Also, with poached eggs, one can add vinegar (to help keep the white together and produce a slightly different texture) and herbs (to add a subtle flavour).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.133070
| 2019-12-14T23:52:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104105",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Ray Butterworth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"user1721135",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94835
|
How can I improve my chicken curry recipe?
So, I’ve been experimenting with making curry and drew upon various recipes I found online. The common threads that I found were the following:
Using onions, garlic, and ginger as a base
Using plenty of spices
Having a main component (Chicken, potatoes, canned tomatoes)
Pouring water and a thickening ingredient in the end (Greek yoghurt, tomato paste)
The following recipe that I eventually compiled produces an edible, but mediocre dish. Is there any way to improve it?
Chop ginger, onions, and garlic, then add them to a heated pan with sunflower oil. (Add in the following order: onions, garlic, ginger) Cook until the onions are dark.
Add chili powder, ground cumin, curry powder, salt, and pepper to taste. Then add the chicken breasts and cook until slightly browned on all sides.
Add a can of chopped tomatoes and a tbsp of tomato paste. Then, cover the mixture with water. Simmer until thickened.
Remove the pan from the heat and add a few spoons of Greek yoghurt.
Please bear in mind that my financial resources are limited, so new ingredients should be critical to the taste of the finished dish. Naturally, this is intended to be served with white rice.
Not all use water. I tend to cook mine with coconut milk (and skip any thing as a thickener). But if you're not blooming your spices (cook the spices in oil before you add the chicken or whatever else), you should add that step. It's especially important if you're using whole spices.
Oh, and you can also flavor the rice ... mince up some onion and carrots and cook them for a bit before adding the water and rice .... or add a cinnamon stick and some cloves ... or both. And to modify what I said above ... if you have a spice grinder and are using whole spices, heat them in a dry pan, then pull them to the side to cool a little bit while you cook the onions, then grind them and add them back in.
I don't see why you are "compiling" a new recipe. Following a single recipe is pretty much guaranteed to be better than combining bits from this and that recipe and hoping for something new.
For chicken curry I use to marinate overnight with yogurt and spices (garam masala). Then half cook in the oven. Add the chichen to rhe previously suteed onion, garlic, ginger and spices. Add coconut milk or yogurt and finally add again the spices. So you have both cooked and raw spices, it gets more flavour and aroma.
Notwithstanding that there is a similar question here - Secret to takeaway curry with a lot of good answers, let me try to address your specific request, whilst mainly maintaining the ingredient list you already have...
Leave the chicken out until near the end. That will allow you to cook your sauce for a lot longer - 2, 3, even 4 hours. Every hour will improve it, so long as you don't burn it... low as it will go, or even invest in a slow cooker or one of those flat metal simmer rings that spread the heat & slow the process [$£€ 2.50 on eBay]
While the rest of the curry is cooking, you could marinate the chicken in something to add a bit of interest. It won't really affect the final flavour a whole lot but will blend it into the dish better at the end.
Kashmiri mirch would be your prime - it's not expensive but not easy to just buy at the local supermarket. Paprika [sweet or hot, not smoked] would be a fair substitute, with cayenne if you want a little heat back in it. A little garlic, crushed or paste, frozen or even powder [many curry takeaways use only powder] & some oil to bind it.
Use twice as many onions - you didn't say how many you use, but there's no such thing as too much onion in a curry masala [sauce base]. It ought to be the bulk of your sauce.
Use more oil - your standard takeaway uses a whole lot more oil than you would dream of, & very little water.
Sweat [don't brown] the onions down a long way [20 mins, not 5] before you add the garlic & ginger. Some people puree the onion; this adds a new guesswork factor, because if you puree them when they're too raw they will be bitter, & pureeing scalding hot onion isn't fun so you'd have to wait for it all to cool.
It's 'easier' to skip this step & make it up in cooking time later. I have a little 'trick' I use for this. I chop most of my onion very finely - this will pretty much liquefy over the cook time & just become part of the sauce... but I also rough-chop half an onion which will stay whole & visible in the final dish - best of both worlds.
Add your dry spices & allow them to fry in a little; keep it all moving & don't burn them but don't rush to add your liquids. You'll smell the change within a few mins.
Then do the same for your tomato puree. Pre-frying it helps thicken the sauce & also removes any bitter edge the puree may have.
I can see your reasoning for the whole can of tomatoes - it saves having half a can going off in the fridge - but you're going to need to get rid of most of the water from that over your cooking time. You can either try to boil it off at the end, right before the chicken goes in, keeping stirring like there's no tomorrow so you don't burn anything; or leave your saucepan lid off for the first hour & your heat up slightly. If you get the balance right on that you can stir it every half hour & it won't stick.
Don't dry it out completely, you've still at least an hour of simmering on very low, with the lid back on.
Half an hour before you're due to serve it, add the chicken & bring it back to temperature rapidly, then simmer. If you use bite-sized pieces rather than whole breast, reduce this time to 5 mins. You want the chicken cooked safely, but not like shoe-leather;) The longer you cook off-the bone, skinless chicken breast, the tougher it gets.
Note the chicken doesn't need frying at all for this type of dish.
5 minutes before you serve, if budget will allow, a little garam masala will add a cheap but interesting aromatic edge.
If it's not hot/spicy enough, you can add cayenne at pretty much any point, even right at the end. It's amazing how little cooking in it needs to just add a bit of punch.
Save the yoghurt for a side dish.
So...
Potential additional expenditure
Simmer ring
Kashmiri mirch or paprika. Cayenne you should have anyway; it's your 'magic add heat to anything' powder, with very little actual flavour.
Garam masala
Potential savings
Powdered garlic instead of fresh - will help thicken & also taste like 'takeaway' rather than home-cooked.
Yoghurt.
A few suggestions:
Use a higher quality curry powder. Not all curry powders are made equal: the cheaper ones tends to have essentially no flavour, while a nice one carries the whole dish. You can usually find good affordable ones in smaller, oriental grocery stores compared to what's sold in a western supermarket.
Use a chicken stock instead of water or add a few cubes of bouillon with the water. This will give more depth to the flavour.
I personally find that onions cooked until they are dark destroy a dish. In my opinion they are more aromatic when cooked until translucent.
I would cook the chicken in a separate pan from the onions, garlic and ginger. It can be hard to not overcook the ginger and garlic when you add the chicken to the same pan and continue cooking until that is browned too. In the same vein, I would not add the spices until the chicken is nearly cooked. It's very easy to burn them otherwise. Once the chicken is cooked, just pour everything into the same pan and continue.
An edit and an upvote! ;-)
After doing several trials and errors on my own, I would suggest the following tips for a perfect chicken curry.
Use chicken thighs instead of chicken breast for more flavor
Add coconut milk or yoghurt instead of heavy cream for thick curry (you can also add corn flour, but I prefer yoghurt)
Add a little vinegar or lemon juice to bring out the flavors of the curry
Freshly prepared spices can do wonders for your chicken curry (any curry in fact)
Use chicken broth instead of water
Do not overcook the onions as it can give a burnt flavor to the curry.
Chicken thighs are great on a long-cook dish, absolutely. The odd thing is, in BIR no-one ever does thighs, it's always breast - which of course you can over-cook in a blink.
The difference between a truly superb curry and a mediocre one rests not only on the cooking technique itself, but the quality of the spices and how they are cooked. The following tips will help you get the best possible results with a minimal outlay.
Fresh is best, and this applies especially to garlic and ginger. Ideally, the garlic should be sticky and the ginger juicy. These two ingredients can then be blended with oil and salt in a mini-blender or pounded and crushed in a mortar and pestle. The finer the mixture the better, this should be gently fried in oil but never allowed to scorch, burn or brown
Whole hard spices (cumin, coriander, cinnamon, fenugreek, pepper etc.) last considerably longer than the ground variety. For optimal flavour, lightly toast in a dry pan for a few minutes before grinding. The resulting powder will be far superior to any pre-packaged spices
Powdered spices (Turmeric, chilli powder, paprika etc.) rapidly loose potency over time, especially when exposed to air or moisture. These are best purchased in smaller quantities and kept in airtight jars.
All spices need to be bloomed in sufficient oil to allow their natural oils and flavourings to dissolve into the dish. Like the garlic and ginger, this is a fine balancing act, you need the oil hot enough to release the flavour but not so hot as to cause burning or scorching. I generally fry the ginger and garlic until it becomes fragrant, add the spices, stir well, then quench with a mixture 50/50 mixture of tomato puree and water or some tinned tomatoes. This prevents the mixture from burning, and once the oil starts to separate your spice mixture will be fully cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.133320
| 2018-12-15T03:33:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94835",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123863
|
What are these two brown spots in my enamel pan?
Recently two brown spots appeared on my enamel pan.
They are some distance apart, but appeared around the same time and have a very similar look, with a dark spot surrounded by a whiter area and a brown outer edge, so I have the feeling it's related to the coating rather than some damage that has been done.
Is this the enamel coating that went (or is going) bad? Is this pan still safe to use?
Is this a riess milk pan? I had those spots in a similar pan after I damaged the enamel by trying to froth the milk with a milk frother and scratching the enamel.
This is indeed a Riess pan, but I don't think it's for milk specifically. It's 16cm, 1L, so larger than most purpose built milk pans I see.
So, I have some bad news and some good news.
The bad news is that those look like rust spots that are a result of a flaw in the enamel coating allowing moisture and salt to get through to the iron underneath. The rust then bleeds through, producing that stain. I can even see the crack in the coating in the second close-up. This can be the result of normal wear & tear on an old pan, but if this is a relatively new pan it's probably an indication that the enamel coating isn't very good.
The good news is that you can still use the pot. That much iron oxide isn't going to do anything to you. However, you can expect the rust spots to get worse over time.
Should one be afraid of it rusting through and failing suddenly? Potentially with hot liquid inside.
@Michael the enamel would show much more damage before it happens, actually starting to be visible no the bottom side probably. I've used old pans with much more damage and the enamel even gone on big spots and they never leaked.
@Michael Yes, it will fail suddenly -- everything happens "suddenly" -- but it won't be a surprise. If kept in use, by the time the pot catastrophically fails, the surface will look really, really bad. Iron flakes and expands as it rusts, and will blister the enamel away over the course of years while still holding the liquid just fine.
If it is a new pan you can bring it back to the shop as it should not happen in the first year or so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.134119
| 2023-04-10T13:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123863",
"authors": [
"Kaddath",
"Loreno Heer",
"Michael",
"ROIMaison",
"Sneftel",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115611
|
Can agar be melted in oil?
This recipe for vegan parmesan apparently has no added liquid apart from melted coconut oil.
Does the agar actually melt and bind in this case?
From https://greenevi.com/vegan-parmesan-sliceable-grateable/
3/4 cup of cashews
3/4 cup of pine nuts
3 tbsp nutritional yeast
4 tbsp refined coconut oil
1 tsp agar agar powder
salt
INSTRUCTIONS
Place cashews and pine nuts in a food processor, and grind until you get a fine crumble.
Heat up coconut oil in a small pot over medium heat. Once it melted, add agar agar and cook for about 5 minutes, whisking constantly.
Add agar agar and coconut oil mixture, nutritional yeast, and a generous amount of salt to ground nuts, and pulse until incorporated.
Place cheese into a mold of your choice (I like to make one out of parchment paper, to resemble a parmesan shape), and press down lightly, if needed. Place in the fridge for at least 4 hours to let it set.
Cheese will keep for 7-10 days in the fridge. Enjoy!
Here is the molecular chemical structure of agar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar#Composition
It is a polysaccharide and like all polysaccharides will be strongly hydrophilic. To answer the question: there is no way a molecule like this will dissolve in oil. You might be able to make an emulsion but you would need an emulsifier and there is none I recognize in this recipe.
As regards the larger question of why this recipe calls for agar I do not know.
You can mix agar powder in melted fat, though other liquids are more common and/or more commonly part of formulas using agar. As I understand it, agar needs to be heated to the boil in order for it's thickening properties to be available. It is unclear to me if agar is for binding or to aid in emulsification in this case (probably more of the latter). But it is not heated after mixing in this recipe. Even if boiled and set, it certainly would not create the density of a parmesan cheese. So, I imagine this "cheese" is fairly soft, with the density mainly coming from nuts and solidified coconut oil. Do read the comments in your link, as there is some discussion on types of agar and coconut oil (and some problems that arise). It would be interesting to try half the recipe with the agar and half with out. Compare the results, and report back to answer your own question.
I may try no agar half, and half with agar melted in a small amount of water. The answer below leads me to avoid wasting effort on oil-melt-agar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.134684
| 2021-05-11T02:06:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115611",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105191
|
How can I use Rosemary bulbs in cooking?
I pulled out a rosemary plant today and found a number of bulbs amongst the root system. Can these be used for cooking, such as with a roast lamb? How?
I also have lots of leaves, so if the bulbs are no good I don't need to use them but I thought it was interesting to try.
I don't know, but I would say don't eat them unless you get an answer to the contrary!
This looks like massive root nodules, ie a symbiosis with bacteria. Do you have other plants nearby that could, in particular legumes?
The only other plants nearby are gardenia, murraya hedge and a climbing weed.
The whole premise of this question is wrong but I'm unable to delete it.
@WW. You are unable to delete the question, because it has an upvoted answer. That’s in the SE design. And you know what? Even a question that started with a false premise is useful - as can be seen by the upvotes.
I don’t know what you dug up, but rosemary doesn’t have bulbs so do not eat this!
For plant id questions (which is outside the scope of this site), I recommend our sister site Gardening SE.
They smell like rosemary, perhaps due to being so close.
They could be a reaction to a plant infection. Some insect larvae can produce reactions like this as they live inside the infected part of the plant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.134910
| 2020-02-08T08:50:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105191",
"authors": [
"CJ Dennis",
"Calimo",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"WW.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33577"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96723
|
What is this waxed root vegetable?
I recently ordered a grocery delivery from Whole Foods, and as I was ordering I noticed they had rutabagas, which I've never had before, so I decided to try them. What I got was this:
They don't look anything like any picture I can find online of rutabagas, which are supposed to look like a large turnip. Instead, these appear to be some sort of yam. (That is, an actual yam, not a sweet potato, which for some reason is commonly called a yam in the US!)
Adding to the confusion, they appear to be coated with a thick layer of wax. I googled vegetables covered with wax, and all that shows up is lots of pages about rutabagas! Rutabagas, it turns out, are commonly waxed to keep them from drying out. I can't find any information about waxed yams, though. So, what are these things?
They're definitely not rutabagas. Other than that, I've got nuttin'.
Not a Yam. Not a Sweet Potato. A lot of confusion comes from Sweet Potatoes being sold in cans as "Yams", How to Tell the Difference
Ok folks, normally we don't delete suppose answered oh a question, because sometimes a different word explanation gets the information across better. But here, we have many people who simply state the same thing as the first answer. If you agree with an existing answer, just upvote. Only post an answer of your iwn if it has relevant information missing from existing answers.
@Marti Yeah, I'm not Gordon Ramsay or anything, but those are definitely not Rutabagas
Bite it, what does it taste like?
It really looks like cassava. Are you in the U.S.? Can you call the Whole Foods that prepared your order to confirm this vegetable? You can Google "cassava," and "rutabaga," and see the clear differences between vegetables... yours looks like the former, while rutabagas look like balls of white and pink (like beets). Also, be sure to look up how to cook/prepare cassava. Hope it goes well!
https://www.google.com/search?q=cassava+root&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV19yn4-ngAhVNMt8KHTwADNUQ_AUIDigB&biw=1315&bih=684
You're right, this is definitely cassava. I'll go look up how to prepare it safely!
It looks like it could be yuca/cassava, based on the appearance alone. (Note: this is not the same as or related to yucca.) The picture on Wikipedia even shows a waxed version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava
Looks like it ! Where I live we call them manioc
This is what I get if I buy Yucca at my local grocery store here in the Southern US. Wax and all.
A note - Cassava can be rather poisonous if not prepared correctly. I would recommend being at least somewhat familiar with it before haphazardly adding it to your dinner.
@MikeTheLiar Cassava sold whole and in a grocery store is overwhelmingly likely to be sweet cassava, which isn't (significantly) poisonous.
Yes that's yuca. Albeit some amazonian varieties are poisonous and require a special preparation, the variety available in stores is not. To prepare, just remove the skin, cut the body on pieces and cook it, in a similar way to potatoes. Fried yuca is very nice as well.
Cassava. I'm from Argentina, we call this mandioca. It's used pretty much like potatoes in the north of the country. It's a bit more fibrous. You'll find some long fibers in my grandma's mashed mandioca. It can also be fried or baked.
It is definitely not a rutabaga or taro and is likely not a yam either.
It is most likely a cassava tuber.
Rutabaga is much rounder and is usually tinted pink; regular taro is also quite rounded.
Giant taro on the other hand does bear a passing resemblance however it has concentric ring s rather than longitudinal cracks.
Yams have a more rounded end at least on one end.
It looks like taro root to me, if it's purple inside it probabls is.
https://www.google.com/search?q=taro&safe=active&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS820US820&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjghf7L0OngAhUIip4KHe2kA-kQ_AUIDigB&biw=1091&bih=1388&dpr=1.1
Sorry but that's not it. Taro is a short root, even the texture is different. That in the question is clearly a cassava root.
I have seen short round taro, but I have also seen taro in the same shape as pictured above. and the texture looks the same to me. Did you visit my link?
I visited your link. Trust me, in real life they look very different, I've had both cassava and taro many times. Also when you cut them open they're clearly different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.135066
| 2019-03-04T17:17:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96723",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Deolater",
"Josh",
"Kevin",
"Luciano",
"Marti",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Sarumanatee",
"Sneftel",
"User1000547",
"aizquier",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73300",
"istepaniuk",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17795
|
Why are most enamelled cast iron dutch ovens only rated up to 400-450°F?
I've been investigating getting an enamelled cast iron dutch oven and am surprised to find that most of them don't recommend going over 400-450°F (200-230°C) (most even on just the base, so the lid handle doesn't appear to be the only factor there).
Given that normal cast iron can go much higher and I wouldn't have expected that heat limitation on the enamel...what is it about the pots that causes that limitation? What risks are there in going above it?
The popular Le Creuset round dutch ovens can handle any oven temperature though the lid knob is rated to 500F. https://www.lecreuset.com/round-dutch-oven#ci-heat
I think its because of the difference of the thermal expansion between the two materials.
Since the ceramic has very low thermal expansion coefficient and cast iron seems to have a rather high coefficient comparatively, then the metals will start to pull apart too much at higher temperatures. The metal expands more than the ceramic under equal heat, so they start to separate and crack. Apparently, at just above the recommended point, it may start to cause the surface cracks which are common (thanks @TFD).
They sometimes have plastic (cast phenolic resin) knobs on them that are only rated for just over 200°C (400°F), or other decorative trim that is not suitable for high heat due to deformation etc.
They do tend to start crazing (surface cracking) at over 200°C too
The enamel (a special soft glass powder) is fused on at over 800°C (1470°F)
You cannot melt glass enamel on a domestic stove. It would have to get to over 1100°C (2000°F) to melt!
I don't think its the just handles, because as stated in the q - the recommended temps are for the base only even. In regards to the crazing, does this happen due to the difference of the thermal expansion between the two materials?
Surface crazing is certainly related to thermal expansion and would have something to do with it, but this usually happens when over heated above 200°C. But then again it does happen in enameled bathtubs with gas coliphonts, so it may happen as a result of temp and number of cycles
The problem is, the enamel will melt at high temperature.
My brother once managed to ruin a pot when making ramen. (started to boil the water, forgot about it, all of the water boiled off, the pan heated up, the enamel melted, and then when we realized & cooled it off, the pan had fused to the burner)
I'm just surprised the enamel is that low...craziness.
@rfusca I'm not sure what the actual temp was ... it was an electric stove on high, with no moisture in it, so it could've been much higher than 450F ... they likely have a safety window as ovens are inacurate & may have hot spots.
Before the enamel hits Joe's extreme, high temps will also cause discoloration. It makes the pot look like something is burned to the bottom.
Wikipedia (take it with a pinch of salt) states that these dishes are fired between 750-800 F. I could see a empty pan on a stove getting towards that on high heat with a good stove. But that's a pretty hefty margin, double 400 to 800, for the oven (and the manufacturers specifically talk about oven temperatures).
@rfusca that would be 800°C (1470°F), must be a wikipedia error
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.135435
| 2011-09-16T18:55:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17795",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"MeltedPez",
"Rob",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113161
|
How to make your own Granary® flour from existing ingredients?
This flour which is widely available in the UK is harder to obtain elsewhere and also appears to be surrounded in some secrecy.
Does anyone have an approximation of the ingredients/substitutes and proportions?
https://www.hovis.co.uk/granary-wholemeal
"Granary® is not just a type of bread. The ® is there for a reason. It’s a brand and registered trademark of Hovis®. So if it’s not Hovis® it’s not Granary®. The Benedictine Monks of Burton Abbey discovered that slowly toasting wheat flakes used in their brewing process offered a distinctive malty taste, which is what gives our loaf its unique flavour today"
BTW your link seems to be dead... perhaps you want to replace it with this one? https://www.hovis.co.uk/granary-wholemeal
I'm wondering if the ingredients are listed in descending order (so telling ust that Flour and water are in 50/50 ratio) and if the 9% next to Malted flakes means it content in the whole mix or just in the Original Granary Blend
The original link works, but it's a lot of scrolling. I swapped it to one that just hits a single loaf. they don't seem to list the flour separately, even though you can buy it in any supermarket here.
@SZCZERZOKŁY how do you know it's 50/50 (100% hydration) since flour is first, flour >= water so it could be any hydration 100% and below.
Also since oil is the only fat, it would be possible to work out the fat/carb ratio using the nutritional information (2.4g fat to 39.8g carbs)
@stan Good point, I got fixated and mixed 50% hydration and content ratio.
According to Waitrose:
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/hovis-granary-bread-flour/476719-729900-729901
Wheat Flour (with added Calcium, Iron, Niacin, Thiamin), Wholemeal Wheat Flour, Malted Wheat Flakes (17%), Wheat Protein, Malted Barley Flour
So that's:
white flour, with vitamins for no culinary reason
wholemeal flour
17% malted wheat flakes
wheat protein because bread needs strong flour (high in gluten)
malted barley flour
The protein is 14.9%, which definitely qualifies as strong.
Note also:
62.9% carbs (of which 1.7% sugar), 1.8% fat, 7.5% fibre, 14.9% protein, hence 12.9% moisture/ash
The own brand product is not the same:
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-duchy-strong-malted-grain-bread-wheat-flour/430555-60573-60574 - brown flour, malted wheat flakes, barley malt flour, wheat bran
68.4% carbs (of which 3.2% sugar), 1.6% fat, 4.3% fibre, 13.5% protein, hence 12.2% moisture/ash
We might like to compare other bread flours:
white - 67.4% carbs, 14.9% protein, 2.8% fibre https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-white-bread-flour/006224-2744-2745
Canadian very strong wholemeal - 57.0% carbs, 15.8% protein, 11.7% fibre https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-stoneground-bread-wholemeal-flour/051804-25784-25785
brown - 72.3% carbs, 12.7% protein, 6.1% fibre https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-strong-brown-bread-flour/666913-94660-94661
I think there is nothing at all special in any kind of way about 'Granary', it's just a brand name that Hovis license.
What you are looking at here is either brown flour (which has more bran than white flour, less than wholemeal) or a mix of white + wholemeal, malted wheat flakes, and malted barley flour
Hovis are helpfully specific about the % of malted wheat flakes - 17%. You can buy these in many countries, e.g. https://shop.kingarthurbaking.com/items/malted-wheat-flakes-2-lb
I believe that Hovis makes cheap mass-produced food as a first priority, and I believe that the malted barley flour is in fact a cheap-out. These should be malted barley flakes in fact. There are various forms of barley malt depending on whether they are sprouted or what not, but some form of barley malt will be available pretty much everywhere in the world.
Hovis protect their trademark, but 'brown bread with malt flakes' is nothing special at all, and anyone can make it....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.135736
| 2020-12-15T09:42:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113161",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115405
|
have these avocados gone bad?
Having googled it, it says that avocados with black spots have gone bad. However I asked someone and they said that it fine and you can eat it - it’s like a banana which has gone slightly black on the outside.
Are they correct? Based on the pictures would you say it has gone bad and unless it’s bruising, any avocado with multiple black dots has gone bad?
Thanks
when in doubt, don't eat them.
Max - that’s fair, but there’s also the option of resolving cause of the doubt.
But as an aside, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an avocado cut this direction.
...not looking good to me.
I think there's a significant different between "can eat it" and "would want to eat it". I wouldn't want to eat that one.
Your friend is right. The avocado is not spoiled or in any way dangerous, just changed during storage. You can eat it without any ill effects.
There are people who would throw food out for cosmetic reasons, you can do that too, if you prefer.
Overripe avocados can also get bitter. I wouldn't toss that fruit for looking ugly, but, after tasting, I might throw it away for not being yummy.
Avocados are frequently bad in one or both of two ways:
"Bruising" where the flesh turns dark brown/black, is squishy and has a sour smell;
"Fibrousness" where the flesh gets full of green or brown fibers.
In the bruising case, you can eat the rest of the flesh if you can cut out the bruises, at least until it takes over the avocado, and then you compost it. Bruising is caused by basic rot.
In your case, though, you're seeing the fruit's fibers from when it formed, because of being picked too young, or coming from a stressed tree, or just as a mutation. Per California Avocados:
Strings or stringy fruit or the thickening of the vascular bundles (fibers that run longitudinally through the fruit) are generally the result of fruit from younger trees or improper storage conditions. Often times the fibers or strings will disappear or become less noticeable as the fruit (and tree) matures.
These strings are harmless, but they can impair the taste and texture of the avocado, so I'd recommend giving it a taste to decide if you can still use it. It also depends partly on what you're using it in, and how you plan to process it.
That looks like a Haas avocado. You can tell they are ripe by giving the wider end a gentle squeeze. If it yields to a firm, gentle squeeze, it is good to go. If it is very soft, it has probably ripened too much. When you cut it open, a ripe avocado is uniformly green. There is generally no space between the skin and the flesh. Once they over-ripen they get brown spots inside. The taste also goes quite bitter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.136035
| 2021-04-25T19:33:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115405",
"authors": [
"Eric G",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103210
|
Do ground seeds contain oil?
I am referring to things like cumin seeds or others which are meant to contain oil. When they are ground does it loose the oil? Or does the oil exist but it deteriorates due to oxidation?
I also understand raw tumeric contains oil. Does that also go once it's ground or does that oxidise too?
I am asking about if you ground at home and store bought powders.
So, let's first get clear about what "oil" means. In common language there are two "oils" contained in food: "oil" and "essential oils".
"Oil" means the common, cooking liquid fat, that has a more neutral taste and is used for various applications (deep-frying, stir frying...). Main composition of this is unsaturated fats, and the oil comes from the so-called oleiferous plants, which are plants that use oil as nutrition storage for their sprouts - e.g. peanuts, sunflower, canola, olive, flax seed, soy...
"Essential oils" have a very different composition and application - they contain a very diverse mix of components that give spices, herbs, flowers and other seasonings their caracteristic aroma (or "essence"). These components are usually volatile and present in very small quantities in the natural product, and of course, since they're present in very small quantities in the seed / herb, you need a lot of it to make a portion of essential oil, therefore, those are really expensive.
One of the methods for extracting this oil is to steep the aromatic (spice / herb / flower) in common oil or fat - then you get aromatized oil in a quantity you can handle with more ease.
When you hear that cumin seeds and turmeric (which is a root, not a seed) contain oil, we're talking about the essential oil. The oil is there, in a very small quantity, that's the reason why you cannot see it with the naked eye, unless you grind large quantities of the seed very finely to directly obtain the oil. You're also right on oxidation and evaporation - this is why pre-ground spice loses its punch very quicker than the whole thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.136273
| 2019-11-01T02:00:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103210",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110867
|
What happened to this pot
I just bought a new cheap pot. Put some water in it, boiled it and noticed the pot up to its water level turned dark. I was thinking maybe the metal coating was peeling off and leaking into the water.
Boiled a second pot of water then poured it into a glass and the water looks clear as you can see in picture.
What happened to the pot and if I continue cooking with it will the water become contaminated? The upper part of the pot is still clear silver if the water level goes higher might it cause something to leech in?
Not using the pot now but hope I can.
Thanks.
Best guess without knowing your water supply composition; it's not the pan contaminating the water, it's the water contaminating the pan.
Iif you live in an area with certified potable water, it's really mainly visual, it won't hurt.
After comments
Yup, London water - safe, potable… but ugly.
You can either
scrub after every use, or
ignore until it annoys you enough to do a full descale
Buy a Brita jug & never boil unfiltered water.
It is completely harmless, just unsightly.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understood you. This is typical London tap water. I don’t think it’s certified portable but is safe for drinking. In any case can I continue to use this pot with said tap water wothout fear? Thanks.
London water is potable. All EU water is potable, London's just happens to be also hard enough to nail to the wall in sheets ;) It's 'safe' just ugly. Every time you descale your kettle, pour it into the pan for a rinse too. .. or it will scrub off, or you can ignore it until it builds enough to warrant its own descale cycle. London water will even do this to high-end non-stick pans, though they clean off easier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.136445
| 2020-09-27T15:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110867",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103209
|
where is the oil in a cumin seed?
Apparently the whole cumin seed contains oil which the ground version doesn't. However when I crunch one down I never notice any oil coming out. Where is it? I would like it to mix with my cooking oil.
Hey James! You asked 2 very similar questions in quick succession, this is specific about cumin seeds and the other one is broader - but I think that the other one's answer will address this one.
Olives contain oil. Yet when I bite down on an olive, oil doesn't come squirting out. It has to be extracted using various machines.
@Johanna same is valid for everything that's used to produce oil (sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, peanuts, soy...). And then there is essential oil to add to the confusion...
@JulianaKarasawaSouza Yes, that's exactly my point. And the only one where it's easy to separate out the oil using normal kitchen equipment is peanuts.
(if I read the question properly)
" I would like it to mix with my cooking oil."
If you want cumin flavored oil, you can simply steep the cumin seed in a neutral flavored oil.
You will have to experiment for quantities and steep times.
I'd crush some seeds, put them in a pan and add some oil (whatever quantity, start small) and slightly heat the oil and turn off the heat; let steep for a while until cool.
Use a fine mesh sieve to remove the cumin seeds from the oil.
Where is it?
According to Wikipedia, "Cumin seeds have eight ridges with oil canals." I'd suspect these canals to be the "home" of the essential oils (= volatile, fragrance/flavor giving oils).
Apparently the whole cumin seed contains oil which the ground version doesn't.
Total oil content of cumin seeds is ≈ 15 %, but the volatile essential oils are only 1 - 5 %. See e.g. Bettaieb et al.: Essential oils and fatty acids composition of Tunisian and Indian cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) seeds: a comparative study, J Sci Food Agric, 2011, 91: 2100–2107.
keep in mind:
comparison 1: if you squeeze a sunflower seed e.g. on a piece of paper, you may see the oil as spot. Sunflower seeds have oil contents around 50 %.
comparison 2: a mixture of flour and oil with 15 % oil content is sometimes used as "indoor sand" for kids to play, there isn't any oil dripping off this, neither.
lipids (including oils) are important parts e.g. of cell walls etc., so even if the pure oil is a liquid substance, it may be bound in the strucure of the seed (and still in the or seed powder) in a way that you don't recognize it as liquid.
as long as the powder has the characteristic smell of cumin, (some of) the essential oil is still there.
I would like it to mix with my cooking oil.
Yes, you can extract oil that way as it is miscible with your cooking oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.136600
| 2019-11-01T01:55:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103209",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112548
|
What is the use of this device? Perhaps a potato masher?
It has holes on the bottom as well.
Please inform me of all the uses (and the name of) this tool.
I thought it was a garlic press at first, but they don't have holes in the sides, just the end.
@Criggie also it's huge - it would take a couple of hours to peel enough garlic to fill this up halfway.
Could have been someone with very small hands...
Sorry for no banana. Sorry @SE for the off-topic but I must :(
In my childhood my parents used a similar one to press juice from pomegranates. Now, after reading the answers I start doubting if they used it for intended purpose. Or may be just similar devices.
Interesting, in my childhood mashed potatoes (smooth) were made using a Manual Puree Machine. And yes, it takes some time to clean even disassembled and with the potatoes still hot.
A ricer is especially important where you do not want the mash to be overworked, for it to stay light and fluffy, as for gnocci.
It is a potato ricer. You place boiled potatoes in the basket and push the lever down to squeeze the potato through the holes. They are handy for making very smooth mashed potatoes, though they can be tricky to clean - washing them immediately or at least putting them in water so the potato doesn't harden is advised.
It can be used to mash anything that is soft enough (pumpkin, carrots, lentils, beans) and soft dough for frying.
It is also an important tool to create plum dumplings (which I know from a recipe that my grandfather brought from Bohemia after WWII and has always been my favorite dish at my grandparent's). See here on how it is being used: https://youtu.be/9QvudCaxsAo?t=27 .
Plum dumplings aren't the only ones this is necessary for. A number of Czech dumplings need dumplings that are boiled and than mashed using this tool. The consistency is a little different than you would get using normal mashing.
not dumplings, but potatoes
In Germany, it is also indispensable for making Spaghetti-Eis.
https://youtu.be/aOw6EKCq4kY
I wouldn’t recommend the model pictured for spaghetti ice - use one that has holes on the bottom only. This allows to drape the strands in a pile of “spaghetti”, whereas the holes-all-over model just makes a huge mess.
Also, for spaghetti ice you probably would want slightly bigger holes.
Also in southern Germany you would use it to make "Spätzle", a long kind of noodles made out of dough containing eggs, flour, milk (or water) and salt. Nowadays it is highly uncommon to use a device with holes on the side but I do know some people who still do. The device is commonly referred to as "Spätzle-Presse" or the one and only original "Spätzle-Schwob". The one with the side holes is preferably used for mashed potatoes, jam or juice.
I use for ricing baked russet potatoes for Gnocchi.
It is also used as a coffee press
That would have to be very coarse ginds?
@Stephie And some serious dexterity to get the water in and pressed through.
@PaulaMyers That really cannot be used as a coffee press. There’s no gasket around the plunger; the water would flow around the sides rather than be pressed through.
@Stephie: you could use a coffee filter, but as Sneftel mentions, the lack of of an upper gasket is going to be the real problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.136936
| 2020-11-09T09:39:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112548",
"authors": [
"Andrew Savinykh",
"Criggie",
"DRF",
"Joe",
"Matthieu M.",
"MaxD",
"Robin Betts",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Vorac",
"bob1",
"dasmy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89501"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113259
|
Pumpkin Nitro Mousse?
I want to make little pumpkin mousse brûlée deserts, and I also want to play with my new whipped cream dispenser. Do you think pumpkin purée would do bad things to my dispenser?
I swear I've seen TV chefs doing stuff like this, but they don't actually pay for any of their equipment so I doubt they care much if they ruin something to get a result. I don't have a production company buying my kitchen toys though, so thought I'd see if anyone has tried this and maybe I can learn from your mistakes/success.
What brand is your whipped cream dispenser? Does it come with a user manual? Does the user manual provide recommendations about substances you should (or should not) use in the dispenser? Even if none of them is specifically pumpkin puree, it may help to see what other sorts of substances should work.
Anything that you can put through a fine mesh strainer will likely not be too much of a problem in a whipper. In fact, the ISI website has a recipe for pumpkin mousse. You should find lots of advice on the web, as this technique was quite popular for a few years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.137229
| 2020-12-20T19:31:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113259",
"authors": [
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119996
|
Chowder without flour
Is there a gluten free alternative for flour in clam or mussel chowder? The recipe calls for a couple spoonfuls.
What style of chowder? ...probably can just omit.
It's a white muscle chowder that looks like New England clam chowder.
Does this answer your question? What is the best way to turn soup into stew without using flour?
Yes, certainly. The flour is only there for thickening. You can use pretty much any flour or starch from a gluten-free grain or tuber, and it will thicken just as well.
Depending on whether you want to add another flavor, you can go for a flour with a strong taste on its own, like buckwheat, and/or whole grain flour. If you don't want that, go for a starch.
As for the amount, do a 1:1 substitute by weight. You can employ it with whatever technique is prescribed in the original - a roux, a slurry, or dusting the solid pieces before adding them, it will all work.
I use potato starch as a gluten free thickener.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.137341
| 2022-03-01T20:52:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119996",
"authors": [
"Jonathan Allen",
"Neil Meyer",
"Selena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4417",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99713
|
what are these darker stains in radish?
We have some radish that have these darker areas in the flesh. Currently, we are on the island of Malta where food ingredients are very low quality in general, so anything out of the ordinary immediately becomes suspicious :)
Click for larger size image.
It's a fungal infection. If you google Aphanomyces raphani you will see much more serious examples but that how it looks usually when the outside is not affected (so also not thrown out by seller)
I'd be tempted to say,
"I don't know."
In very many cases, 'I don't know' often goes hand in hand with '& I don't much care either...'
However, when it comes to fresh fruit & veg of dubious provenance that is going to be eaten raw, that rapidly turns into,
"I don't know so I'm going to play safe & throw it away."
The only mitigation - & I would still be wary of it - would be to take it back to the supplier & ask them. There's an outside chance they could say, "Ah, over here, they all look like that." ..though I'd still want more evidence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.137447
| 2019-06-24T10:00:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99713",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120871
|
What is the perfect way to boil hakka/chowmein noodles?
Edit: I tried the method and this is the result:
New left, old, right. Click for full size
What is the correct way to boil noodles? I am talking about the packaged noodles and not half-boiled noodles. I see conflicting information online, and their noodles, irrespective of their method, comes out non sticky. Mine always clumps or sticks together when cooking.
This is how I boil them:
I boil a lot of water in a wide pan with salt (adding oil or not doesn't change anything for me).
I keep the flame on high until the water comes bubbling. Then I put the noodles in it.
I cook them until al dante (a very thin white line is there when I squeeze a strand.)
I immediately drain the water and wash them with cold water.
Then I drizzle some oil on it and mix them well. Up to this point, they are all non sticky and light.
Now the problem starts. A lot of people say that you should never cook the noodles right away and you can also store them in fridge for up to a couple of hours. However, no matter the amount of oil I drizzle, mine starts sticking to each other and so I have to was h them again with cold water to untangle them. Now if I cook them, they tend to again stick when I cook them. They are never separate and always become this mushy kind that they kinda stick and form clumps. I don't understand how mine sticks but the ones I see in Videos are always so fluffy with separate strands.
How do I prevent the noodles from sticking it when cooking?
What kind of noodles? What is the final preparation?
@moscafj Dried noodles for hakka noodles /chowmein.
Do you just drizzle the oil in, or do you then mix/toss the noodles to coat them with the oil?
@Sneftel Of course I toss them.
Follow the steps below to boil Hakka noodles.
First, boil enough water in a large non-stick pan.
Now add the amount of Hakka noodles to boiling water and stir gently for 10 minutes. (You can add some oil and salt if you want.)
Once the Hakka noodles are cooked, remove from heat, drain completely and pour cold water to prevent clumping.
Now Hakka noodles are ready for your meal.
This sounds more like a recipe for noodle porridge.
I am choosing this as the best method because it is the only answer that's closest to what has worked practically for me. But I think 10 minutes is too long. I only did it for 4-5 minutes.
For Asian-style noodles, drop them into boiling water, then switch the heat off. Leave in the water 4 minutes, drain, oil & either serve immediately or move on to stir-frying.
They should be OK to store in the fridge using this method, but stir them as they cool.
If you boil them a lot more starch is released, making them sticky.
Traditionally, fresh ramen noodles are cooked in running water which constantly takes away any extra starch, but you can't really do this for domestic noodles, especially dried.
Update, after many, many comments…
If you can't get this right with dried noodles by the second attempt, use fresh. They are infinitely easier to handle.
Is this a good enough procedure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q12_scB6AY
Starts at 7 minute. The problem is that they don't stick up and until I start cooking them, The longer I keep them cooking, the stronger the clump forms.
They look over-cooked to me. Water has gone soupy. Noodles look starchy. He played with them too much. Leave them alone til they're done. Salt is not needed at all, neither is the lid, oil is not needed until afterwards. They shouldn't need rinsing either. So, no, that's not a method I could recommend. That's a recipe for sticky noodles. I gave you my method above, no video required.
I will try your method and see how well it works. Will update on this.
I am sorry. But I don't understand what wrong I did or if you forgot to mention what brand or types of noodles to use. But this is the worse way to boil noodles. With your method, They were only 10% cooked. I am pretty sure no one eats that half cooked noodles anywhere. But this method gave me the clumped noodles. Right now I am eating balls of noodles.
I have updated the post. Please check the pic. They are are all clumped badly I couldn't even mix them properly.
Well… why didn't you test they were done before just throwing them in the wok in a lump? They are also the palest Chinese [flour] noodles I've ever seen. They look more like instant noodles than 'real' dried noodles.
Instructions from the back of a pack of chinese noodles… Instructions: To cook noodles:
Bring a pan of water to the boil then remove from the heat, alternatively boil some water using a kettle then pour into a pan.
Drop the noodle nests into the boiled water and soak for 5 minutes or if stir frying 4 minutes, stir frequently to separate noodles.
Drain and serve immediately or add to stir fry.
Here are the instructions from the pack (Which I followed but were 10 times better than the method you provided) Also, don't just assume I didn't test them before throwing in the wok. They are not instant noodles.
I'm really not sure what point you're making here. If you have the pack instructions, follow them. btw, the ingredients list on that pack is a bit shy of things that would make them less sticky. Have you thought of trying another brand? This really isn't rocket science. You're making a meal of one of the simplest things in the world to cook. They're almost impossible to get wrong. I have nothing more to offer on this, I'm afraid.
The problem is that I see street vendors having this huge quantity of boiled noodles which never seem to stick. But if I leave my noodles for a little long and they tend to stick together and form clumps. When I am cooking they are all fine. Separate and light. But the moment I add salt and sauces, they start sticking and forming clumps. Not like the one in the first pic though.
I bet they're not using dried noodles. Fresh are much easier to handle.
What do you mean by fresh noodles? Half-boiled? LIke in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK64D1UfH2w Sorry but Fresh noodles are not easy to come by here or they come in huge quantity.
I mean fresh, not dried. Fresh is raw not half cooked. Can't really tell in that video, there's no explanation of where a large carrier bag of noodles just appears from.
those pack of noodles were half-cooked noodles. But They also use fully dried noodles. And if you ever ate from Indian street food, their noodles are super fluffy and not 1% sticky. And they definitely don't use your method.
Context
The starch granules in the noodles absorb water and swell when heated, a process called 'starch gelatinization'.
Starch granule gelatinization.
Taken from "Starch gelatinization and its complexity for analysis" (paywalled).
Starches are made up of of amylose (long chain sugars) packed very densely as crystals. These crystals loosen during gelatinization, and when given sufficient heat and water, completely burst and disperse their amylose. Point 4 represents where the granules have hydrated to point of bursting, and the amylose begins 'leaking' out. Full dispersion is the end goal of using starch thickening methods, like slurries or roux, but very much unwanted for noodles. The temperature at which the peak at 3 is achieved, and overall shape of the graph, varies depending on the amount of available water and type of starch.
The Problem
Ideally for chow mein, the noodles will have starch granules evenly and fully hydrated as well as intact, shown in the range between points 2 and 3 on the graph, leaving no rigidity, grittiness, or powdery texture from under-gelled starch in the final dish. These types of noodles typically rely on wheat protein formed during kneading or added egg protein to maintain their structure, and generally have a high degree of hydration uniformly throughout when fresh.
In contrast, dry noodles have a gradient between points 2 to 4 - under-gelled core with al dente texture, partially dispersed exterior - due to gelatinization being dependent on hydration, and rehydration progressing from the exterior to the core. . Dry pasta noodles benefit from this for sauce adhesion, but the dry hakka noodles you are boiling would be easier to work with if they had the properties of fresh noodles above.
The recipe you provided with the 30-second boil, 2-3 minute soak for dry noodles gave poor results because of continued gelatinization during the stir-fry phase. The reintroduction of heat, as well as water from the vegetables and the noodles themselves, will cause fully cooked noodles to cook further, resulting in amylose dispersion, resulting in loss of structure (mushiness) and increased viscosity (clumping).
The Solutions
@unlisted was completely correct in the instructions provided and assessment of your recipe video, and as you described, the instructions provided resulted in par-cooked noodles after boiling - this is desired, especially in a domestic kitchen with lower stove power output.
For better chow mein noodle cooking technique, refer to these videos:
Travels in India, London & the UK, Wok Stir Fried Veg Hakka Noodles Recipe: Indo-Chinese Street Food at Hakkaland Restaurant, London...
Made With Lau, Dad's Cantonese Chow Mein (豉油王炒面)
The first video follows the same process in the recipe you provided, but note that at 02:15, when the noodles are added and tossed, a large amount of steam is released. High-powered commercial wok stoves output heat in the range of 30,000W, allowing the water to very rapidly evaporate and not remain trapped to steam-cook the noodles. In contrast, domestic stoves output heat in the 1,500W-3,000W range, making stir-frying more akin to stir-steaming. To compensate for this par-cook the dried noodles, even less than al dente and just enough to soften them, to achieve the target texture during frying.
Lau's recipe is done on a plug-in induction stove, most of which max out under 2,000 W. Hydration is controlled by steaming the noodles instead of boiling, and only submerging the noodles in hot water for 15 seconds. The noodles are then fried first, and alone, to crisp and prevent added moisture from continuing gelatinization. Only after the noodles have finished becoming crispy are the vegetables and other wet ingredients added. Fresh noodles are used, but dry noodles are also accounted for - boil according to directions, or increase steaming time.
A far more detailed & intelligent approch to the answer than mine. Proveable, testable instructions. Nice one. Mine requires just that you 'know' what to look for as you cook them, without the science… which, it seems, judging by comments underneath, is easy to get wrong ;)
Nothing wrong with intuition, especially if it gets you consistent desirable results. Your observations for the video were spot-on, and personally I suspect the noodles between the jump cut are different - 08:55 no bounce and matted texture, 12:30 good bounce and enough rigidity to hold small raised loops in the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.137581
| 2022-06-20T13:32:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120871",
"authors": [
"4-K",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124118
|
How to protect stainless steel BBQ from rust
I recently got a stainless steal BBQ and it is mostly outside but last one became full of rust, I only know oxygen when touch with steel make rust, but now how do I protect it? It is 20 dollar grill.
That picture is not stainless steel, it's galvanised [zinc plated]. Thin rust-proof layer on cheap mild steel underneath. It will last until it doesn't. Seams & rivets are weak points. Heat won't help. Keep it out of the rain.
The reason stainless steel is called that is exactly because it doesn't rust under normal circumstances. If your previous BBQ rusted, it most likely was not stainless steel, but some other kind of steel. Which isn't surprising, because a stainless BBQ would be much more expensive than the ones you can actually buy.
The kinetics of chemical reactions is strongly affected by temperature.
In the same way hot vinegar takes way less time than cold vinegar to clean up limestone deposits, so hot iron and oxygen take way less time than cold iron and oxygen to form rust.
I have a no brand charcoal chimney which I bought for cheap some years ago. Despite never coming in contact with water and being stored inside, after few uses it has started to rust precisely in the places where the charcoal was hotter: first it started as the coating loosing the shiny appearance, and then turned into the familiar red hue of rust.
I doubt that from a 20 $ BBQ you can expect more, as also pointed out in the comments. It is unlikely to be stainless steel, more likely just galvanized steel. Use it as long as it last.
(If you are into DIY, when I was a child a family member converted a stainless steel wash-machine drum into a BBQ, by cutting it open on the side and fastening three legs to hold it at height.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.138427
| 2023-05-07T13:17:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124118",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95934
|
Avoiding too much residue when deep frying
Wanting to deep fry just the outer surface of chicken, I prepared a mix of dry wheat flour, maida (Plain flour/All-purpose flour), pepper powder, red chilli powder and salt. Since the curd-marinated chicken pieces were wet after cooking in a pressure cooker, I rolled the pieces in the flour mixture as shown in a recipe, heated oil in a deep non stick container and placed the chicken pieces in the oil when the oil was hot.
After the first batch was fried, I noticed a lot of the flour had collected on the bottom of the container. Is this normal? I'm assuming this would happen even if the coating was made of stickier stuff. The problem is that this layer of flour on the bottom keeps increasing with every batch of chicken I put. Is there a right way or a better way to do this and avoid all this residue? I want to be able to re-use the oil.
How deep was the oil? Deep enough for the pieces to float freely, or were they resting on the pan bottom?
The oil covers half the chicken piece when the piece rests on the pan bottom. I figured this would be an appropriate amount of oil to use.
No, it needs to float, even to reach the degree of 'recyclability' that moscafj's answer suggests. Shallow frying your coating is additionally going to rub off against the pan base.
I know for three-part breading, many people recommend letting the item rest a bit between breading and frying so the crust adheres better ... but I assumed it was egg drying around the crumbs, so I don't know if that'd help in this case. I would suggest shaking (and possibly banging together) items before putting them in the oil to knock off any loose flour
When deep frying, there is no way to avoid residue collecting at the bottom of your pot. You can shake off excess flour before frying to reduce this effect, but you will always have some residue. The main difference between deep frying in a pot on a stove, and a dedicated, restaurant-style deep fryer is that the restaurant-style fryer is deep, and has the heating element well off the bottom. That produces a cold zone where debris collects, but does not burn. It is the burning bits that are left over that cause the biggest degradation of your frying oil. Restaurant-style fryers allow oil to be reused for quite some time, then filtered and used further. Depending on the amount of debris, the length of time you are using, and, most importantly your temperatures, you can filter and reuse oil from your home set-up, but probably not more than once or twice. If it begins to smell "fishy" you've gone beyond the opportunity to reuse.
Your new comment suggests that you are shallow frying. In this case I would suggest not reusing the oil. Temperature control is difficult at best, and the ratio of oil to chicken means that it will likely be quite degraded by the time you are finished.
Oh...I thought "deep" and "shallow" indicated the amount of time the item is fried. I'm surprised the amount of oil makes a difference.
"Deep frying" is essentially a "bath" of oil that the food can float freely in.
There is a great tool for filtering the small particles from the oil that I always use when deep-frying. I've questioned myself the same thing after I started breading and deep-frying various dishes. If you look out for a fine-mesh strainer, I'm sure you'll be able to find one. You can use it immediately when you see the oil is becoming cloudy and grain-particles start making it smell and appeal less clean.
Simple solution is to use Paper towel made of tissue paper on any strainer for thst matter
Pour oil after cooling
Keep it there for one day
Thats it
Oil is as clean as it was before frying
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.138591
| 2019-01-25T08:44:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95934",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Joe",
"Neha",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72422"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96647
|
Oven setting for pizza
Which Oven setting should I use for making pizza.
I've never seen an oven dial with markings like this. Can you share what the different settings mean?
It makes a whole lot more sense with the image rotated.
I mean option should i choose from this for making the pizza
Is that a combined microwave-oven device? The two icons on the nine and eleven position could indicate mcrowave?
@elbrant I think I can “read” at least some of them. Starting at the top, clockwise you have off - convection defrost - conventional top/bottom heat - convection - convection + bottom heat - (probably) grill/broil - (probably) microwave - (probably) microwave + convection.
Which style of pizza?
What's the brand of the oven ? Is there a logo anywhere ? We might be able to find a manufacturer's manual
420°F for all pizza. Cook until done.
Use the one at five o'clock. It should be the normal baking mode for most recipes anyway.
The way I read the markings is:
12 o'clock, a zero: Turned off.
1 o'clock, a lightbulb: Light on, but no heating. Alternatively, it could be a preheat function.
3 o'clock, a dripping fan: looks like some kind of defrost setting, in which the fan is on, but the heat source is not indicated.
4 o'clock, two horizontal bars: Heat from above and below.
5 o'clock, two horizontal bars: Heat from above and below, with fan assist.
7 o'clock, a horizontal bar on the bottom and a fan: Heat from below with fan assist.
8 o'clock, three shark teeth: Looks like some top-only mode, probably a broiling/rotisserie mode.
I don't have good ideas about the 10 and 11 o'clock modes, wavy lines without and with a fan - if Stephie is right in the comments and this is a combi oven, these are probably microwave modes. Else, it must be something producer specific.
For most food, including pizza, the upper+lower heat with fan assist will give the best results.
10/11 are most likely grill, nothing to do with microwave
3 is lightbulb with fan assist (that's a bulb, not a drop). 1 and 3 are useful for proofing dough.
If you are taking a frozen one out of the box, definitely the "5 o'clock" setting as rumtscho suggested.
However, if you're using a homemade or fresh dough with fresh ingredients, the 4 o'clock (two horizontal lines) without the fan is worth a try, so that you get a static heat. This should prevent your pizza from getting dried out by the fan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.138943
| 2019-03-02T04:56:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96647",
"authors": [
"Aadnan Farooq A",
"Maya",
"Sarumanatee",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74063",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108458
|
Lysol on microwave, how to clean off?
Honestly, I’m still learning about some cleaning products. I made an approximately 10% Lysol 90% water solution, dipped a small paper towel into it, and wiped all exterior sides (no interior) of a microwave (redipping up to 5 times as needed). I now realize I shouldn’t have wiped areas with vents. After about 10min I washed all sides with water. I’ve been rewashing with water the sides each day since. I read perhaps Lysol is inert when dry. What should I do additionally to try to make it safe to use? How long should I wait before using it?
each day since ... when ? just a simple wipe with damp towel should be enough.
Thanks, it originally occurred two days ago. I appreciate the advice.
As a general comment about this, not one to @max, since this issue was voted down, in this time of covid-19 I think it is reasonable to ask about cleaning methods even if it turns out the method used was not an issue. Thank you again to the people who have provided helpful info.
To further @Tetsujin's answer.
The Lysol product you have specified as Lysol Clean & Fresh Multi-Surface Cleaner is made of a number of active ingredients. The primary decontaminating component is Alkyl (50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride. This is a member of what are known as Quaternary Ammonium Compounds or Quaternary Ammonium Cations (QACs). These are all very effective disinfectants against most bacterial pathogens and a wide range of viruses (including SARS-CoV-2 the cause of COVID-19 - see the list and concentrations here). There are a bunch of other things in there too, but most of it is ingredients that allow the QACs to work better, this includes the alcohols (surfactant), EDTA and Tetraborate (mineral sequestering - for hard water, which can inhibit QACs), or ways to make it smell nicer or look pretty.
QACs are generally irritants - they make your skin red and itchy, but they can also cause more severe damage on more sensitive tissues such as lungs, eyes and intestines if inhaled or swallowed. Generally these compounds are safe to use on hard surfaces like your microwave, but not on porous surfaces because the porous surfaces can absorb the disinfectant. Note that they are pretty common as bacteriostatics in contact storage solutions, eye-washes and nasal sprays (see Dermal section) - so the risks are relatively low.
Use of QACs on hard surfaces is fine - just wipe with water a couple of times after use will dilute it enough that it is no longer a problem for most people.
The vents on your microwave are not considered porous - porous surfaces are things with small holes that will absorb the ingredients and not allow them to be washed off easily. Examples of porous surfaces are unsealed wooden surfaces (e.g. chopping boards), sponges (you can use these for cleaning with though - just don't eat off them) and unglazed pottery/crockery. If you have used a QAC cleaner on these sorts of things, you should throw them out or re-purpose them so that you are not eating off them
Long story short - wipe with water a couple of times and you will be fine.
This is really helpful detailed information, thanks a bunch! I appreciate the advice and will be sure to put it to use. I particularly appreciate the info on what is porous or not.
To further point out, it is not unusual at all that many restaurants one eats at use "quats" to sanitize their dishes and cooking tools. The question is much ado about nothing.
Lysol is a trade name, covering a whole family of quite different products. You will need to be more specific.
In short, though… you rinse it with more water until it's gone. If it got inside places it shouldn't, then your choice is to attempt a DIY take-apart [really not recommended] or give it to a professional… or ignore it & eventually it the smell will go away, hopefully.
Thanks for the feedback! Specifically, the product I used is Lysol Clean & Fresh Multi-Surface Cleaner [1]. You mentioned giving it to a professional, what type of professional could I give it to?
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FCIMUI/
OK… so what are you actually concerned about? The smell? [Lysol doesn't exist much outside the US so I've never smelled that exact product]. I don't actually understand chemically what ingredients are, but if it's like many other similar products it's not harmful to humans in low concentrations… which is why you can wipe your worktops with it.
I am concerned that I didn't correctly follow the instructions on it and I used it on porous surfaces (should only use on non-porous), potentially ones that could have dripped inside the microwave. The instructions state that it should not come in contact with skin, let alone be eaten, even when diluted. What I would most like to know is how much time should go by for it to be non-hazardous if in accidental contact with food because it might have dripped into the microwave, and if there are ways to help clean it off. Thanks again for your responses.
I'm pretty sure no component of a microwave is porous. My answer still stands. You can either DIY a take-apart, which is potentially far more dangerous than simply ignoring it, or take it to a professional. If you can't reach it, it's going nowhere. Eventually the smell will fade. Nothing else will change significantly, over time. It's not going to jump out & bite you.
Thanks, please tell me, what professional could I take it to? Could you please share some general examples?
Goggle a microwave repair service in your area… if you can find one that's open right now. I'm sure they would be more than happy to take your money.
Thanks for all the help! I will certainly look into what you wrote and I will post more if I find out more. I'd choose your answer as accepted but I don't know if I have an option for that here (I don't have enough points yet to upvote things either).
You don't need to take it to a professional, you just cleaned it. It's normal to wipe the outside of vents, just use the microwave as usual.
@GdD - I'm pretty sure that's what I already said, but it would appear to be insufficient for the OP's worry. :p
If you are worried about stuff dripping on food, cover the food. Covering the food also reduces the need for cleaning the inside of the microwave.
I was just backing you up @Tetsujin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.139272
| 2020-05-18T16:32:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108458",
"authors": [
"CompNeuroDev",
"GdD",
"Max",
"Rob",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84136"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123843
|
How to break mince beef apart for a bolognese, and then brown it
I am able to break mince beef down into a much less coarse material, by
putting the raw mince into hot water in a pan, then
breaking it apart easily with a spoon.
See an example here
It appears that the absorbed water helps weaken bonds in the strands of mince, and it breaks up.
Then, I need to properly brown the mince beef. This is difficult as there is too much water in the mince. The browning of the mince is critical for the flavour of the bolognese, as is the fineness of the mince/ragu.
Is there a good way of breaking up and browning mince that anyone knows? Maybe this whole adding to water thing is a bad idea?
The method in the video does work very well to break down the mince but I know looks wrong and anti-culinary. But perhaps one can then extract the water? I tried baking it on a tray and it dries out a bit.
Your profile shows you live in the UK, so unless you buy your mince from 'posh' butchers rather than a supermarket, then water is already an issue - your meat already has 5% added before you buy it*. It most certainly doesn't want any more. It's quite a task to get rid of what there is.
Actually making British supermarket mince truly fry takes a bit of effort and as much heat as you can get into the pan.
If I'm making anything that starts with meat [chunks or mince], onions & garlic etc, then I start with two pans, not one. A regular saucepan which will be what the final sauce will cook in, and the biggest frying pan you own. You can work them simultaneously, as it takes about the same time for each.
Use a wooden spatula, not a spoon. 50p from any supermarket - when they have them in stock. You want that square[ish] edge to work for you.
As you're getting your onion prepped, but both pans on with a bit of oil, full flame, each according to the pan size, so the saucepan goes on a medium-sized ring, frying pan goes on the largest. As soon as you drop your onions into your oil, drop the heat back to half & give a quick stir every minute. Drop your mince in the other, which should just about be smoking by now. Keep the heat on the frying pan up full.
You'll see it lands in 'stripes', or a less appetising image… worms [unless you've seen that horrible new packaging from Sainsbury's which looks like a single compressed block of goo]. Set the spatula across the stripes so were working across not down the grain, then using the square end, start from the far end, working towards you. Push through it, drag back, push through, drag back. Do this rapidly rather than carefully, it will take maybe 20 or so 'strokes' to work down the length of the pack. Each push will separate off half an inch or so. For a standard supermarket pack you'll probably need to do this twice to cover the width of the block in two passes. The heat of the pan is helping you at this point, as even in a decent non-stick the 'block' will slightly stick to the pan, preventing it skidding around while you work. It will free itself up within a minute, no need to worry.
That's knocked it down to much more manageable chunks. By now the underside will be nicely seared, but the rest raw. As you start to now spread this around the pan, give it a good shuffling about, turning a new raw face down as much as you can.
About now, all the spare water will start to come out of it. You paid for that water & whatever is being washed out of your meat, so we're not going to pour it down the sink, we're going to evaporate it off & keep the rest.
Once it's really starting to boil rather than frying, you can concentrate on breaking up the last few bits that have survived until now.
BTW, don't forget to keep your onions moving every minute or so whilst you're doing this.
Wait until the water is almost evaporated off. Keep it moving a bit but there's no rush at this point - your pan has been cooled to the temperature of boiling water & cannot get any hotter until it's gone. The full flame is to drive the water off as fast as possible. Right as your onions are nearly ready, you can add your garlic. Another stir. Your meat should by now be about dry & you can at last brown it a bit.
Success.
Separated, browned & ready to go into your onion/garlic, perfectly sautéed; ready & waiting for your tomatoes & herbs.
btw, that Youtube method is terrible. There's no point at which the meat is ever browned, it's just boiled. Browning - Maillard reaction - is an essential part of the flavour. They also mush it into a paste, which isn't really what you want; there should be a little 'body' or 'grain' remaining in it.
Late note:
It turns out to be 5% they can add without having to tell you. I always thought it was 10% [detail above changed]. Government guidelines at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meat-products-sell-them-legally-in-england
"There's no point at which the meat is ever browned". That's right, but the video shows preparation before browning. Its then stored in bags, and browned if required later.
Meh. It's a lousy method & looked like it would take much longer than mine. It also needs nursing the entire time by the look of it & comes out looking more like keema [lamb] which is just boiled, rather than minced beef.
"Your meat should by now be about dry & you can at last brown it a bit." So I can only hope for a bit of browning with supermarket mince? i.e. its all about where you buy it.
Shall I remove the words 'a bit'? It's no longer wet, you can brown it 'as much as you want'.
Ok, so once water is gone, how long do you think to brown it? Does it get overcooked?
…until it's brown. It would be overcooked at that point if you were making burgers, but not for a long-cook. Differnet end result requires a different start-point. With there being so much water in it to start with, you don't really have a choice if you want some maillard on it, unless you'd be happy with browning two sides of a big sab & leaving all the water in it.
I'm curious about the 10 % added water: is it added as liquid water or is that ice to keep temperature limits during the mincing?
It's mechanically injected before processing. Same with chicken. Bunch of 'syringes' pumping water into it every half inch. Gross really, but perfectly legal unfortunately.
Do you have a citation of an for the bit about mince being 10% water? I've had a poke around but the main hit I kept getting for the claim was this answer. There are lots of sources about added water in processed meats, but those don't count mince as one of the highly processed foods they are taking about, they mean sausages, hot dogs and cooked meats, or may refer explicitly to moisture being injected in chicken breast cuts, but nothing which unambiguously addresses mince,
@Spagirl - hmm… government actually says 5%, I always though it was 10. It's always done though, because they can. 'Processed' meats aren't included. This is very simple to test, if you can find a 'proper' butcher. You can fry that. You can't fry supermarket meat. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meat-products-sell-them-legally-in-england
@Tetsujin as you say, that describes what they can add. I was asking if you had a citation to support that it is invariably done by supermarket suppliers.
As I keep saying, it doesn't need a citation, just compare posh butchers to supermarket. It's absolutely obvious. You won't find citation, because if they stay under, they are under absolutely no compunction to even mention it… so they don't.
I personally use a wooden spatula to chop it up into smaller bits as it cooks.
You want to start cooking over low heat, so you don’t brown it and form a crust before you’ve had a chance to break it up.
I’ve also seen (but have never used) tools that are specifically advertised for this purpose that have an X or * cross section, such as the ‘ChopStir’: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B004N7E174
I do the same, but in a wok rather than a frying pan as it it easier to keep the heat very low.
When I ate beef, I used to use two wooden spatulas to break up mince. I would chop down with them together, one in each hand, then pull apart to separate into pieces
I have one of those 'chopstir' things from the dollar store that has 6 divisions on the bottom and works amazingly well. You don't need the name-brand one, my knockoff has worked well for years.
as far as the "chopstir" things, my parents and in-laws both have some version of them and both swear by it.
I use a similar idea, but with the edge of a wooden spoon and sort of break up and stir at the same time.
Complementing the existing detailed answers that describe breaking up the mince in a frying pan as it browns, you can make things much easier for yourself by breaking it apart with your hand as you add it to the pan. You can easily tear/separate it into smaller pieces which means there is less to do with the spatula while it is cooking.
Additionally, adding the meat to the pan by hand means you can control how much is in the pan at a time – avoiding overcrowding means it will brown faster. If I am making a large batch I will brown a smaller amount at a time, remove it with a slotted spoon to a bowl and repeat until the whole quantity is browned.
I do like your idea on not crowding, but through many years of empiricism, I've discovered in a 32cm very heavy frying pan I can get 1KG down faster & to the same end result [on a long cook] if I do it all in one go, rather than smaller 'ideal' quantities. It all changes, of course, if I dig deep into my wallet & go to the posh butcher 5 miles away, who sells 'real meat'. Though I tend to save those trips for when I want short cook, ready as soon as it's fried, meals.
In our family we used to use a pan not damaged by metal implements and a long barbaque sized fork.
When browning lean mince we would start with a little oil (or liquid butter replacement these days) in fatty meat we would just heat the pan and let the heat drain a bit of the fat out of the meat.
Then with a fork, (or the long one if using the big pan,) we would break chunks off the block of meat, cutting it in smaller parts while already browning the meat.
By the time you have broken the meat into the size of pieces you need most of the browning has already been done, and the meat has let go of the fat, which allows the meat to sit in the pan.
If the meat is falling apart easily, as some butchers and supermarkets sell theirs, it is less work.
On the other hand, if you have a block of frozen mince you can still use most of this method, only you allow one side to get soft, flip and scrape off the top layer to the pan next to the block, flip again and repeat, as long as it takes for the core of the meat to fall apart under your fork. Do not forget to stir the scraped off meat in the side of the pan.
Ah, the luxury of 'real' meat without the added water. Yup, I can do that if I pay twice the price for good butcher's meat, not supermarket ;) You really have to hunt them down over here, even a regular independent butcher will still sell the same injected rubbish the supermarkets do. You have to find the ones who know the full journey, from field to butcher. One of my favourites even have their own abattoir. Not cheap.
If the meat is wet (and yes, that happens here at times) it takes longer but you can still use the same method.
It just doesn't work here. By the time the meat is mainly broken up, the water's all being squeezed out & now you're boiling, no longer frying. Hence my rather over-detailed answer. It's just a 'thing' with British supermarket meat. It needs its own handling rule-set, unfortunately.
I do the flip & scrape technique when I’m dealing with a block of frozen ground beef. It’s not ideal, but it gets the meal on the table faster than trying to defrost it in the microwave and then cook it. (But I’m also in the US, and it sounds like UK ‘mince’ is different)
@Tetsujin,you need the fire so high that the water evaporate at the rate you break up the meat, not so low it sits around in the pan. It takes more stirring and maybe a bit more fat/butter/oil to start with before the meat has let go of enough fat.
@Willeke - yeah, but no. I do it on full flame, can't keep up.
Most people I've met cooking this popular dish used a small pan and quite a lot of oil, then discarded some of the oil after browning. You might want to try it that way.
Welcome! Before posting more answers, please take a moment for the [tour] and browse through the [help], especially [answer]. Your posts could benefit from more details and focusing on the question at hand - for example this post doesn’t directly answer the question, but talks about a “dish”, however, the asker is not describing a particular dish, just inquiring about a method.
Thanks I will do that.
@Stephie : ‘dish’ might have been referring to bolognese. (Which as I understand it just means ‘tomato sauce with meat’ over in the UK, not the slow cooked ‘ragu bolognese’ which has dairy in it and multiple types of meat)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.139802
| 2023-04-08T13:04:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123843",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"DavidPostill",
"Esther",
"Joe",
"Laconic Droid",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"apg",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713",
"stanri",
"turtledna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110602
|
Can I make a neverending Soup in an instantpot?
I'm a truck driver, and I have a minifridge, a microwave, an Instant pot, and an electric water kettle on the truck with me. I've been experimenting with various ideas on how to best feed myself. So here's my version of the question. If I cook the soup with some veggies and meat, scoop some out to eat, and seal the lid and keep the instant pot set to "Keep Warm" (145-175 degrees F) will it be safe? It stays sealed except when I'm dishing out a new dish, it stays above 140 degrees, and each time I add new stuff to it, I'll re-cook it, but will whatever I've left in there still be good?
I was just reading through this question: Never ending soup; is it actually safe? and I had a modified version of it to ask, but since that question hasn't been active in over a year, I thought I would make a new question.
Welcome to the site! I can imagine eating healthy on the road is a challenge. One option would be to swap the instant pot for a microwave, cook meals head of time and reheat on demand.
I haven't given it a test with the Instant Pot, but you will likely need to actively change the cooking program once or twice a day, rather than leave it on 'warm' for extended periods. I think it happened to me once with my Instant Pot. I don't know if this is a UL thing or what, but it's a common complaint from the Jewish community about digital slow cookers, as they'll shut off if you leave them on for too long. (supposedly it's a common thing to prep everything the night before, then leave it in the slow cooker so you're not doing work on the sabbath)
I've actually tried it. It didn't work very well for me, but it might work better for you.
The problem is, cookers like the Instant Pot are designed for quick pressure cooking first and foremost. While they have a "slow cook" or "keep warm" setting, the heating element is still driven at high power, just at a lower duty cycle. Over time, that encourages solids to settle to the bottom and dehydrate and burn. (In contrast, a slow cooker operates at a lower power and heats to a lower temperature.)
However, the motion of the truck might actually help you out here by agitating the soup. If the soup doesn't have anything starchy (like beans or potatoes) that might be sufficient to prevent burning.
I agree with Sneftel's answer that the quality is likely to degrade over time due to contents settling and breaking down into stuff that doesn't taste good.
But just to add a thought regarding safety: food that's kept above 140F should in theory be safe indefinitely (see my answer to related question here). However, I'd be concerned about the proposed idea for several reasons:
Does the "keep warm" setting actually maintain temperature consistently? (Hopefully it does, but many devices fluctuate quite a bit on such settings.)
Can you guarantee that the cooker will basically have uninterrupted power?
Adding ingredients can bring down the temperature of stuff already in the pot temporarily. This thermal cycling may become a problem if the overall ingredients go down below 140F enough times and spend time there when stuff is added (which could happen if you add a lot of new cold stuff at once). Some toxins are not destroyed at temperatures in the 145-175F range (or even by boiling), and some bacteria found in foods can form spore forms that can survive high temperatures and reactivate when food is cooled temporarily. Every time the overall ingredients dip below ~130F, you could start to see growth of bad stuff.
In general, I don't see a problem keeping this going for a few days/few batches, as long as you can verify it's staying at temperatures above 140F, and that the remaining ingredients aren't thermal cycling into the "danger zone" for very long. But for quality reasons as well as cumulative safety issues, I'd personally just try to finish the pot and clean it out periodically.
With the instapot being sealed, if the OP brought it back to a high temp after opening each time wouldn't that keep the contents sterilized? I've used a pressure cooker as a sterilizer in a non-cooking context before so just wondering how entering the "danger zone" works if everything inside the container is dead.
@Myles Bacteria that cause foodborne illness produce waste products that are toxic to humans. Even if you heat up the food to a high enough temperature to sterilize it, it won't neutralize any of those toxins that may be present.
@Tristan Right but you present a "bacterial growth opportunity" on the way up with toxins only reaching the same concentration you would see with typical cooking. Then you sterilize the contents so there shouldn't be a "bacterial growth opportunity" on the way down because they are all dead and there isn't a means for entry of new bacteria. Wouldn't it be similar to canning a soup made from leftovers in this way?
@Myles Every time you open it up to serve from it or add ingredients, you present an opportunity to reinfect it. If it stays hot the whole time, you might be fine, but you want to be really sure. There are also bacteria that produce spores that can survive at typical boiling temperatures (e.g., bacillus cereus). Pressure canning kills everything because of the higher temperatures involved, but if you keep everything under pressure all the time, all your ingredients are gonna turn into mush.
@Tristan When the temperature goes back down to "Warm" the pot itself acts like a can, if it was sterile when hot (greater than 100C for enough time) and doesn't get opened it will still be sterile at room temp. You are right though as you'd have to get it to sterilizing conditions over and over again so your ingredients would turn to mush, although depending on the type of soup mush might be ok.
Bacillus cereus might survive at high temperatures, but it can't reproduce at them. The big risk is, as always, when the food cools off.
@Myles The presence of a bacterial toxin has nothing to do with sterility. Once something like the Botulinus bacterium has been present to any significant extent in food you can cycle it up to sterilization temperature as many times as you want but the toxin will persist.
To respond to various comments: there are bacteria that can survive (generally in spore form) even at boiling temperatures and may reactivate upon cooling. There are also toxins that are not destroyed even upon boiling. Sterilization is only achieved through processing at temperatures beyond boiling (e.g., pressure cooking) for specified times depending on type of ingredients (as used in canning recipes). Thermal cycling with contents that are not completely sterile (or where new stuff is added) can grow bad stuff.
@MarkMorganLloyd: the toxin produced by botulism bacteria is generally destroyed at boiling temperatures. There are other types of toxins that are not destroyed (or not immediately destroyed) by simple boiling, however. Of course, in general, I wouldn't eat anything that was left at growth temperatures long enough to produce significant toxins.
@Athanasius FWIW, I note that Wikipaedia agrees with you. Let's just agree that storing food warm probably isn't a very good idea... usual stories about doner kebab etc. being reheated.
Considering this in the context of the earlier "everlasting stew" discussion, it's worth noting that there are certain ingredients which must be cooked using sustained high temperature. One notable example is red kidney beans which contain a protein which must be denatured (by boiling for ten minutes or so) before they are safe to eat.
The combination of some ingredients which must be cooked aggressively (e.g. beans) and some which are better cooked lightly (many fresh vegetables) or even eaten raw (for the sake of their vitamins) suggest that you'd be better doing your cooking in advance, chilling the portions, and thawing/heating when needed.
If you found somebody with a good stock of liquid nitrogen you probably wouldn't even need a refrigerator- just an insulated container.
The "must boil beans" thing is a good point, though you also might want to note that that doesn't apply to canned beans, which have already been cooked to a safe temperature.
[In a shocking twist, the OP reveals he drives a liquid nitrogen delivery truck]
@sneftel Like it :-) Apropos food preparation on the road, I've seen the owners of heavy steam engines (in the UK we call them "traction engines" and "steam rollers", and they exist only in carefully-conserved preservation) removing foil-wrapped bundles from their smokebox.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.141133
| 2020-09-09T06:01:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110602",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Myles",
"Sneftel",
"Tristan",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123399
|
what's the difference between canned milk and heavy cream when making caramel
I have two recipes for making caramel. One I use for caramel corn, the other for caramel apples and caramel we dip in chocolate. They seem the same to me but my mother and wife insist they are different. One of them includes corn syrup as well. Here is the recipe for candy and apples.
sugar
butter
white Karo syrup
cans of evaporated milk
Here is the recipe for caramel corn.
brown sugar
white sugar
Evaporated milk
whipping cream
butter
Please help me understand the difference. I admit I've never cooked them side by side to see if they taste or perform differently.
Karo seems to be a manufacturer, not a product. They appear to make corn syrups of various sorts. All I can find in the UK appears to be on US import. It's not something I've ever seem personally.
Evaporated milk is … ah, and here we have a slight problem…
Wikipedia says 'Evaporated milk, known in some countries as "unsweetened condensed milk"'
…and that may be a problem.
In the UK, they are very different products. Both come from the austerity years, when people were having to scrape by. They are both milk boiled to remove excess water, but they taste & behave very differently.
To an older Brit, 'evaporated milk' [or as it was known in past times 'evap'] tends not to be used in cooking. It was used as a cheap alternative to real fresh cream & poured over puddings, canned fruits etc to try imitate thin fresh cream. It pours quite easily, being around the same consistency as actual pouring cream.
'Condensed milk' on the other hand - used widely across many continents, from the Caribbean to India - is a thick, almost gelatinous semi-solid. It will pour, but it's really in no hurry. The taste is also very different to 'evap'. It is almost like a sugar syrup. It has hints of the flavour of UHT milk, but the consistency of heavy syrup or light molasses.
I would have to guess that your recipe is asking for what I would know as condensed milk, not evaporated - but only the recipe author will know for sure. I know of recipes using condensed milk & real cream to make fudge in the UK. I don't know of anything that uses 'evap' in a similar manner.
If their recipes are illustrated with a lucky picture of it actually being poured, I could tell likely tell by sight which is which. Or a product label may give it away.
btw, 'heavy cream' [UK equivalent 'double cream'] is a fresh dairy product, found in the refrigerators near the fresh milk. US heavy cream seems to be about 40% fat, UK double up to 50%. Whipping cream has slightly lower fat content, approx 30%.
I would not expect much further sugar in a recipe that calls for condensed milk. I'm pretty sure the OP's recipes both actually call for evaporated milk, not condensed milk. (Or, to put it another way, people sometimes say "condensed" when they mean "evaporated", but not the other way around.)
@Marti - right from the horse's mouth - fudge recipe from Carnation - the condensed milk maker - fudge with condensed & sugar [more sugar than condensed, btw]. https://www.carnation.co.uk/recipes/ultimate-fudge-recipe
Evaporated milk and condensed milk are each (respectively) pretty much the same between the US and the UK.
Summary: cream is higher in fat than evaporated milk. Molasses has a strong flavor.
Without the amounts or the techniques, it’s difficult to tell, but there are definitely differences in these two recipes for caramel coating.
Karo is a brand of syrup. White Karo is their light corn syrup.
Brown sugar is sugar with molasses. Nowadays, it is usually white sugar with molasses added back in, but it can be sugar before the molasses is removed depending on the brand.
If you replace the ingredients with what they are, you have:
Candy apples
sugar
light corn syrup
butter
evaporated milk
Caramel corn
sugar
molasses
butter
evaporated milk
whipping cream
Evaporated milk and cream are often used interchangeably, especially in older recipes; however, cream has a much higher fat content than evaporated milk. Evaporated milk has no less than 6.5% milkfat, where whipping cream has no less than 30-36% milk fat, depending on whether you use light or heavy whipping cream. (From the International Dairy Foods Association; also, more detailed requirements from the United States Code of Federal Regulations.)
That is, whipping cream has about five times more fat than evaporated milk. So, depending on the amounts (including the amount of butter, which is almost all fat) and the techniques (how hot you cook each syrup, for example, will have a major effect), your caramel coating for apples has much more fat in it than your candy coating for corn. I would expect your candy apples to be crunchier than your caramel corn although this will heavily depend on technique.
Corn syrup is often used to decrease the chance of crystallization, which may make your candy apple recipe easier than your caramel corn recipe but that will depend a lot on the techniques and the amounts.
The caramel for your apples may also stay dippable longer than the caramel for your popcorn would, due to the syrup, but the amount of fat in the caramel corn recipe may offset this.
Molasses will also impart a different flavor to your popcorn that your candy apples do not have. I would expect the caramel for your popcorn to add a more robust flavor.
Depending on how (or whether) you caramelize the caramel in either recipe, the caramel for your popcorn is meant to add to the flavor of your popcorn. The caramel for your apples is meant to enhance the sweetness of the apples.
Popcorn is naturally less sweet than apples. Popcorn is less than 1% sugar, whereas apples run from about 11% to 13% sugar for common varieties, and probably more for especially sweet varieties.
In the US, there are recipes with either evaporated milk or heavy cream, and they so taste subtly different. Evaporated milk, as you likely know, has a bit more of a 'cooked' almost subtle umami hint to it. Some desire that for caramels. I would say, having made both types, that you taste the dairy a bit more than you do with heavy cream.
Counter to a previous comment, I have never seen a caramel recipe with sweetened condensed milk used; though it would be possible, I would not substitute it in the recipes you referred to or I have made, as it would be overly sugary, weaken the brown or browned sugar taste, and lacking in the dairy/milk/cream taste, which is a big factor in loving caramels flavor.
With the heavy cream caramels, I think more of the sugar and butter taste comes out. It is hard to explain unless you taste them side by side and then how long the cooking and if the 'milk byproduct' doesn't curdle (not happened to me, but I have had some with this effect), the evaporated milk and even corn syrup can help counter this.
Corn syrup is often used to encourage the sugar crystals to dissolve so the outcome isn't gritty, as in fudge where it wasn't cooked properly. One crystal and the whole batch of fudge can turn granular, including caramel fudge or what is often called blonde or white fudge or penuche.
A lot of recipes are done with 'what is in the larder', and so evaporated milk was likely substituted during times of limitation such as the Depression, Dirty Thirties, wars, etc., and even if the household budget required. I even keep a can or two on the shelf in case I run out of cream. And evaporated milk in a creamed soup taste very different than when heavy cream is added. Again, you can taste the cooking in the evaporation process. The same with substituting evaporated milk for regular milk when baking bread. That 'cooked milk' taste comes forward.
I would say that caramels are delicious in and of themselves as it is the melding of brown or browned sugar, butter, and cream (or evaporated milk) so I wouldn't worry about it. Since cream often shouldn't be cooked at higher temps or for very long, or it will separate or curdle (but not as much in cooking as most tout), I would say that evaporated milk is a safer choice for success as in less chance of curdling. If I was to choose, I guess I would prefer the one with heavy cream. Additionally, about cooked milks, some I have known like to add sweetened condensed milk to their coffee instead of half 'n half or cream with sugar. I don't care for the cooked taste of the sweetened condensed milk in that either as it is quite pronounced, but I do use that product for many other things and with great aplomb.
If simplified creamy goodness is desired, then I would use heavy cream, though it all comes to a certain degree of subjectiveness, personal preference, and even a palate that may be slanted with what one is used to.
But note that with cream, that boiling pot must be watched, proverbially speaking. So I guess the discussion has come full circle to perhaps making both and tasting, or just what you like, or it may not even matter to you at all...
:D Elation
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.141811
| 2023-02-14T17:41:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123399",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113522
|
Why did this roux fail?
I needed to make gumbo for someone with a gluten allergy, so I used glutinous rice flour in the roux instead of wheat flour. At first it looked ok:
click any image for full size
When I added the "trinity," though, this happened:
Basically, the roux split, and the rice flour formed disgusting blackened clumps. Here's a close-up:
Yeah, I didn't like looking at that either. I tried again with tapioca flour, and that did work, but I'm still wondering why that happened with the rice flour. Could it have been some kind of thermal shock when the veggies went in? Or maybe a reaction to some chemical in the onion?
idk the actual answer, but 'glutinous' rice is a misnomer - it contains no gluten, so your roux can't be a roux & won't react like one.
@Tetsujin Tapioca flour also contains no gluten, but it worked just fine.
I've successfully made roux with rice flour before (not specifically glutinous). It's the starch that matters for roux so rice flour should be fine. It looks blackened through rather than burnt, is that so?
@ChrisH I'm not sure of the difference between blackened and burnt, but as soon as I put the veg in, the roux separated and the solids clumped up and turned black. It was like watching milk curdle when you put in lemon juice.
I think for 'generic cajun' the colour isn't bad; it seems to be a matter of taste as to how dark to cook the roux. Personally I like a little lighter as I find it tends to overpower if too dark, but again, personal taste. I'd have been interested to see if it would recover texture as more liquid was introduced later in the process, like cornflour would so long as you never let it cool.
Burning will always start at the surface and take time to propagate. You'll probably smell it, and it's highly unlikely to happen in contact with wet ingredients. Crucially it would have to dry out, and your example looks wet
I've made Gumbo with standard (non-sticky) rice flour and it comes out just fine.
After the starches are cooked with oil, and you added the vegetables, as the vegetables cooked they would have released moisture, which the starch absorbed and caused the formation of the lumps (like miniature dough-boys).
Some tips to prevent this from happening:
make the roux and sweat the vegetables separately
allow the roux to cool (off the heat) so when it is used then the absorption is less intense, you can increase the heat after the roux has had some amount of liquid to it. traditionally it is thickened continually while adding liquid but the cheating method is to leave the roux cool and add all the liquid, then keep stirring (to prevent sticking to the bottom) while over high heat and until the mixture comes to a simmer
if browned colour or freezing (leftovers) is not required then consider using mashed potatoes, mashed potato flour (NOT potato starch) or plain rice instead.
avoid glutinous rice starch, potato starch, and tapioca starch for roux. the end product is not as good mouthfeel as other starches, and they can make the mixture like glue/slime.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.142608
| 2021-01-01T16:21:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113522",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Tetsujin",
"crmdgn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124121
|
BBQ chicken and burger patty too dry
I m not an expert at BBQ but last time I made them, 2 things happened. When they were looking juicy and cooked from outside, when checked from inside they were still raw but after cooking for a while, they were slightly black/burned and were dried.
I was using charcoal grill and I used 2 packets of BBQuick lumpwood and stainless steel
I started BBQing when they were almost red and white colour
What could I be doing wrong and how to make my BBQ juicy?
I would suggest using a lower temperature/lower fire. It sounds like the outside overcooked before the inside was done. Plus, if you are using metal skewers (pictured) they will conduct heat to the inside fairly quickly. It wouldn't take long to go from under to overcooked over very hot coals.
How to find out if chicken, burger patty are cooked on right temperature and not undercooked?
@localhost use a probe thermometer, be sure to factor in carry-over cooking.
What is carry-over cooking?
@localhost https://www.recipetips.com/glossary-term/t--38606/carryover-cooking.asp
The grill you have is more like a hibachi than the more usual grill used in the US.
It will cook very hot because the food is so close to the coals. It will work well for things like Indonesian-style skewers, where the meat is cut fairly thin to avoid the problem you had: scorched outside before the inside is cooked.
To cook thicker pieces of meat, you'll want a grill that allows you to raise the meat further above the coals, giving a lower cooking temperature. If you use a grill with a cover, you also use more ambient heat for cooking rather than direct (radiated) heat.
Doesn't higher raise mean longer cooking time?
@localhost, sure. The other option is to cut your meat into thinner cuts appropriate for a hibachi.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.142893
| 2023-05-07T15:49:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124121",
"authors": [
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"localhost",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113429
|
New lodge cast iron pan brown colour
I recently got the 18cm lodge cast iron pan that comes pre-seasoned. I wanted to take the pre-seasoning off using a scourer and baking soda. I then dried it and put canola oil onto it and rubbed off the excess and put it in an oven preheated at around 410F/210C for an hour and let it cool in the oven. The pan ended up looking weird like in the photos I've attached. All photos are of the same pan under different lighting-the first is in natural room lighting, the second directly under sunlight and the last one is under my yellow cooking light. Is it rust? I'm concerned about any potential health risks if I cook with it like this.
Click for full size
Your seasoning is uneven. Possibly because of the very pitted rough-cast nature of modern cast iron pans. It looks like your oil has been more attracted to itself than the pan surface.
DIY seasoning isn't evenly black to start with. It's brown. The black comes with time & repeated re-heats.
You could see if several repeated coats will eventually smooth out - seasoning is not done in one go, it's done over several repetitions using the absolute minimum of oil each time.
I'm at a loss as to why you considered it necessary to remove the professional quality seasoning provided by the manufacturer to save you have to go through this yourself. It does fortunately look like you weren't totally successful in removing all the existing seasoning, or your first DIY coat would have been spotted brown over silver-grey.
Thank you for the reply. I tried scrubbing at the seasoning because right after I bought the new pan I was advised to add another layer of seasoning to it and then it turned out a dark brown the next day which I thought was rust and tried to scrub it off. Then today I went through the seasoning process again and it turned out like this. Also, do you know if microfibre cloths can be used to apply oil or will the cloth absorb all of the oil as they are so absorbent. And if it remains patchy after multiple tries would you suggest scrubbing and starting over?
Keep it away from water, let alone soap & scourers, at least until you've rebuilt the seasoning, or it will rust. Tasty trick - fry pancetta in it (not bacon as it's often too wet, though that can depend on where you live). Reserve any fat you can pour off, wipe out the rest to as thin as you can. Put that upside down in the oven with a baking tray to catch any drips, hot as it will go (you may need to open the windows if your extractor can't keep up with the smoke). Repeat until the surface is again almost black. DIY seasoning is never quite as black as the industrial starter they gave you.
Microfibre will do, though so would a clean dish cloth (just not a paper towel as it will leave fluff) - basically you want almost 'no oil' in the pan. Wipe off as much as you can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.143081
| 2020-12-28T08:59:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113429",
"authors": [
"Pyk3",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90467"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105606
|
What are the easy ways to skim off the scum and fat from soup & stocks?
What are the easy ways to skim off the scum and fat from soup & stocks?
Very relevant: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36958/why-does-the-fat-on-my-chicken-broth-sometimes-solidify-sometimes-not
you can also use ice https://mobile.twitter.com/whoainteresting/status/1160042673803321349?lang=en
Here are some options:
Chill and scoop off solidified fat.
Use a fat separator cup.
Use a ladle to skim.
Put the stock in a pot sized to almost fill it to the brim.
Place into sink or above trashcan.
Slowly stick another clean pot or bottle or mug into the stock to cause it to overflow.
The grease runs over the edge before the water portion of the stock does.
@moscafj is correct
Another, more wasteful way, for a small amount of fat on the surface is to drop a paper towel flat on the surface just long enough for it to get wet, then pick it up from the center and discard. This picks up fat and scum bubbles, but wastes a paper towel and some of the soup or stock. It doesn't do great for things on the outside edge, but another paper towel can get those by swiping around the edge. I usually do this only after skimming.
(Someday, I'll get around to using a vacuum with a homemade aspirator bottle to see if I can vacuum off the fat, but it'll have to be something that's really easy to dump out and put in a dishwasher.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.143345
| 2020-02-29T16:47:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105606",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100644
|
Marinated Chicken without Grill
How would you prepare the following marinated chicken without a grill? I tried pan searing my chicken after marinating for 24 hrs but completely blackened the exterior without cooking the inside much. Would the oven retain the marinade flavor, should I invest in a griddle, or just change recipes?
I'd say the difference between frying or even using a griddle pan is that compared to a grill [US] barbecue [UK] that the latter generates more heat all round the food as it's cooking, as opposed to mainly the portion touching the surface of the pan.
With that in mind, some possible solutions…
Fry then oven - would give you the surface texture plus enough time to cook the inside. [Oven then fry might work too, though the surface would then be more difficult to fry evenly].
Butterfly the chicken before marinating, or even just slice in half - half the thickness, quicker to cook to the centre, with double the crispy surface & more marinade on it. Stronger flavour & a change in the proportion of textures, but you may like it that way.
Broil [US] grill [UK] with a more controlled temperature. You could achieve a similar, though not identical result compared to the default grill/barbecue method. You can decrease cooking time slightly by using metal skewers through the centre, like a kebab.
You could try one of these pans or something similar (I just grabbed a google image for the bottom more than anything). Before I had a griddle I used my stove with something like that and my food generally turned out not as you described, and I use a lot of marinades and sauces in my cooking.
Also check what temperature your setting your oven to, if are using a pan for something like this turn down the heat and cook it slower.
They typically call it a 'grill pan'.
Thanks, learned something new today. I can cook I just don't know jargon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.143479
| 2019-08-08T20:08:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100644",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105611
|
How to Remove Burned-on Grease from Stove
I have not been wiping the stove top after cooking for several years. Last month I tried to clean it by taking some baking soda + water and scrubbing with steel wool. I did manage to get a lot of the dirt off but it is not clean enough. Any suggestions about how I can remove the grease off the stove top?
Have you tried actual soap (dish soap) or only baking soda?
You haven't cleaned the stove for years and expect a perfect result from one cleaning? Repeat the cleaning over the next weeks and eventually, your oven will bd clean again.
Note: 3 answers so far, recommending 4 different products I've never heard of. Please consider when answering that you are speaking to an international audience. Brand names are not always international.
Sure. But people can always look up these cleaners and find country equivalents. For example, if you don't have Easy Off Oven Cleaner, you can still look up "oven cleaner" as a starting point and also see what chemicals are there. Note that also cleaners in the same "class" may also be wildly different and a brand name is the most succinct description -- for example, I find Method's all purpose cleaner useless, but Formula 409 (another all purpose cleaner) useful.
I'd try dish soap first with a scrubby sponge. Then, a cleaner like Formula 409 with a scrubby sponge if that doesn't work -- this usually works with a bit of elbow grease/a few tries.
And if that doesn't work, you can always go nuclear with something Easy Off Oven Cleaner (This is inconsistent with the manufacturer instructions, so I would not recommend it even though I've done it before and it worked).
Was my answer i substance. Oven cleaner on enameled surface works. It is strong, so spray somfinish tolerates that, then do more.e and wipe clear with water after 15 minutes. See how the
Is there any reason why I don't want to use Easy Off Oven Cleaner first? I saw a few videos of people using it on their Oven and it seems real good!
It's pretty nasty stuff (lye, aka sodium hydoxide) -- it'll get the stuff off, but you want to clean up after it well and don't get it on you cause it'll burn. Things like 409 aren't great for your skin but they're a heck of a lot gentler.
Automatic dishwasher detergent.
The gel type like Cascade (in US) is good for this. It is thick so it will stay where you put it. The active ingredient is sodium carbonate which saponifies fats and makes them easy to wipe off. It does not stink like ammonia. It will not scratch the enamel. Plus you might already have some.
Put some dishwasher gel on the grease and leave it overnight. In the morning you will be able to wipe the gel and grease off.
For drip pans, try to leave the baking soda for a longer time and spray it with a vinegar mixed with equal part of water and 5 drops of lemon essential oil if available. I always let it set for a couple hours to let the reaction do its job, then I scrub it with a steel wool pad.
For burners, you can do the same or just clean them with any good soap that you have and let it set for a couple minutes before you wash them.
BTW, that's not grease - it maybe was initially, but it's now a polymer like cast-iron pan seasoning.
Clean it off with supermarket oven cleaner, any brand.
My personal favourite is the liquid one in the middle - but that's for the UK market & may not be available where you are, or may come under a different name, which is why brand recommendations don't work so well for an international audience
It's OK on the enamel & chrome, but don't get any on the rings, it may damage the surface. You might find a pour-on rather than a spray-on easier to handle. Wear gloves. Some products are supplied with gloves.
Leave it overnight & you'll do it in one pass.
Nothing 'soap-like' will touch it, nor baking soda.
Don't use steel wool on enamel, you'll scratch it.
I once wanted to clean a pan to a degree that it shines, then I had the cleaning material on its handles and it was just useless afterwards. "don't get any on the rings" is a very good point that could prevent such tragedies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.143675
| 2020-02-29T23:49:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105611",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Gigili",
"Johannes_B",
"Jon",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Tetsujin",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100923
|
How to estimate Scoville level of home-made pepper sauce??
I am making a sauce that has:-
3 Ghost peppers,
1 Cherry Bomb pepper,
1 Jalapeño pepper,
1 Habanero pepper,
1 Lady Finger pepper.
It also has Tabasco sauce and Cayenne pepper.
My friends want to know what the Scoville level might be.
This can be a party activity for your friends. The Scoville test is a dilution test, so you can reproduce it at home at least as far as informing your friends is concerned.
Get a lot of distilled water and a bunch of milk and plain bread.
Create dilutions of the hot sauce by adding 1ml of hot sauce to each of 250ml, 500ml, 1000ml, 2l, 5l, and 10l of distilled water.
Have each of three friends blind taste test the diluted sauce against a glass of plain distilled water, starting with the most diluted.
Cleanse palates between rounds with bread & milk.
The dilution at which the hot sauce's heat cannot be tasted by any of your friends reliably is its approximate Scoville rating. Yes, it's not quite how the actual Scoville test works in the lab, but even if you don't get a rating out of it, it'll be a fun thing for your pepper-loving friends to do on a Sunday afternoon.
Let's hope there's no oil in the sauce:P A friend of mine makes [proper commercial, trend & lifestyle market stuff] chilli oil, which by that method would come out as 'zero' or 'omg' depending on whether you got the single oil drop in your mouthful of the 10l. [I'm aware that doesn't make my answer any better, of course ;)
Yeah, there's all kinds of ways that this is a limited approach. As far as I know, though, there's no labs that do scoville testing for hire.
I doubt anyone can say with any real accuracy & without a test lab.
For a guess, with no real reason to believe it will be accurate…
Take the values of each multiplied by the number of 'elements' & divide that figure by the total elements. Then divide again for any 'thinners', water, oil etc.
For the Tabasco & cayenne you'll have to work out what constitutes 'one element', as scoville is not concerned with quantity, per se.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.144023
| 2019-08-23T13:30:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100923",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100186
|
How do I separate my melted rock candies?
I recently bought a a jar of rock candies and after one night, they have melted and all stuck together. How do I separate them again to eat them? (I tried freezing, it didn’t work!)
Would it be possible for you to provide a picture so we can get a measure of the level to which they are stuck together?
we need to know what type of container, can you remove the candy from the container, and what things you have tried so far (other than freezing).
If you can get them out of the jar, I would suggest a hammer.
Put them in a plastic bag and whack them with the hammer.
You might be able to use a knife (carefully) to pry them apart depending on much they are stuck together.
That is why I say "if you can get them out of the jar"
ok, I overfocused on hammer, my bad
You can try filling jar with water (warm water is more effective) so they start dissolving and unstuck. Then they can be dried outside of the jar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.144213
| 2019-07-14T06:13:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100186",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Max",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99195
|
Preserving culinary oils
I've been making a chili oil and green onion oil for my friends for months with a lot of interest in buying. I want to start selling it at farmers markets & stores but want to ensure it is properly preserved. Can anyone advise on how to do so? How can I find the expiration date?
Location would be helpful - local laws apply to commercial preparations, you need to read up on these and see if 1) you can do this with your set-up, many places require commercial premises for preparation of foods for sale 2)how to determine expiration dates.
And please tell us you are not simply submerging cut fresh chilies and onions in oil. In that case, you should learn about botulism ASAP. (Not criticism, just worried.)
garlic tends to be a huge problem for botulism, but onions (even green) grow in the dirt, too. related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/9451/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15113/67
@Joe: Even things that don't grow in the dirt can be a botulism risk. Green beans, for example, are notorious for being a botulism risk when improperly home-canned, since they're not acidic enough to kill off the spores.
@bob1 - I'm in NYC. Also looking into local places in case that is a requirement.
@Stephie - It's a heated process, but i was just reading all about this. I've been refrigerating it (which I read is alright if used within a week), but now quite nervous
@StephenWoodall it may sound bad, but: Good! It’s better to be aware of a risk and dealing with it appropriately than being oblivious and suffering from the consequences. The risk is small, but real, and botulism is no picknick.
You don't realize it, but you've asked a hot-button question. Expect to get lots of comments about botulism, etc. This is a result of a report a few years back about folks getting botulism from homemade garlic oil. I'll keep my answer practical.
First, depending on where you live, your state, city, county, or other regional government may already have health codes for infused oils. You need to research these and follow them; regardless of the actual safety of your oils, if you don't follow the rules you could be facing a hefty fine and a court order to never sell food products again.
Second, contamination of infused oils by anaerobic bacteria (of which botulism is only one) is a real danger, so you need to treat your oils to prevent it. These methods include dehydrating the seasonings before adding them to the oil, acidifying them, or even pressing out the oils from the seasonings and using those instead of the whole seasoning.
You can also make the oil safe through pastuerization. Heating the oil (ideally dehydrated first) up to at least 121C/250F for 4 minutes or more should kill even botulism spores (the hardiest of the anaerobic bacteria). You need to make sure the water is gone from the solids before you heat the oil, which means either using dehydrated seasonings, or straining out the solids and then pasteurizing the oil. Also, depending on the type of oil you use, this pastuerization may harm its flavor; certainly unfiltered extra virgin olive oil will change flavor if heated this way.
Hope that helps, and good luck with your new business!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.144334
| 2019-05-27T15:13:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99195",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Michael Seifert",
"Stephen Woodall",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75770"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101034
|
Why do recipes often use ingredients of a similar color together?
One thing I've noticed anecdotally is that a lot recipes is that recipes often use ingredients of matching colors (e.g., almost deliberately using lots of green ingredients together).
Is this a thing in cooking? Is this for visual appeal? Is it just biased sample of recipes I cook? Any insights would be appreciated!
Occasionally, sure. Green goddess dressing wouldn't be as much fun with tomato paste added, and strawberries would look awful embedded in blue Jell-O.
In general, though, recipes tend to derive their color almost entirely from one or two ingredients. A ragu Napoletano has a ton of ingredients of different colors, but the dominant color is red from the tomatoes and adding some more thyme isn't going to change that.
That's not to say that color isn't important to food. One reason a beurre blanc matches so well with white fish is because the light color implies a subtlety of flavor which works with the delicacy of the fish. Dark brown suggests more of a roasted, savory flavor; greenness suggests freshness; blue suggests artificiality. To a certain extent, these associations happened naturally rather than through developed convention, and as a consequence recipes will often have the "correct" color automatically. But it's common to adjust a recipe to perfect the color, particularly in this era of Instagram.
One thing you might notice is various green ingredients being close together in the recipe. That's not the green section, though -- it's the herb section, since the author chose to group the herbs together.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.144705
| 2019-08-29T22:14:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101034",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116181
|
Can one make a pourable custard by baking in an oven?
Making fresh custard with eggs and milk isn't really difficult, but takes time away from preparing other bits of the meal, and can go wrong (e.g. bits of scrambled eggs from too fast heating). Thinking about this question - Why do I need to use oven to make creme brulee? - about why crème brûlée is cooked in the oven rather than the hob, my question is:
Is it feasible to make a pourable custard just by mixing eggs, milk (or cream?), vanilla and sugar and baking it in the oven? If so what time and temperature should be used?
Yes, you can certainly make a pourable custard in the oven. The difference between pourable and firm custard is only in the amount of eggs. The custard will get done nevertheless, at the same final temperature reached. You will have to wait for a few hours instead of having it done in a few minutes, but it will work.
The time and temperature are exactly as for the firm custard. The temperature should be around 100 C, maybe up to 120, and the time is until you hit 83 to 86 internal.
What you can't do is a pipeable custard. For that, you need enough yolks (and other fat in the recipe) to make a very thick custard, but you cannot let it set firm. So, you have to stir it constantly.
Seeing that there are similar questions cropping up, a few more general words: Your food does not know if it is in an oven or on a stovetop, or somewhere else. What matters for it is 1) the pattern of heat transfer over time, and 2) the right agitation. The two do interact to some extent (in the example of this question, you can heat a custard to a certain final temperature by either adding hot milk to the eggs and stirring really quickly, or by sticking the mixture into the oven and waiting until everything has been heated up), but typically, it is the agitation that limits your choices.
Naturally, some foods have very strict requirements for agitation, heat transfer pattern, or both (e.g. a whipped cream needs tons of agitation, while a lasagna cannot have any), while others don't. If you know the requirements of a food, it doesn't matter what device you use to create them. If you don't know them, or know that the tolerable range is wide, best stick with the standard methods, they have become a standard for a reason.
I'm chuckling at the idea of whisking a lasagne continuously on the stovetop.
@dbmag9 glad I could bring some humor into your day, we can all use such moments :)
A side note - the last statement is of course very generalized. There certainly are some instances where the optimal method is not the standard one. Also, sometimes people care for something other than being optimal, e.g. for having some fun while experimenting. I am not trying to forbid anybody for using any other methods, just pointing out the best strategy (on average) for people who are unsure what choice to make and want the least hassle with the highest chance of success.
As stated in my answer to the question you reference, my experience is using sous vide to achieve these results. You will need about 180F (82C) for about 40 minutes using sous vide. It can probably be done in the oven, keeping track of temperature and viscosity, but in this case, it's probably quicker to use the stove top. If you are worried about curdling, use a double boiler (or stainless bowl over a pot of water). It really doesn't take that long to thicken in this manner.
However you choose to do this, the solution is to agitate, stir, or pour during and/or after cooking. Custard is an egg fluid gel that sets because of the networked structure of proteins. If you disturb that network, you have a pourable custard that will likely not set up. This is why set custard is prepared in ramekins or vessels in which it is served.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.144852
| 2021-06-23T11:46:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116181",
"authors": [
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115060
|
How do I avoid microwave-safe covers melting in the microwave?
I've twice now had a microwave cover that was advertised as microwave safe melt while heating food.
The first time, I was reheating Chinese leftovers (3 minutes on 950W, like I usually reheat my foot) and the cover melted above the rice. I ended up eating the rest of the food and not eating the rice.
The second time, my mother was heating a casserole pot with rotisserie chicken (5-6 minutes on 650W, though I'm not sure if that's the actual heat we use for that) and again part of the cover melted. We ended up not eating the skin, assuming that the rest of the chicken would be fine.
These weren't the first times we used these covers either: both of these covers were tall (the first one was as tall as a 4-5" smartphone, the second one slightly taller than an IKEA Dinera bowl) and already in use for several years before they melted. We didn't accidentally use non-microwave settings either.
We still have 2 lower covers (about 3/4 the height of a Dinera bowl), but we'd rather not have these melt as well. Problem is I think these are the same material as the one that just melted, and while they're still intact, they're about the same age as the second one that melted. All of our covers were marketed as microwave friendly.
Is there anything specific that can be done to avoid microwave covers melting in the microwave?
Example:-
A picture of your container might help. Are you describing the kind of quart containers that you get from take out restaurants? While the container itself does fine in the microwave, the tops will melt.
How much melting? Were they touching food (or even getting more than normally splashed/splashed with hot fat)?
@moscafj I'm talking about something similar like this: https://www.dunelm.com/product/good2heat-microwave-plate-cover-1000071816. Something you can place over a plate/bowl/dish in order to keep any accidentally splatters from hitting the side and top of your microwave and leaving a mess to clean up.
@ChrisH the melting was a hole the size of a tablespoon where it appeared an entire section of the cover was just gone, with the edges being bent downwards. I'll see if I can find a picture of the melted cover. I know I took one, but I need to find it on my phone.
@ChrisH Update: I can't seem to find the picture of the partially melted lid on my phone. It might be from my previous phone, which I stopped using in 2016.
If you want to prevent spattering, a moistened paper towel over your food will do that and won't melt in the microwave. It will also keep food from drying out in the microwave.
@Esther - yum. Curry sauce & rice stuck to a half-wet, half-dry paper towel… no thanks :P
A much easier method is to ditch any kind of microwave covers and simply place an upturned plate onto the food you are microwaving.
I'm no plastics expert but a general rule of thumb is the softer the plastic initially, the more likely it is to melt (I know that sound too obvious, but hey;) Something to do with thermoset vs thermoplastic.
The trouble with plastics being advertised as microwave-safe is it is a limited claim. If you microwave a bowl of water covered by the lid, then you're fine… forever.
However, if you get food, especially fat, on it then that will create a local heat spot far in excess of what the plastic can stand.
I've found that it's not worth spending money on heat-proof covers when in fact far more heat-resistant plastics are readily available - for free.
Your take-away food will come in one - both container & lid are quite likely to survive being nuked with a really greasy curry inside, with little ill effect except perhaps some staining.
Likewise, those supermarket dishes containing ready meals are even more resilient. I have some of those still in use from probably 20 years ago. They can get a bit bashed & the edges will chip after a time until you decide they're no longer worth keeping.
They all go through the dishwasher with no worries too [so long as you make sure they don't flip over, they're very light.]
I have actually been known to buy supermarket ready meal products like this just for the dish ;)
This is NOT the type of microwave cover I'm talking about. I'm talking about the covers you put over plates in order to reheat the food that's on them without splattering all over the inside of your microwave.
Indeed - what happens when you turn over a dish… it becomes a cover.
yeah, but I don't reheat my takeaway in the dishes they come in, and these dishes don't have the right shapes for our plates anyways. My plates are all round, and the takeaway dishes they sell at the supermarket are significantly smaller than the plates, both in length and in width.
It seems like you're not interested in anything other than 'what you already do'… which I thought was why you asked in the first place. Then the first part of my answer is all you need.
This answer would be awesome if there was a takeaway dish that was large enough to invert over a regular dish. Without that it's an interesting idea but not a solution.
You can get supermarket insta-food dishes large enough, hence my answer.
Speaking of microwaving curry in the container it came in …. I actually had the lid of mine melt exactly that way. Now I transfer it to a separate container (I actually just use a prior curry container that’s been washed) and haven’t had problems. I think it’s exactly what you said about the oil on the lid
The problem here is the way that microwaves work. Instead of heating your food evenly, they heat small pockets of your food to very high temperatures, while leaving the rest of the food cold. If the superheated food touches the cover, it will melt the plastic. So, there are a few things you can do to avoid that.
Don't let the cover touch the food.
Heat your food more slowly. Heat for 1 minute, remove the cover and stir, put the cover back on and wait 1 minute, heat again for 1 minute. Repeat as needed until the food is fully heated. The purpose of the waiting time is to let the heat from the heated spots in the food disperse into the colder parts of the food, thereby preventing the same spots from getting super heated. Stirring also helps distribute the heat more evenly. The cover helps by keeping steam and hot air trapped around the food, so it continues heating even while the microwave is off.
Instead of manually starting and stopping the microwave, you can use the microwave's lower power settings. In most microwaves this setting doesn't actually heat at a lower power; instead it heats on full power for a while, then stops heating for a while, then heats on full power again. So you can set the microwave to heat for 6 minutes at half power instead of 3 minutes at full power. It's still a good idea to pause the cycle once or twice to stir the food.
If the food is greasy, it's still possible that the cover will melt in spots where grease splatters on it. There's no great fix for that. You can wipe the grease splatters off the cover whenever you stop the microwave to stir your food. If you're cooking something particularly greasy, put a piece of waxed paper between the food and the cover. Waxed paper doesn't stick to food as badly as a paper towel does.
+1. You could add to this the complexity of microwaving ceramics. Some block, some let the microwaves through unhindered. The 'simple' test is if the plate gets hot without conduction from the food, i.e. if the plate rim gets hot, not just the part directly under the food. In our house we have (from the same manufacturer) plates that are fine yet dishes that will burn you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.145176
| 2021-04-01T10:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115060",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Diu.Lei",
"Esther",
"Nzall",
"Sobachatina",
"Tetsujin",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103762
|
What milk and yoghurt is the best for mango lassi?
What amount (percentage) of fat does the typical plain yoghurt and a typical milk has? Or what is the best milk and yoghurt to prepare a mango lassi?
I'd like to prepare a typical mango lassi, based on a recipe given on of the mango pulp's cans:
But, I don't know, what exactly plain yoghurt and milk (percentage of fat) means here?
Here, where I live (Poland), we have at least four types of yoghurt, based on fat amount:
0.0%,
1.8% or 2.0%,
3.0% and
10.0% Greek style.
But, we call them all plain yoghurt, because "plain" means no sugar and no fruit-like additions.
We also have at least four types of milk, also based on fat amount:
0.0%,
0.5%,
1.5% or 2.0%,
3.2% and
3.8%.
What would be the best yoghurt and milk for the mango lassi preparation?
So far (until I found the above recipe) I've been using a much simpler recipe of mango pulp + plain yoghurt, without milk and water. And I have used following combinations:
pulp + 1.8% yoghurt in 1:1.5 proportions,
pulp + 10.0 Greek style yoghurt in 1:1 proportions.
In both cases the results were not the best (meaning: the final product was tasty, but far from what is served in Indian restaurant).
It all depends on taste [of course].
Lower fat milk & yoghurt are sharper, more tangy, almost 'lemony'.
High fat are rich, smooth & creamy.
So, start with 'How tart do you like your lassi?' & work from there.
Personally, I like lassi to have some 'bite' to it, so I'd go for zero-fat yoghurt & probably what in the UK would be called semi-skimmed milk, around 2% fat - but that may have more to do with it being the one we always have in the fridge than any other consideration.
I'd say if you want a 'smoother' feel to it, increase fat content on both, but be prepared to have to thin it down further to achieve a drinkable consistency.
BTW, don't use set yoghurt ;)
Yoghurt itself varies in acidity between varieties even at the same fat content, so you have the additional task of figuring out which brand gives the best start-point.
I can't really recommend any particular brand as I doubt they sell my usual Lancashire Farm in Poland ;) but I'd always pick a large independent who look like they might actually care over one of the major multinationals.
An additional factor is that you can now get zero fat Greek yoghurt… which completely breaks the standard pattern of lower-fat == more acidic.
Also worth considering: If you're making a mango lassi to potentially rescue you in case you get into food that's too (spicy) hot then fat content is crucial. I use "whole milk" (3% milk fat) and "full-fat plain yogourt" (6% milk fat). It's on the rich side, but I'm not about to sit down a drink a whole pitcher of the stuff; I just have it on hand as a "fire extinguisher".
@GordThompson sugar is also important for that
Why not use "set yoghurt"? Just wondering...
Partly because you don't know whether it was set by leaving to stand or by adding gelatin etc which makes it hard to stir in. I really dislike set yoghurt. It feels very 'artificial' to me & I simply avoid it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.145807
| 2019-11-28T07:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103762",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Gord Thompson",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50322",
"jeffmcneill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102324
|
What is this veggie sushi in japan?
I found this photo on the internet. I am going to japan next week. I would like to know what is the veggie on the sushi. I think it looks like some spring onion but would like to be sure.
Can't say for sure, but it looks like spring onion… however, it doesn't look like actual Japanese sushi, it looks a bit "LA nouveau" to me. Are you certain it's actually Japanese?
Not really sure but the site mention Yoshi Zushi in Ueno, Tokyo.
Can't be totally sure but it looks more like chives to me.
tbh, it's nearly 20 years since I was there… I guess there's such a thing as 're-importing' LA ideas back to Japan ;) @Cindy chives are 'green all the way', spring onions go to white, but I'm not sure; you may be right. stupid long google images link
@Tetsujin Looking at the pics you linked, I'm thinking maybe Asian chives?
@Cindy - I'd had that thought too - but still can't be 100% certain
Incidentally - Japan is really good at showing you pictures of everything you're about to order [& even stunningly realistic plastic models in some places] - you could maybe reverse that onto the serving staff & show them that picture. There's every possibility they will recognise it immediately.
@Tetsujin Guess we can't know for sure. Perhaps the OP can update us after his trip.
Looks like Chinese Chives to me.
That is Scallion Sushi ;-)
Looks like nira (don't know the english name of that)
@JulianaKarasawaSouza this? The entry gives “Nira” as Japanese name.
@Stephie, yeah, looks a little bit like it ^^'
It's scallion sushi
And again
"Filler text to reach the 30 character limit for posts."
Welcome! Instead of a “filler”, the answer would benefit from a bit more information... and as both links essential lead to one source, it definitely needs more details and explanation to avoid a “spammy” touch.
@Stephie, I really don't have anything positive to say about scallion sushi, so I thought it would be better to leave it at that. I linked two separate sources with different takes on the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.146084
| 2019-09-15T17:26:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102324",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"vasin1987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112287
|
What is this oddly shaped hinged device with indentations?
What is this device? It's about 8cm long when closed, and has little indentations on the top piece and raised lines on the bottom. Possibly it could be used to crush garlic etc.?
You sure can use it for the mythical allium sativum giganteum enormum! One clove feeds 4 ;-).
It's a lemon/lime wedge juice squeezer.
Only place I've ever really seen them used is in British Indian restaurants.
Pop a wedge in the gap, squeeze the handles, juice can be poured with reasonable accuracy from any of the fluted edges. No messy fingers.
Image from Amazon
Correct. Also seen in middle-class German restaurants (-> lemon juice on Viennese schnitzel) or cafes (-> lemon for your tea), especially back in the 1960s and later. Haven’t seen them in years.
Well actual used in minimum one German restaurant at the Baltic Sea for the fish :)
looks cool, but ultimately is just a one trick tool nobody really needs adding clutter.
I want one! Very widely available on the web.
@dandavis Depends on how many tools you actually have, and if this particular tool is something you would use often.
Once a week, maybe. It's pretty small. I have a potato ricer that is used maybe once a month.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.146291
| 2020-10-25T07:19:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112287",
"authors": [
"Allerleirauh",
"Michael Harvey",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Stephie",
"chepner",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89269"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102386
|
What is this utensil for?
My sister inherited a bunch of tupperware and plastic utensils. One of them, we couldn't understand its purpose.
Click for full size
Ideas so far is to keep pizza-box lid from falling, or to measure equidistance for slices in a cake. What is the name and purpose of this utensil?
Hi everybody, I would like to remind you that comments are for clarification, not for answering. If you have a guess, please write it into an answer. "I don't know for certain, it's just a guess" is not a reason to write it into a comment - please post it either as an answer, or not at all.
My google-fu powers tell me that yes, it's indeed a mini cake divider.
You put it on top of the cake and slice through the slits to get uniformly sized cake slices.
Ha! I assumed it was a food holder/finger protector for a mandolin slicer. Good answer.
@rumtscho - I write this with all due respect and appreciation for your work and balanced moderation, but is it the best idea to chastise users for extraneous commenting and then post a digressive comment on the same question? While your comment is interesting (in a broad sense), it doesn't help answer the question, nor does offer information or a constructive suggestion to improve the answer. It is, frankly, off-topic and indirectly critical of the device OP asked about. Normally, I wouldn't care, but I'm not sure it's helpful to send mixed messages about comments on the same post.
@athanasius point taken, thank you for speaking up
@PoloHoleSet my first guess just by looking at the photo was the same, but then I read the question and I thought the cake thing made sense - although I never saw one before. TIL.
I'm guessing that the utensil can be turned upside down for ring-shape cakes as well!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.146426
| 2019-09-19T10:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102386",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"BlueMoon93",
"Luciano",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78593",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102736
|
How to recover a cast-iron pot?
I heated up a cast-iron pot in an oven and might have burnt the lid. Is it possible to restore it back to its formal glory?
Possible duplicate of: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7127/how-to-clean-a-burnt-cast-iron-pot?rq=1
@MarkWildon, this isn't a dup. because the OP has incorrectly identified her pot as cost iron, when it is an enameled cast iron (slightly different care and maintenance) and is answered below. The link you described has great info but not applicable here, as those tips don't apply to this particular issue.
That is an enameled cast iron pot. I often have the same issue and find that it fairly easily comes off using a green 3M nylon scrub, a little dish soap and some elbow grease. If necessary you can also apply some baking powder or Bar Keeper's Friend.
It shouldn't take too much effort to get it off.
+1 exactly what I would write. I would only add that you should get the water as hot as you can possibly stand. I found it helps in my experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.146601
| 2019-10-06T07:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102736",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125519
|
Veganizing a Kringle recipe
I am attempting to veganize a Kringle for an upcoming event. Below is the original recipe I am referencing, and I am stumped as to how to replace the egg in the dough portion. I have never seen a pastry dough recipe with an egg included - is it for moisture or is there another reason? Original recipe link
For the Pastry Dough
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 cup bread flour
3 tbsp granulated sugar
2 tsp instant yeast
1 tsp fine sea salt
1 cup unsalted butter, cold, cut into 1/2" pieces
1/3 cup whole milk, cold
1 egg, large, cold
1 egg white, for egg wash
For the Kringle Filling
1.5 cups pecans, finely chopped
1 cup brown sugar, firmly packed
1/2 cup butter, room temperature
For the Icing
1 cup powdered sugar
1 tsp vanilla extract
1 pinch fine sea salt
For the Salted Caramel Glaze
1/4 cup unsalted butter
1/4 cup granulated sugar
1/4 cup brown sugar, packed
1/2 cup whipping cream
The butter, milk, sugar substitutes are all simple swaps and I have an entirely different caramel glaze recipe to utilize. Soy milk works as a substitute for an egg wash, so that part is covered. All I can think is to substitute the egg in the dough for an equivalent amount of vegan sour cream or silken tofu, if the purpose of the egg in this recipe is for moisture alone? Any assistance or light that could be shed on why the egg is in this recipe would be very much appreciated.
This is an enriched yeasted dough, like cinnamon roll dough (or even bread dough), so the reasons for egg and its substitutes will be similar. see
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76845/egg-substitue-in-enriched-breads
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76308/vegan-egg-substitute-in-sweet-roll-dough
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20830/egg-replacer-for-bread-dough
thank you! the other kringle recipes i saw were closer to pie dough/puff pastry. apparently the above recipe is the closest to a Wisconsin kringle, which is what was requested
This recipe has two uses for the egg:
1 whole egg for the pastry itself
1 egg white for the egg wash prior to baking.
The egg in the pastry is there for four reasons: the proteins give the pastry structure while also providing lift to the pastry as it bakes; the lecithin acts as a strong emulsifier to bring the water and oil-based ingredients together; and the fat in the egg yolk contributes to the overall flavor. (It's debatable how much structure an egg actually provides in a recipe with so much flour, but the other reasons are more pressing concerns when substituting the egg.)
Replacing eggs in recipe is not a mean feat, and some experimentation will likely be required before you settle on a result you're satisfied with. That said, here are some common ways that eggs have been replaced in recipes:
Flax seed egg, made by combining ground flax seed and water. It's a "fairly close" substitute for eggs by being adequate in the structure and emulsifying categories. However, it does not provide lift or much flavor.
Chia egg, made by combining ground chia seeds and water. Similar to a flax seed egg, chia eggs form a more gel-like consistency.
Applesauce (1/4 cup). While not as effective at structure and emulsifying as the chia/flax seed eggs, it does provide flavor (albeit an applesauce flavor).
Banana mash (1/4 cup). Same as applesauce, a decent option if you don't mind imparting a banana flavor.
Vegan yogurt (1/4). Big win on the flavor side (not to mention also makes the resulting pastry delightfully moist), but missing out on the structure and lift.
There are some other options floating around, but they get progressively more specific in the effects they provide. Furthermore, they all suffer from a critical flaw: nothing is a perfect 1:1 replacement for all the benefits that eggs bring to the table. You are going to have to settle on an approach via trial and error with the ingredients and quantities to get the results you want. The most common approach would be to use a flax/chia egg (1 tbsp ground flax/chia seed + 2-3 tbsp water) and call it good, but a combination of two tablespoons each of vegan yogurt and applesauce (along with perhaps half a teaspoon of baking powder to help with the rise) sounds like it could also be a compelling route. Your mileage will absolutely vary.
The good news is that replacing the egg in the egg wash is relatively much more simple. The egg wash is for helping the pastry crisp up and get that nice golden brown color typical of baked goods. Some checking indicates that either coconut oil or a vegan milk and agave/maple syrup mix can yield similar results. You could also just choose to forgo the wash entirely as the only real consequence of not using it is your pastry will look dull and less appealing but will still taste just as good (which might be fine as most of the pastry will be covered by icing anyway).
thank you! combined with esther's insight that this is an enriched yeast dough, i can assume the egg is for moisture/binding more than leavening. i will likely try a combination of flax and vegan yogurt to produce a creamier flax egg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.146809
| 2023-10-11T13:58:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125519",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"annag",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97049
|
Is marinating raw fish in sweet fortified wine safe?
Is marinating raw fish in sweet fortified wine safe, or will the presence of sugar foster bacteria growth ?
The wine is 16.5% ABV and the whole thing is kept in a fridge.
Besides bacterial growth, keep in mind this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisakis In the Mediterranean area we always consumed lemon juice marinated anchovies, but now is kind of taboo without deep freezing first. Not sure is due to awareness or an effective spread of anisakis.
Without knowing the wine and the sugar content as well as whether you are adding anything else to the marinade, we can't say much. I would hazard a guess that you should be fine (speaking as a microbiologist...), however it will depend on how fresh the fish is, how heavy a contamination you are likely to have in the first place, and the preparation conditions for the flesh.
Alcohol is moderately good at inhibiting some bacterial species, though not some yeasts (these are what produce the alcohol in the wine fermentation). However, studies have found that enteric bacteria, such as those that commonly cause food poisoning are not inhibited fully by the percentages found in wine, indeed - you would need more like 70% (commonly used in microbiology labs for sterilization of surfaces), or even higher % for bacteria found in the ice in drinks served in a bar to completely kill bacteria.
On the other hand, sugar is actually fairly good in its own right as an inhibitory substance, but you also need fairly high concentrations; in the area of 25% (in the upper range for sweet wines) before it inhibits most bacteria. Below this sort of range, many bacteria will metabolize the sugar and grow quite well.
The best factor you have here is the keeping it all in the fridge - cold is pretty good at inhibiting most bacterial species from growing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.147195
| 2019-03-22T18:53:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97049",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99665
|
Is my Anchor Hocking Oven Basics glass measuring cup inaccurate?
For measuring I usually use my red plastic Betty Crocker cups.
While rearranging some dishes, I noticed the 1 cup line on the 2 cup Anchor H one looked off - greater than one cup. I poured one cup from the plastic one into the 2cup Anchor Hocking one and there was a discrepancy. See photo. Also true of the glass 1 cup AH one.
This seems enough to make a difference in some recipes and general measuring. I appreciate any thoughts.
Agree you should weight it. But... American Cup vs Metric cup?
There's no such thing as a metric 'cup', it only applies to US measures. It was never even a valid measure when the UK used Imperial. As a non-American I always thought it the most confusing measure... It's half a pint, but as a US pint isn't even the same as an Imperial pint, it's half of something I can't even measure anyway ;-) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint
!@#$%^&* Now you have me checking all my measuring cups! :-)
All of my mom's Pyrex cups are off. They expect that you learned probably nothing in chemistry class and measure from the top of the miniscus. Which means that if you measure properly (from the bottom of the miniscus, like you learned in school), you will routinely overmeasure! It's extremely frustrating.
This looks a good 1/8 cup too little though, more than the miniscus error!
Counter doesn't look to be level.
I've always wondered how well they register (align) the printing on the side of measuring cups ... I've seen a few in discount stores that were obviously off.
@MaxW and I will use water and a scale >.<
I'd get a third measuring tool to see which one is wrong.
One way to test this is to measure by weight (and IMO, all recipes should list ingredients by weight instead of volume)
1 cup of water is about 236ml which is 236g.
Get 1 cup from your red cup and weight it.
Get 1 cup from your glass cup and weight it.
It should tell you which one is right.
And to answer your question, yes, for some recipes, if you add too much or too liltle liquid it will not result in different results (either too dry or too wet).
Thank you @ Max. Will do! It's just puzzling as these cups are from two major brands.
2 out of 3 of my most used measuring cups have the scale printed at an angle... that's how much care & attention they take with these things ;) I'm with Max on anything needing critical amounts - I use my scales, which will amongst other things do fl oz/ml & tare. Problem solved.
@Tetsujin It sounds like your measuring cups are the kind designed to separate oil from broth... (maybe?)
@elbrant - No, they're simply carelessly made, the prints are askew... by a mile. I'm assuming by the Moscow Rules that it's merely coincidence... I really don't suspect 'enemy action' ;)
Pyrex glass measuring cups are for liquids.
Plastic and metal "cups" are for dry ingredients.
It's an old rule of thumb that no one seems to remember...
The issue is a difference in volume.
One half gallon of milk weighs 4#s, contains 8 cups (8x8oz = 64oz/8 = 4#s).
Four pounds (#s) of sugar also contains 64oz.
Weights can be equal, but the mass (or volume) of objects can be different. A pound of feathers still weighs a pound, but it takes more space to hold them (than it does to hold a pound of sugar).
And what does that mean considering volumetric measurements? Shouldn’t a cup be a cup?
"The measurement of weight and volume are 2 different things."
But that’s for ounces, where there’s indeed a liquid and dry ounce - the former a volumetric, the latter a weight unit that happen to share a name. I have never heard of a “solid cup” or other weight-based cup? Of course a cup of flour weights less than a cup of water, but a cup should always have the same volume (regional differences like a US tablespoon being different from a AUS tablespoon, for example, may apply).
I'm not sure what you mean by a "weight-based" cup. A cup of anything refers to 8oz - wet or dry. The amount of space it takes to contain the item would refer to it's "mass" or "volume". A pound of feathers still equals 16oz. -- it's just going to require a much larger container to hold it.
A cup of anything refers to 8 oz - meaning the liquid measure, even if you measure a dry substance. For the dry ounce, you need a scale. That you can use either a scale or a container works just for water (due to the specific volumetric density) or liquids comparable to it, exactly because a cup of feathers weighs way less than a cup of water, for example.
Not neccessarily. Weight is interchangeable. 1/8C = 1 fluid oz = 2T = 6tsp = 30ml Volume is not.
Erm, but that’s all volumes in this list?
Can someone go knock on the White House door & tell them it's time they caught up with the rest of the world... "one open, one shut, span of my hand & half a brick + my thumb on the scale == half a hogshead" is really not the way to measure things any more.. One dry cup != one wet cup.... I despair ;-)
@Stephie Correct, we can assume a "Cup" of Feathers would refer to the volume, not the weight. Which is the point. Not everything that weighs 8oz will fit into a standard 1C measuring device, neither fluid or dry, because of it's volume/mass.
If 16oz = 1#, then 1/8C (1 fluid oz) = 1/16# in weight. Not Volume. (You seem to have weight and volume flipped.)
Sorry, but please re-read your answer (which triggered this discussion): your first sentence implies that there are two different units for cups (that’s what the asker is talking about) - which I think is wrong.
It's not wrong. Perhaps this article will help you understand the concept better.
As I understand it, one (American) cup is a volumetric measurement equal to 236.6 ml, which is equal to 8 fl oz (a measurement of volume). 8 fl oz of water actually weighs 236.6 g, which is 8.35 oz. So one (American) cup of water does not actually weigh 8 oz.
@elbrant - As a chemist I'm not accepting your argument. "Measuring cups" are for measuring volume, not mass. Yes there is some old correlation to ounces of water and fluid volume but that is long out of use. If you try to measure mass by measuring volume you need a unique cup for everything you're measuring. The "measuring cup" for water won't work for oil. Also sugar is available in a number of different particle sizes. So you'd need one cup for table (granulated) sugar and another for confectioner's sugar. So using volume to measure mass is just useless in the kitchen.
@MaxW Consider the word "mass" erased. The issue is between weight and volume. Most oil is considered a fluid and would be measured using a Pyrex measuring cup. Sugar (a dry good) would be measured in a basic measuring cup. I was using mass and volume interchangably -- my bad, I'm ashamed. Happy?
@elbrant Measuring cups are for measuring volume, not weight OR mass.
I upvoted this answer because, in the US, this is exactly how measuring cups are sold and meant to be used for (American) recipes. The liquid measuring cups are for liquids and measure fluid ounces. Dry measuring cups are for measuring dry ingredients, and roughly standardize amounts of different ingredients. E.g. 1 cup of flour, 1 cup of sugar, etc. While I agree that using scales to weigh ingredients is much more precise, it doesn't make this answer wrong.
Interestingly enough, out of sheer curiosity, I took two 1 cup dry measuring cups (two different 'no name' brands), filled each with water and then poured each into a Pyrex liquid measuring cup. In each case, the amounts matched exactly. So, in this case, 1 cup = 1 cup!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.147387
| 2019-06-21T16:45:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99665",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"MaxW",
"NSGod",
"Optionparty",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"kitukwfyer",
"talon8",
"zoobird"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95034
|
Way too much lemon in my basting liquid
Let me start by saying, I am a good home cook.
I have been cooking for a while with positive review.
I decided to try something I had never done before. I made a Greek Inspired Pork Roulade. It required making a filling with spinach, cream cheese, feta, kalamata olives, artichoke hearts, lemon zest, and garlic.
I tasted the filling and it was great. I pounded the pork to about 1/4 inch thin and spread the filling and rolled it into a Roulade. I didn't have twine so I rolled it in parchment paper. The final step was to baste the Roulade with mustard, lemon juice, garlic, and oregano sauce.
So, after baked it for 15 -20 minutes, I basted. Everything looked and smelled amazing, but looks and smells can be deceiving...it wasn't great!!
But, neither myself or my husband could finish it due to the tartness.
Can anyone give me tips on how to fix this...I hate wasting food but can't seem to be able to figure this one out.
@elbrant please don't leave answers as comments. They bypass all of our quality criteria and make it more difficult on everybody to know where to look for each kind of information. If your goal is to say something about a solution to the question, write it up as an answer.
It won't look as nice, but it should be possible to rescue the flavour.
As you've also got lemon in the filling, and feta is quite tart as well, I suggest you first remove the filling and dilute with extra cream cheese (and possibly olives and cooked garlic). Reheat enough to have with the pork and chill the rest too have with something else within a couple of days.
Wipe the meat with kitchen roll (paper towel) while the filling is removed. If you're desperate you could even quickly rinse it (in boiling water if hot, chilled water if cold).
Then reroll and reheat, or serve deconstructed.
My initial thoughts would be:
Sprinkle sugar over the dish, or blend it into the sauce.
If the Roulade is sitting in the sauce, you might consider removing
it and making the sauce fresh/over with less lemon juice.
Another alternative might be adding more of the other sauce
ingredients. That should dilute the extra lemon juice to the right proportion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.148195
| 2018-12-21T06:09:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95034",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120121
|
Refrigeration of Potatoes au Gratin
After making Potatoes au Gratin. Before cooking it, I placed it in the refrigerator. How long would it keep in the refrigerator until you are ready to cook it?
Did you parcook your potatoes? My limited experience with it (before I knew I had dairy issues) would make me think that cooking it with raw potatoes from a cold state would really suck. (2 hours and the middle was still crunchy, possibly because I kept checking it every 15 minutes past when the recipe said it should take)
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12432/67
@Joe yep. Trick is to microwave it for about 30 min, then bake.
@bob1 I reckon the biggest part of that trick is to use a dish that fits in your microwave. The one I use fits but doesn't go round so you can take the chill off the middle but not very well
Also if you don't precook, any potato that sticks out will go grey
@scott In addition to Joe's question - if you did pre-cook, did you then cool to room temp or assemble hot/warm. These sorts of things play into food safety considerations.
From my experience, if the refrigerator keeps it at no more than 5°C, and if the cream used was still well ahead of its expiration date, keeping it in the fridge for up to 48 hours should be safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.148397
| 2022-03-19T21:37:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120121",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109465
|
Bone-in fried chicken pieces not cooking through
I always fry a whole fried chicken in 12 pieces (bones removed from breast, tenderloins separated and remaining breasts cut in half) and haven't had any problem with the white meat cooking evenly.
However the dark meat is another story.
I seem to only be able to get the skin done well and crispy but then find the mean near the bone isn't done, or using a thermometer I can get the meat fully cooked but then the skin is getting burnt. Most of the time I end up with the former, then bake it for a little longer to finish, but that has some soggy effects on the skin.
Any recommendations?
I haven't tested it yet but I was thinking of getting the white mean done and the dark meat skin crispy and then lowering the oil temp (from 350°F [180℃]) a bit and finishing the dark meat that way.
Props for butchering your own chickens; this is an important kitchen technique, and yields lots of nice scraps for stock. It can also save a good chunk of money at the grocery store. You should be able to get cooked-through meat and perfectly cooked crust through frying alone, for both white and dark meat. This is a matter of chicken size, oil temperature, and cooking time.
Your trouble cooking the meat through suggests that you are using a chicken that is too large. A frying chicken should be between 2.5 to 4.5 pounds [1-2kg]. A larger bird, like a 5 to 7 pound [2.2-3kg] roaster, will take much longer to cook through, and is not generally appropriate for frying. If you are stuck with a larger chicken, save it for another cooking method.
Once you get the right bird, a thermometer plays two import roles in this process. First, it lets you check the temperature of the oil. Since the oil cools when you add food, you may need to adjust the flame to maintain the desired temperature. Second, a thermometer is the best way to gauge doneness of chicken: dark meat should read 165°F [75℃] at the thickest part.
This recipe from Bon Appetit instructs you to heat the oil to 350°F [180℃] and, after adding the chicken, maintain it at 300–325°F [150-160℃]. At this temperature range, they are getting good results in about 12 minutes. Hopefully this time and temperature work for you.
If not, you can resort to baking at 350°F [180℃] until the chicken comes to temp; 10 minutes tops. Make sure to put the chicken on a wire rack inside a baking sheet: this stops oil from pooling under the chicken and makes sure it stays crisp on all sides.
These instructions take a further step for maximal crispiness: they fry for 10 minutes at 300°F [150℃], bake for 5-10 minutes, cool in the refrigerator for at least 1 hour, and re-fry at 400°F [200℃] for 5 minutes. This is a lot of steps, but if it solves your problem it might be worth it!
Thanks for the suggestions. I always get smaller chickens at 3-4 lbs so that shouldn't be it. Other recipes I had read suggestion keeping the oil at 350F for the whole fry, unlike that Bon Appetite one, so maybe that's my problem. I'll give that a go on my next batch and see if that takes care of it. Hopefully I won't have to take it all the way as far as that last recipe!
Yep, that seemed to do it. Though this time I did try a different sort of 2 day brine/bread thing that made the meat start to fall off the bone even before frying, but it was cooked through more evenly in general so I think the lower temperature was the key.
The best/worst thing about cooking is there are a thousand ways to do every task. Another option is to blanche the chicken first in oil, as you would do for potatoes. In other words: batter your chicken pieces, fry them in lower temperature oil (I do it at roughly 145 Celcius) until fully cooked. Each cut will be cooked at a different time, so use a thermometer to check each piece until you've done it enough that it is part of your repertoire. At this point you can toss them in the fridge until tomorrow if you want to speed up tomorrow's evening meal. Then at service time you crank your oil up to 190 Celcius, drop your chicken and cook until heated thru and crispy, and toss with sauce if desired. I have been using this method for 3 decades in Japan and Canada and both my customers and my family regularly give positive feedback.
Regarding brining: I do a 2 day brine with big things like 3 kg Turkey Breasts. But with a chicken IMO 2 days is going to result in a lower quality texture. Try brining for less time, and if the meat isn't seasoned enough then make your next brine stronger.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.148525
| 2020-07-05T03:10:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109465",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Brannon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85477"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102922
|
what thickener has the most waxy consistency?
for nutcheese recipes.
Have tried
guar and xanthan -slimy;
tapioca -gooey
Kappa -gelatin firm
really looking for an edam waxy consistency:
shall I try harder fats like cacao butter or is there a waxier thickener?
cheers,
Pat
If you’re looking into hydrocolloids, the best you can get will be a iota (0.45%) and kappa (0.35%) gel, which is used to coat food with a firm gel.
I think you’re thinking into the right direction in getting a real waxy texture will go through exploring lipids and lipcolloids (I don’t really know if there are food applications though).
Try mixing them ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.148894
| 2019-10-16T19:33:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102922",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87110
|
peeling black eyed peas for acaraje (fritters)
Acaraje (similar to vada or vadai etc) are fritters from a batter of soaked ground black eyed peas.
The hard part is removing the peels.
I gave up rubbing + rinsing at 75% peeled and the result was tasty just a bit gray.
Is there an easier way?
Soaking with baking soda? Parboil a minute?
AfricanBites.com offers these instructions but I don't know if it will make the job easier:
Soak them for about 15 minutes, pulse in the blender or food processor to break the peas (about 5- 10 times or about 10 to 15 seconds) you should do this in small quantities. In a large bowl soak the beans with warm water for about 2 hours or up to 24hours, cover with water until tender.
Rub the peas between your hands to take the skin off. The skins will float to the top. Pour off the skins, into a colander; you may have to do this process several times. Most of the skin will come off the peas; Sort through the remaining peas to remove all the skin.
Ottolenghi calls for soaked chickpeas to be drained and cooked 5min in a hot pan while stirring before the simmer phase to get the skins tender. That step worth a try?
It seems that there are specific machines for de-hulling beans; that'd be the easiest way.
Other than that you should soak for 24h, the beans will expand and rip the hulls more easily, but I suppose you still have to peel them by hand - Most of the time I've seen people making acarajé they peel it one by one...
The traditional acarajé is made without the shell, some say the shell will make it bitter. Honestly, it's a ton of work to peel it one by one, I'd give it a try with the shell and compare.
soaked more than 24hrs. Didn't get easier the longer I waited. the resulting batter of 75% peeled was tasty just a bit gray.
yes, I don't think it will make much difference after 24h, but it should be easier than soaking for just 2h
Ummm, that machine is coffee bean huller. how would it work for black-eyed peas?
oops wrong link. There are other machines specific for beans, I don't think the one for coffee would work
Not tried Ottolenghi's method yet but Africanbites.com went well:
After exactly 15min initial soak, pulsed handful at a time in blender 5X.
Many peels already falling off. 1hr soak later began the rubbing as the beans were rubbery not hard at all.
Scooped out skins using ladle with holes (skimmer) while agitating water rather than rinse/drain.
Left only 2 or 3% stubborn peels to do by hand.
This time I briefly blended half the container full covered in water. just until the contents completed a 2 full cycles -maybe 5, 6 seconds. Same outcome and less tedious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.148980
| 2018-01-15T19:41:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87110",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84780
|
factors affecting the flavor of cinchona bark
For a tonic syrup recipe extracting from cut bark :
Cold brewing or boiling:
Is it just clarity or are there flavor differences too?
Does metal affect the flavor:
Glass or enamel pan vrs Stainless steel make any difference for steeping or storage?
Any differences steeping with acidic ingredients vrs adding in after filtering?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.149227
| 2017-10-02T22:22:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84780",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126367
|
What is the recommended method for marinating the sea bass before grilling in the Flavorful Grilled Sea Bass with Tangy Chili-Lime Dressing Recipe?
What is the recommended method for marinating the sea bass before grilling in this Flavorful Grilled Sea Bass with Tangy Chili-Lime Dressing Recipe?
Recipe follows:
Flavorful Grilled Sea Bass with Tangy Chili-Lime Dressing Recipe
Ingredients:
4 sea bass fillets
2 tablespoons olive oil
Salt and pepper to taste
1 lime, juiced
1 tablespoon chili powder
2 tablespoons honey
1 clove garlic, minced
1 small red chili, finely chopped
2 tablespoons fresh cilantro, chopped
Directions:
Preheat grill for medium heat and lightly oil the grate.
Brush sea bass fillets with olive oil and season with salt and pepper.
Grill sea bass for 3-4 minutes per side, or until fish flakes easily with a fork.
In a small bowl, whisk together lime juice, chili powder, honey, garlic, and chopped chili.
Drizzle the chili-lime dressing over grilled sea bass and garnish with chopped cilantro.
Hey, I removed your anonymous 3rd party link and replaced it with the actual link. Please don't use link shorterners, since we can't tell that they're not spam. Also, I pasted in the recipe since it's on a site that requires a login.
Eek! That's a lot of honey. Hope you like sweet & sweet & sour ;)
According the the recipe, there is no marination step. Grill the fish and then drizzle with the dressing. Beyond that, keep in mind that marination is a surface treatment, but with fish, any acidic marinade will denature the proteins over a relatively short amount of time. So, in this case, I can see why a dressing is called for, rather than a marinade.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.149393
| 2024-01-15T01:05:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126367",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125251
|
What type of knife is this?
My brother found it in a box in his storage. It goes back years to a pack and move. It probably belonged to my father, who wasn't a professional chef, but he was a very knowledgeable hobbyist who knew a few professional chefs. I was told, growing up that he took classes from James Beard at one time. It almost looks like a broken steak knife, but the top of the blade is smooth and tapered. This is the original shape.
It's possible that it's not a culinary knife at all. If I saw that out of context, I'd assume that it was something for woodworking.
It's possibly a fish scaler.
A google search for PAL RH22 turned up just one result, with a picture of the same knife [plus sheath] & only one answer as to what it is.
https://www.allaboutpocketknives.com/knife_forum/viewtopic.php?t=19079
Your link led me to this. R.M.L. fish knife.
https://www.gunauction.com/buy/12457430/
and
https://www.antiquesnavigator.com/d-148258/antique-rml-trout-fish-filet-knife-tackle-box-knives.html For filleting small fish. Close enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.149531
| 2023-09-18T06:15:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125251",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"userLTK"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113299
|
How long can a virus (e.g. SARS-COV2) survive in food?
I was wondering how long a coronavirus (or viruses in general, because there's probably not that info available on coronavirus in food yet) inside food?
When Googling this question I find a lot of answers stating "There's no evidence that a coronavirus can survive on food containers an packaging" or "The ordinary precautions suffice: simply wash your vegetables and you're safe".
However... I'm interested about having the virus INSIDE food.
Let's say I have covid-19 (but am asymptomatic). I'm making something that requires contact with my hands (so possible contamination), and does NOT require baking. For example: marzipan.
The virus particles might end up inside the marzipan.
How long will it last in there? I'm assuming the high sugar content will kill the virus cells rather quickly, but I'd rather be safe than sorry...
A virus doesn't have cells.
Keep your hands clean? Don't touch your face? Don't sneeze on your prep table? I think a virus inside your food would be a real long shot.
This is an interesting question, and to my limited knowledge the concern is not someone eating the food later, but touching the food later and then rubbing their eyes or nose (or touching other items, which other people then touch, thus spreading the virion).
@moscafj “a virus inside your food” certainly isn't too long a shot. When not wearing a mask then normal breathing is quite sufficient to deposit with high probability some viruses in the food. When wearing a mask then having re-adjusted the mask without washing/sterilising hands is sufficient to leave viruses on them, of which with high probability some would end up in the food. Whether this is something to worry about is, indeed, the question (and the answer is no).
@leftaroundabout I wouldn't worry about having the virus in my own food, and not even when I present the food to my wife or parents. However... Since this year we cannot invite family over for dinner (it is forbidden in my country), I was planning to prepare some small sweets for my grandparents and drop them off at the door. They are a risk-group, so I don't want to take any chances.
@brhans We can understand OP's colloquial use of "cell" to mean capsid, certainly.
Worth noting that while respiratory viruses don't tend to spread via food, enteric viruses like Norovirus can and do contaminate food and cause food-borne illness.
I voted to close this; the question is clearly a request for medical advice, despite having a couple of prospective answers.
@FuzzyChef there's nothing that indicates that this is a medical question. It is very closely related to hygiene and food-safety. Both which are tags on this SE.
Except the main question is about how long the virus survives inside an uncooked food, rather than preventing it from getting there in the first place. That's a question of medical science that there's no good way for us to answer here. Anyway, if folks don't agree, don't reinforce my vote.
Kenji Lopez-Alt did a very in-depth article for Serious Eats about the coronavirus and food that is worth reading. There is no evidence of the coronavirus (or covid) being passed through food, because in general the virus would break down too quickly to be passed on. Viruses survive better on non-porous surfaces. The full article is here:
https://www.seriouseats.com/2020/03/food-safety-and-coronavirus-a-comprehensive-guide.html
No evidence doesn't mean it can't happen. How quickly is “too quickly”? i.e., what's the estimated half-life?
@wizzwizz4 When it comes to serious scientists, then "there is no evidence for that" is the most negative statement you can get. The reason is that the scientific method can not prove a negative. There is no evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist. Yet science can not disprove their existence or the hypothesis that you can contract SARS-CoV-2 from them.
@Philipp In this case, you can certainly get stronger than "there is no evidence for that." For example, if scientists mixed SARS-CoV-2 into various kinds of foods, and then measured them an hour later and found that there are no detectable levels of viable virions, that would be stronger evidence against transmission via food than a simple "there is no evidence for that."
@TannerSwett They would then still say: "We performed the experiment and found that there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can survive on food". That's simply how scientists communicate. The reason is that it still does not prove a negative. Maybe their detection method was flawed. Maybe they used the wrong food. Maybe there was some contamination in the lab which killed the virions. Maybe they tested the wrong virus strain. Maybe, maybe, maybe... This is why serious scientists never say "we disproved this". A small doubt always remains. So they say "there is no evidence".
@Philipp I think the issue is that "there's no evidence for that" can mean "research was and found no evidence" but it could also mean "no research has been done". Ideally scientists should mean the former but it's common for doctors (in my experience) to use the phrase for both meanings interchangeably.
@Philipp There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 survived the (hypothetical) experiment, which is (hypothetical) evidence that it can't survive an hour on (that kind of) food. If an experiment like that has been run, they'd have an estimated half life, but I haven't heard of such a thing.
So all we've got is “there were no cases where that was definitely the means of contamination” and “the theory says it probably doesn't survive very long”. That's good enough for me, but it doesn't answer the question.
@wizzwizz4 There's also no evidence I can sprout wings and fly....
We cannot research everything. We cannot prevent everything. We have to decide what to work on, and given that we know for sure it spreads via airborne droplets, because there's tons of evidence for that, and given that we have no evidence to suggest it spreads through food, it's obvious that we should focus our research efforts on the things we do know for sure are a problem, rather than on dangers which we don't even know are real.
@SnakeDoc It's not whether or not it survives. It's how long it survives for. (But barbecue has a point.)
@wizzwizz4 my absurd comment was a rebuttal to your initial issue with "there's no evidence" not meaning it can't. With all the things that have come and gone with COVID this year (it can infect animals, wait no it can't, wait, yes it can, wait no it can't again...) we'd have at least some shred of evidence it can be transferred through food at this point in time. Lacking any evidence to suggest otherwise, in this case, is about as definitive as it will ever be.
@Philipp The scientific method proves negatives every day. Every positive statement can be phrased as a negative statement and vice versa. In this case doubting the precise meaning of "there is no evidence" was perfectly justified and even the most serious of scientists could be perfectly comfortable saying "There is evidence suggesting food can't transmit covid under such and such conditions", if that was true.
People have been studying how the coronavirus spreads. Because foodborne illnesses are common, it is standard procedure to check for patterns of foodborne transmission: That is, several people who ate the same thing all getting the disease afterwards. Because of the scope of the pandemic, we have a lot of data to check for such occurences and thus the absence of a single documented case is very strong empiric evidence that it can't happen under normal circumstances.
If the purely empirical data doesn't satisfy you, you will probably need to wait and hope someone does some experiments to explain why exactly transmission doesn't happen over food (or maybe someone would need to do an actual literature search instead of 5 minutes of googling). Covid-19 can survive the acidity of the stomach according to this open access study, so that easiest of possible explanations can sadly be ruled out. According to this page, there is a study that showed MERS-Cov can survive for some time in milk, but is deactivated by pasteurizing and no similar studies for Covid-19 exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.149657
| 2020-12-22T18:25:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113299",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Dan Bryant",
"FuzzyChef",
"J...",
"JimmyJames",
"Nobody",
"Opifex",
"Philipp",
"SnakeDoc",
"Sophie Swett",
"barbecue",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100693
|
Storing temperature for cooked omelette
Is it okay to store cooked omelette for 1 week?
Secondly, at what temperature it should be stored ?
Possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
You could keep it frozen for longer than a week, but by the time you reheated it, it would be like rubber.
I wouldn't attempt more than a couple or three days in the fridge.
The only way I can think to keep anything omelette-like would be like a Spanish tortilla - maybe it's the potato & onion that changes the texture, but that is fine after being cooled then re-heated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.150306
| 2019-08-12T12:43:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100693",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105746
|
Buttercream frosting with 2T buttermilk - refrigerate overnight or no?
Typically I leave my buttercream-frosted cakes out of the refrigerator. However, tonight I tried a new recipe that called for adding 1 tbsp lemon juice and 2 tbsp buttermilk (in addition to 1 cup butter and ~4 cups powdered sugar). Does the inclusion of cultured buttermilk warrant a night in the fridge, or is it safe on the counter? I plan on serving these in about 10 hours.
FYI: the result is a frosting that tastes like cream cheese frosting, but with a far creamier texture!
@Tetsujin I'm guessing C meaning cup and T meaning tablespoon (or teaspoon but tablespoon seems more likely).
@Tetsujin T is tablespoon, C is cup.
Considering the extremely high concentration of sugar in this style of frosting, it should be fine stored at room temperature as you usually do.
The concentration of sugar will actually help dehydrate and kill those live cultures present in both the buttermilk and lemon juice through osmosis.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.150393
| 2020-03-09T06:31:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105746",
"authors": [
"Ben S.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81591",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107718
|
Should I use self-rising flour or all purpose flour for two ingredient pizza dough?
I'm planning to make a simple pizza using the two ingredient pizza dough method. I've been doing some reading on it and I see two variants of this:
(1) from Kinda Healthy Recipes which uses all purpose flour, salt, and Greek Yogurt; and
(2) from Sweet Savant which uses self rising flour and Greek Yogurt (I guess the salt is in the flour already).
My question is - which one is correct/better? If self-rising flour is the way to go, I'm going to need to make my own which I'm happy to do - that part is insanely easy.
Thanks in advance!
Method 1 essentially didn't use any leavening agent so the texture would be quite distant from typical pizza, but for a thin and crisp crust it could work. Method 2 seems more plausible but I don't think yogurt is necessary in either cases. Also why try to avoid yeast? You need the dough to hydrate for an hour or two anyway.
Self-rising flour is just flour with the addition of baking powder and salt*. So, it doesn't matter whether you use self-rising flour or make your own by combining these ingredients yourself.
* note: not all countries include salt in self-rising flour. There is no salt added in the UK "self-raising" mixture for example, but there salt added in the US and Canada.
Because of this, if you live in the US and are using a UK recipe, you will need to omit some or all of the salt in the recipe since self-rising flour already contains salt.
Conversely, if you are living in the UK and following a US recipe, you will need to add salt if using self-raising flour where it calls for self-rising flour.
Otherwise you could end up with no salt or more than you intended. It sounds like in your case your recipe assumes that self-rising flour has salt added.
One of our devoted readers also found that US self-rising flour has less baking powder than UK self-raising flour, raising doubts as to whether additional baking powder may be needed for some recipes.
Note: A good clue will be the spelling of "self-raising" vs. "self-rising" to determine whether salt is expected in your mix. And Brits also have a lot of other weird spelling, grammar, and nomenclature differences, such as calling desserts "puddings." Be cautious when dealing with these people. They are very suspicious.
In the end, I would suggest just using normal flour and adding salt and baking powder yourself. If you are using a recipe that calls for self-raising or self-rising or pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps flour, just find a similar recipe that calls for normal flour to see how much salt and baking powder should be used.
No salt in British self-raising flour, for sure. But that's a good recipe source give-away. US calls it rising, UK calls it raising, so you'd know whether to expect salt or not.
@Tetsujin, I see several previous answers on this forum saying that self-rising flour are the same in the US and UK (just search on "self-rising UK" to find them), but I've also heard that there is no salt in the UK. If those other answers are wrong they should be corrected. Could it be regional?
I checked the ingredients list on the major brands & a couple of the big supermarkets. I'd never heard of having salt in flour so I wasn't expecting to find any. I didn't. We don't call it self-rising over here at all, so that search is going to be tainted with US-centric results.
I've added a comment to one incorrect answer & added extra info in the big 'Translation' answer.
Yes — I was going to comment there and saw your response, so thank you for doing that.
Yet again, we are two countries separated by one language ;) It's always fascinating to find a new difference i'd not heard of before, no matter what subject it's on.
It might be worth adding the spelling difference as a guide to where the recipe may have been made for. rising vs raising would be a large clue as to whether or not salt would be expected in the flour itself.
Do you mean in addition to what I've written above?
Yes. I just thought it might be a useful little note, that the spelling itself would be a big clue. [Bizarrely, until today I had never noticed you guys even spell it differently, I have always just read it as 'raising' without ever noticing.]
OK, changes made. Yes, this whole situation certainly rises some eyebrows.
Lovely, thanks:) but to rise the stakes... Further research would seem to show that US self-rising has perhaps only 60% the baking powder UK self-raising has, meaning a US cook would have to add a bit more if using a UK recipe, as well as reduce salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.150507
| 2020-04-19T20:51:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107718",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125555
|
When is burning onions a good idea for cooking?
I saw this technique mentioned in this Youtube short where the chef makes a burnt onion shrimp curry. In my experience burning stuff is not a good move for making it taste good. Why did it apparently work well here?
There are some cuisines where burning stuff is expected, and part of the flavor profile. Mexican food comes to mind where you often char things (sometimes removing the skin after charring). There’s often a line between slightly burned (charred) and completely burned (charcoal; not edible)
There's a mediterranean/Middle Eastern dish made with lentils, rice, and "burnt" onions (which I don't recall the name of right now) that is absolutely delish!
I wouldn't call those onions actually "burned", which would be all-black. They're charred, just like you would get if you cooked them on a grill.
Charred onions have a very sophisticated flavor combination. The burned edges are bitter and earthy, and the unburned parts are sweet (just like any very-well-cooked onion is). So out of the five primary flavors, charred onions are adding two of them (bitter and sweet) plus a tiny bit of charcoal flavor. If you add sour (tamarind), umami (shrimp), and presumably some salt (not shown), plus secondary flavors through hot peppers and coconut cream, then you have a dish with a complete set of flavors: bitter, sweet, sour, salty, umami, hot, and fatty. That balance of opposing flavors makes it taste good, and the charcoal flavor from the charred onions makes the shrimp taste "grilled" even though they're not.
Heck, at this point I want to make that curry.
Related, when I cook flank steak, I actually like the tips to have some charring, which goes nicely with the mildly acidic and spicy marinade (that I reduce and use as a dipping sauce). The interplay of the spicy/acidic/slightly sweet of the marinade with the bitter of the char is better than with just the meat alone
what is this classification of flavours to primary and secondary
Reine: the primary flavors are the ones that we have actual tastebuds for: salty, sweet, sour, bitter, umami. Anything else general (e.g. spicy) is a secondary flavor.
@FuzzyChef ‘Spicy’ (referring to pungency, not spices like cinnamon or nutmeg) isn’t even really a flavour at all, since it’s not perceived or processed by the taste buds – or at least, it’s not a taste. In a broader sense, ‘flavour’ may also include things like pungency (mild/hot), temperature (hot/cold) or texture (creamy/runny), but even so, pungency is still of a different category than sweet, salty, bitter, sour and umami.
When I was saying "spicy" I specifically meant capsaicin, which is a specific chemical. It's not processed by the taste buds but rather by other parts of the mouth and throat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.150830
| 2023-10-15T15:04:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125555",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"FuzzyChef",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Joe",
"fyrepenguin",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121883
|
How would I manipulate this recipe (or another) to make Jäger Bomb flavoured macarons?
It's my brother's birthday and he loves Jägermeister so was thinking of making Jäger Bomb flavoured macarons. Red Bull flavoured pastry and Jäger flavoured cream.
I saw this recipe: https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/macarons
How would you manipulate (or is there another you'd recommend) to make Jäger Bomb flavoured macarons?
I was thinking add few tablespoons of Jäger to the cream but I'm worried the pastry will be too wet if I add Red Bull.
Do the pastry have to be Red bull flavoured ? In the recipe you link they do a filling with cream and raspberry jam, couldnt you substitute the jam with a redbull equivalent? Maybe reduce Red bull to a thicker, spreadable consistency or mix with gelatine and make disks that you then put on one side of the macron and the cream on the other.
Please, if you settle on a recipe and it works (even halfway decently), respond and post what you ended up doing. This sounds like a fun treat to make.
Macaron halves aren't pastry, they are a type of meringue, I'm assuming you aren't making pastry too.
You can't add red bull to the macaron sides, it will ruin the consistency and you won't get lift. Instead you need to add a flavoring concentrate, and you are in luck because you can actually buy red bull flavoring in some places,or energy drink flavoring which is similar. This is likely pretty strong so you'll want to be careful adding it, too much will be overpowering. In fact, if you are new to macarons I would suggest making at least one batch beforehand as they are tricky little so-and-sos to make.
The cream is much more flexible, you can add Jagermeister to that and still get a good consistency, again test how much works. A handy trick is to coat the flat side of the macaron halves with a thin layer of white chocolate, this will keep them from getting soggy from the cream.
Asking for recipe alternatives is off-topic, my advice would be the same for most of them anyway: don't use red bull but a flavor concentrate. If you are looking for something less technically challenging you could do a cake and icing, as those work well with flavorings, just start with a cake that is unflavored to begin with or your flavorings will clash, a white cake recipe for example.
You can't add red bull to the macaron sides, it will ruin the consistency and you won't get lift. So what you're saying is RedBull doesn't give you wings after all?
WARNING: The company mentioned to buy flavouring is dissolved: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12610006 they took my money and did not respond (no fault of GdD the company was disloved 3 months ago)
I've taken that link out, I was only showing an example, really sorry about that @rosh3000! If you paid on a credit card call the card provider and report it, you should be able to get your money back. Same with Paypal
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.151072
| 2022-10-04T15:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121883",
"authors": [
"BruceWayne",
"GdD",
"Tommi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90147",
"infinitezero",
"rosh3000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125020
|
How to store freezer burritos?
I thought of just putting all of them together in a big Tupperware container, but they ended up sticking to each other.
Is there any better way of storing?
Wrap them individually in cling-film.
Then you can either box them or just pile them up.
This will work for short term storage. Long term you need heavier material, so that water vapor won’t escape as the freezer cycles (resulting in what’s known as ‘freezer burn’)
tbh, I've never measured exactly how long I keep things, but it's how I wrap anything that doesn't fit neatly into take-away-sized plastic boxes. I've never had burn issues. I've definitely seen it on frozen sliced bread, because my partner seems incapable of re-wrapping it properly ;)
Or maybe you have a better brand of plastic wrap. You could also wrap them then put them in a freezer bag or other heavier container
Saran wrap / cling film / whatever is somewhat water permeable (and much more oxygen permeable than it was when first invented). Wrapping food in just cling film and freezing it is likely fine in the short term, but isn't great for long term storage. My own approach is to wrap chimichangas in foil, then pack the foil-wrapped chimis in gallon-sized freezer bags. They happily keep for as much as a year.
@Joe's cling film + freezer bag is what I do for chicken breasts and thighs and I get away without appreciable freezer burn; it's also convenient for keeping things organised.
If the storage is going to be relatively short term, you can always just freeze on a baking sheet and then bag. It won't protect them as well, but it will prevent sticking.
The best way to store food in the freezer is to eliminate as much air from around the food as possible, this reduces the risk of freezer burn, which is the result of dehydration from cold dry air. That is where vacuum sealers come in handy, but they are not strictly necessary. You can remove a lot of air by using a zip top bag, sealing most of the way, then submerging in water to force the remaining air out. Be careful not to let water into the bag, and finish the zip right when the water is at the top of the bag. Items can be separated by cling film or parchment so they don't stick together before bagging. Another strategy is to freeze first, then package. This way they will remain separate, and if you are using a vacuum sealer, soft items won't get mashed by the vacuum.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.151328
| 2023-08-20T11:04:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125020",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Michael Mior",
"Tetsujin",
"Xander Henderson",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124575
|
Claw grip to cut a convex body (Half onions , half tomatoes etc)
I am running into a problem when I try to cut onions/tomatoes using claw grips. I will try describe my problem using a picture. When I begin at one end and start moving to the mid line of the piece it's all fine:
However, when I reach the midline, I reach a position like so:
It is quite unnatural for me to move the "claw hand" down the remaining convex surface of the onion for purposes of gliding the knife on the correct cut using my finger nails. Is there anyway to continue the initial claw hand moving motion till the end? Or would I have to flip the remaining piece and keep my thumb on the flat side to continue?
if you're cutting more then one, mate the halves so that you only have to "awkwardly" chop one half.
I'm not certain I can explain this in words completely clearly, however…
As you reach the point at which you start to lose control over your moving grip, either stop your cut halfway through & use your knife hand to let you re-grip, with pressure against the 'locked' knife, or once you get the feel for it, re-adjust your grip during the cut, when you have the knife to push against.
That should get you to at least the 3/4 mark or further, after which you can flip your onion over & in effect trim the rest round the root [which you don't want anyway].
For diced tomato, I use a different technique altogether. More 'straddling' than the traditional claw grip. I posted a long explanation of it here. [Now with pictures.]
BTW, don't use your fingernail as a guide. A sharp knife can go right through a fingernail & half the finger behind it with very little effort [I know, I've done it.] Use your first knuckle instead. That way the blade's edge never rises above it, meaning it can never be in the way of the cut.
See pic -
very hard photo to take, even with my camera on a tripod… I still needed one hand to fire the remote, so the knife is actually just resting halfway through the cut. Camera had to be behind me because of kitchen layout, with me contorting to not be in the way. Red onion, 'cos that's for dinner tonight ;)
Notice how that also forces your grip further back down the body of the onion, so until you get nearly 3/4 of the way through you don't have to change grip at all, just keep curling that forefinger more. The curl at this early point is exaggerated, so it's easier to see.
Also, in this position the finger on top can be used as additional downward pressure as you move the rest of your hand backwards, meaning everything is less likely to slip. Note fingers not actually gripping are providing additional stability on the board.
Jacques Pepin has a short video on cutting onions which may help.
@wumpusD'00m - but he doesn't use the guide finger method. He's had enough practise he doesn't need it. I added a pic & while I had the camera out, I added pics to the tomato dicing answer too.
True, but he does use his knuckle(s). It certainly takes practice to cut that precisely that quickly :)
@wumpusD'00m - no, I just had another look to make sure. He's nowhere near his fingers, they're only holding the food down, not guiding. I used to live with a pro chef who did the same. I'm not good enough, I have the finger guide ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.151658
| 2023-06-26T17:16:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124575",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124841
|
Am I seasoning my wok incorrectly?
So I've just bought a new carbon steel wok under the brand Tasty and decided to season it through dry heating.
When I began, the wok was originally grey and turned a dark brown as the protective coating began to disappear as smoke. But, over time, the pan started forming small black-like rusting protrusions on the surface.
At first, I thought I was done but when I cleaned the wok and scrubbed the rust-like material off, it was blue. So, the next day I heated my pan up again to try and achieve a full blue coating of the wok but nothing really happened for at least an hour.
I don't know what to do. I had the induction stovetop at high heat the whole time so is it the pan itself or the method of seasoning?
Does this answer your question? Should patina be burned (wok seasoning)
We have several seasoning and wok seasoning questions. Might you find an answer in one of those?
The induction element will only effectively heat the bottom of the pan, the walls, especially at the top will remain largely cold (probably cool enough to touch while cooking), so won't season properly.
That looks to me very much like it [used to be] teflon, now burned off in large patches
I really think that is [was] a teflon-coated pan that you've now partly burned the teflon off.
The early stages of seasoning a wok on a stove-top look like this - brown patina over steel-grey substrate.
Conversely, this is what a cheap non-stick [teflon or similar] wok looks like. A smooth, perfectly even colour, mid to dark grey, with sometimes a tiny hint of 'sparkle' to it if you look closely.
Yours very much looks like it used to be like this. Teflon cannot stand high temperatures & will be destroyed by over-heating [not to mention that the gasses it gives off whilst doing so are carcinogenic].
I think your only recourse now is to physically sand off the surface to reveal the actual steel underneath. Don't burn it off, teflon is harmless at low temperatures. Then you can season it like a raw steel wok… upside-down in the oven, not on a burner, unless you have absolutely no alternative. Regular domestic burners of any type cannot get heat to the top edges of a wok, so it becomes very difficult to season beyond about half way..
…and thanks to Spagirl's detective work, we have confirmation of this theory… non-stick wok.
I see. So, when I plan on buying another wok in the future, should I look for the ones that aren't non-stick and have a coating since seasoning a wok essentially makes it nonstick?
It's up to you. I used to have a plain carbon steel wok I seasoned myself, but swapped to a good non-stick about 4 years ago, which is still doing well - https://www.cookserveenjoy.com/products/masterclass-carbon-steel-355cm-wok Just don't try to season a non-stick wok… & don't buy cheap non-stick or anything that calls itself 'ceramic'.
You appear to have tried to season a coated wok. The coating wasn't (as I suspect you thought) the layer of factory applied oil which is intended to protect the wok from rusting before you season it yourself, but a non-stick coating.
By heating the wok to high temperatures and scrubbing it you have caused the non-stick coating to peel.
If it is any consolation, amazon reviews for this wok show that many people find the non-stick coating peels after a few uses anyway. https://us.amazon.com/Tasty-Carbon-Non-Stick-Helper-Handle/dp/B07H2NWCTQ
It may be possible for you to remove the remainder of the non-stick by using steel-wool and them seasoning the wok once you have the inside down to bare metal.
I'll consider your advice. Thanks for your answer and the research that went into it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.151949
| 2023-07-27T20:08:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124841",
"authors": [
"Evan",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104472
|
How Does Wine Enhance Flavor?
In an article - What's Cooking America; How To Cook With Wine - I found that wine has three main uses in the kitchen – as a marinade ingredient, as a cooking liquid, and as a flavoring in a finished dish. The alcohol in the wine evaporates while the food is cooking, and only the flavor remains. Boiling down wine concentrates the flavor, including acidity and sweetness.
The function of wine in cooking is to intensify, enhance, and accent the flavor and aroma of food – not to mask the flavor of what you are cooking but rather to fortify it.
My question is how does wine in cooking intensify, enhance, and accent the flavor and aroma of food? What is the chemistry behind?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
The other answers make good points, but OP in comments keeps asking whether alcohol helps ingredients "release their flavor" more. And yes, it does.
As to how it does so, one reason is simply because alcohol is a good solvent. Many things dissolve more easily in alcohol than in plain water. (Note that alcohols are often used in other household applications requiring solvents, stain removal, removal of other "gunk" when cleaning, etc. Household cleaning fluid can make use of various alcohols -- not just ethanol, as found in wine -- but the chemistry of how most alcohols work in creating better solubility is similar.)
Another comparison to think of is the use of alcohol in creating things like extracts. You'll get more flavor out of a vanilla bean by soaking it in high-proof alcohol compared to plain water. That's the same rationale behind the concept of a "vodka sauce" too.
Obviously wine doesn't have as high of an alcohol content, but the alcohol that is present can help "release flavors" through better solubility, part of the reason why wine is often used for deglazing pans too during cooking. (As mentioned in other answers, the specific flavor components found in wine are also tasty in and of themselves.)
@Borgh: this answer says cleaning alcohol is usually not ethanol. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbing_alcohol says that "rubbing alcohol" often does contain some ethanol, with bitterants as you say to discourage drinking it. So yes, ethanol can be found in cleaning products.
@Borgh: I'm not sure if this answer is right or not in the claim that most cleaning alcohol is not ethanol.
@Borgh: Thanks for the comment. As Peter Cordes notes, I was thinking of things like isopropyl alcohol which is more common in the U.S. And "denatured alcohol" in the U.S. can contain smaller portions of ethanol than elsewhere, I think. (Probably remnants of weird stuff from Prohibition in the U.S.) Anyhow, I made an edit for clarification -- obviously ethanol is a great solvent for a lot of tasks.
Alcohol is no better solvent than water. The trick is, it is different solvent, working good for things water works poorly. It is due to alcohol being a much less polar solvent than water. And we often underestimate how good solvent water is, because it is everywhere and we are taking it or granted.
@Mołot: A very good point. Note that my answer doesn't claim alcohol is a better solvent, only that one will extract more flavors by using things like "high-proof alcohol" (e.g., vodka) compared to pure water. It's the mixture that's important, and different extracts will often use different proportions to maximize flavor extraction. It's also the rationale behind the common cooking strategy of sauteing in oil/fat, then deglazing with alcohol, then cooking in water. You have three different types of solvents there, which tends to maximize different flavor extractions.
Doesn't most of the alcohol cook off in quick order, with a much lower evaporation point than water?
@ScottSeidman - You may want to see the long digressive set of comments under the question, which has been discussing this point. Briefly, the answer is: it depends on cooking method, but a lot of times, no, a significant quantity of alcohol can remain for a long time even with prolonged cooking.
@Athanasius “a lot of times, no, a significant quantity of alcohol can remain for a long time even with prolonged cooking” — Only if by “significant” you mean <10% of the original alcohol. Unless you’re in the habit of cooking with 50/50 vodka/water, this isn’t what I’d call a “significant quantity”. To illustrate, when adding 100 ml of wine to your 2 L stew, there will be ~0.07% total alcohol in your final food after 2h of cooking. That’s less than in many fruit juices.
@KonradRudolph: By "significant" I did not mean in terms of alcohol consumption that might make one drunk or something, I meant "significant" relative to the amount of alcohol originally put into a dish (which might be <10% after cooking but could easily be >30% or more of the original alcohol content). Regardless, the amount of alcohol added to a dish can certainly be present long enough to help dissolve and enhance flavors, which was the point of the actual question here. As for the rest (which is irrelevant to the present question), you can debate that in chat with rumtscho.
As you are asking how wine enhances the flavor of foods, the first thing that came to mind for me is that wine contains glutamates, which are flavor enahncers.
Most people would be surprised to know how many foods contain naturally occurring glutamates. A table on this page lists many of the foods containing glutamates along with the amounts (mg per 100g).
This article found on Wine Spectator, explains that fermentation increases the glutamate or umami levels of foods.
While many foods have natural amounts of umami, their umami levels can increase when they undergo various transformations. The most elemental of these is the ripening of fruits and vegetables. For example, a ripe tomato has 10 times the glutamate of an unripe tomato. Drying, curing, aging and fermentation all increase the umami level. Dried shiitake mushrooms and dried sardines have considerably more umami than their fresh counterparts. Why does aged beef have more flavor than unaged beef? It has more umami. Fermentation gives soy sauce, Asian fish sauces and many other condiments such as hot sauces, Worcestershire sauce, Vegemite and Bovril lots of umami.
Fermentation also applies to beverages such as beer and wine. Hanni says big, rich red wines, especially those with high ripeness levels such as Australian Shirazes, and whites that have extended lees contact such as "big, fat, ripe, creamy Chardonnays and round, delicious Champagnes" tend to have the most umami.
What many of these methods have in common is that they break down foods into smaller units of flavor, which are easier to detect. These smaller units, says Shirley Corriher, a food scientist and the author of CookWise, The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking (William Morrow) "make taste receptors go 'ding ding' in our brain and say 'this is good.'"
So, when you cook with wine, you are adding natural flavor enhancers to your dish.
Edit in response to comment:
From a Science Direct article:
Many food ingredients, including monosodium glutamate (MSG), NaCl, and sweeteners have been termed ‘taste enhancers’ but their main effect is simply to add more molecules that generate additional taste or smell sensations. Tastants such as MSG, salt, and sweeteners don't actually boost other chemosensory properties but rather contribute additional meaty/savory, salty, or sweet properties respectively.
Does it make other ingredients release their flavor?
Andrew, please see my edit. Info on the science behind how it works is quite hard to find, but Im still on the hunt. I will add more if/when I find it.
This can hardly be the main factor. While wine does have some glutamates, any broth, a plain instant stock cube or soy sauce has much more.
@Andrew With respect to glutamates, no. It does not make other ingredients release their flavor. Instead it is a flavor. Technically the flavor is called umami, part of the basic flavors of food: sweet, salty, bitter, sour and umami. But unlike sweetness and saltiness, umami is a little hard to describe but easy to spot if it's not there. The best I can describe it is "meaty" or "earthy" like beef, mushroom, seaweed, soy sauce, parmesan etc.
It's simply an ingredient, like any other ingredient you might add. It's flavor chemistry, and is perceived by us as taste and aroma. Alcohol doesn't entirely evaporate. It does help with the release of flavor and aroma molecules in other ingredients. Depending on the wine, and how it is treated in your cooking process, it potentially adds the flavor and aroma of the fermented grape, and it adds acidity to a dish. Also, particularly when using red wines, tannins add to the earthy and "dry" flavor and aroma perceptions.
when u are saying it helps with release of flavor in other ingredients do you mean it makes other ingredient release their flavor?
@Andrew - Alcohol is volitile. So, it aids in bringing certain aromas out of the dish and to our senses. Which molecules depends on whether or not they are hydrophyllic or hydrophobic, but, in a sense it does make some ingredients "release their flavor."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.152275
| 2020-01-01T14:15:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104472",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cindy",
"Consider Non-Trivial Cases",
"IMil",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Mołot",
"Peter Cordes",
"Scott Seidman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79726",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"slebetman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127930
|
How can you stop oil separating out from sauces and gravies?
Working on the basis that fat is flavour, I generally don't skim any excess fat/oil from my dishes. Sometimes though, it separates out when the dish is served ruining the presentation.
It happens over a wide range of dishes, but the most common are curries and casseroles.
How can I prevent this?
I think you need to be more specific to get any useful answers. Which recipe have that problem of fat separating from sauce during presentation? (In my experience this separation often happens when putting leftovers in the fridge but it usually remixes on its own when heated)
Fat is flavor up to a point, but you'll reach a point where it makes it greasy. If there's tons of extra oil you're probably there.
@quarague, it happens over a wide range of dishes, but the most common are curries and casseroles.
For a curry, I'd say it's 'by design'. You can stir it last minute, but the glossy sheen of ghee on the top is a part of the experience, imo.
For casseroles, stews, etc You could add a little thickener - flour or cornflower. Flour can either go in at the start, during the frying stage if there is one, or added later as a slurry. It will benefit from 30 mins cooking in time, at least, though bear in mind it will lose some of its thickness over time unless there is a concurrent reduction of overall liquid levels.
Cornflour slurry can be added just a couple of minutes before the end. It suffers much more from thinning if cooked for a long time.
With both of these, if you add just a little, you can get some emulsifying before noticeable thickening occurs.
Both of these methods will reduce the glossiness of your dish as it emulsifies the fats. My personal preference for something that needs the glossiness as part of the finished appearance - such as a ragu/bolognese sauce - is to use reduction rather than thickening/emulsifier.
For the American reader, "cornflour" is "corn starch". Maybe everyone else already knows this, but it confused the heck out of me the first time I read a recipe with "cornflour" in it. (In the US "corn flour" (two words) is something more like masa harina, which is not something I would think to use when thickening a stew or sauce).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.152980
| 2024-03-24T00:36:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127930",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Greybeard",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105270
|
Wok Seasoning Fail(?)
I was recently trying to season my wok. I cleaned it, dried it, applied a thin layer of oil and put it in the oven for 1hr at 400°F.
I dont know what I did wrong.
I think what happened here, and I've seen this with a few woks - is too much oil. You can see the pooling issues at the bottom where likely you've got some flakes that might come off.
The seasoning process is best not rushed, and when you apply the oil - if you can detect more than a subtle sheen - that's too much oil. It may take a few attempts to get a good seasoning but using more oil is not the solution. I'd give this a good scrub with maybe some steel wool or a scouring pad and try again but with much less oil. You can also rub the pot (carefully) with a paper towel while it's heating to ensure the very thin coating of oil stays somewhat uniform.
Woks, due to their shape tend to get some oil pooling and if you're wiping down while it comes to temp and polymerization occurs then you should get less pooling.
Editing - Adding from comments, heating the wok upside down is a great idea. To be honest I often do this on the stovetop, inverting the wok over a red hot element - ymmv.
Thank you! The funny thing is it wasnt even sticky
If you put the wok in the oven upside-down, you avoid pooling issues.
Yeah, "too much oil" was my first thought too.
DO NOT USE STEEL WOOL!!! Please edit this part of your answer. Steel wool will scratch the heck out of the wok, and it will be destroyed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.153183
| 2020-02-11T21:22:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105270",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Skylar Grant",
"Tim Nevins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81069"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99680
|
Why did my mango pickle become bitter?
I dried the mango in sunlight, heated the oil and slightly roasted all masala before grinding it.
Now the problem is that masala taste bitter.
How can I fix it?
The masala I used includes salt, rye seed, methi [fenugreek] seed, saunf [fennel], turmeric powder and black seed [nigella].
My first thought would be you over-roasted the methi.
Fenugreek seeds benefit from a light roasting or bhuna which removes the slight bitter edge they have - however, if you over-do it that bitterness comes back with a vengeance.
To avoid the issue, I usually add fenugreek powder to my sauce as it's cooking. It still develops the full aroma that way. It adds a very slight bitterness, but removes the danger of over-roasting right at the start & not finding out til right at the end.
I'm not sure it can be 'fixed' as such, other than by trying to balance [or really mask] it with sweetness, more acidity, or trying to dilute it in a larger batch.
the real answer is the mustard seeds are old and hence they have turned bitter.
Only solution is to add lemon juice for the part quantity and only at the last minute of serving the pickle.
Welcome to SA! It's unclear how your answer applies to the question, which does not include mustard seed. Maybe take another look at it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.153343
| 2019-06-22T07:58:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99680",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98968
|
My sourdough splits at final proofing (pic included), advice?
The last couple of times I've made bread the dough starts "splitting" during final proofing.
Does anybody have any idea why? The bread is still great but it doesn't get as much oven spring as I'd like.
It looks like a rather wet dough, or am I interpreting the picture wrongly? And could you please add a few details about your timing?
Please edit with your recipe and method. How long did you let it prove before you took that picture?
There are three likely causes: over-proofing, insufficient gluten development, and too loose shaping. Some combination is probably most likely. To detect over-proofing try the `poke-test': if the dough springs back immediately, the dough is under-proofed; if the indent stays as it is, the dough is over-proofed.
I've found Dan Lepard's advice in The Handmade Loaf for shaping high-hydration sourdough loafs very useful. After final stretches-and-folds, spread the dough into a circle, and make eight folds into the centre, pressing down on the join. Use the scraper to invert the dough and rotate it gently on the work-top for a minute or so. This tightens it up. Then invert it again as it goes into the banneton.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.153476
| 2019-05-13T07:56:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98968",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83417
|
Are trace amounts of lead in seasoned bakeware safe?
I want to order a custom-cut steel plate to use like baking steel in the oven, and I read that in common raw steels the trace amount of lead can get up to 0.36%.
If I season the steel like I would cast iron, and only use it to make pizza and bread on it, could that trace amount of lead be harmful?
Edit: I just found out that 0.35% is the allowed amount of added lead to machinable steels. The maximum amount found in common raw steels is limited to 0.1%, and in practice probably a lot lower than that.
I'm pretty sure that yes, it will harm you and you should get a food grade steel plate to be on the safe side (anyway, just buy a stone plate, why would you use one made from steel?).
@Nobody because the thermal conductivity of steel is more than ten times that of stone, and the thermal capacity is great as well. Stone does its job in an actual pizza oven, but at the relatively low temperatures achievable in a regular oven, steel is much better.
I've always had great results with a stone plate at 230°C (definitely a regular oven, nothing professional) but that was just an aside.
@Nobody the crust I get from cast iron pans is far superior than what I get from stone, my only complaint about it is that its not flat and only 15 inches. And as to why I don't buy a baking steel; it's a lot of money for a slab of steel...
Safety is a relative term. Is skydiving safe? Yes...Is it free from risk? No. Is using non-food grade steel 'safe'? probably, but how much are you willing to gamble? Yes, the thermal conductivity of steel is 'greater' but the through put is also much faster. One of the advantages of stone is that it radiates the heat into the dough in a more regulated fashion. I expect the result you would get from cooking pizza on steel is that the bottom of the crust would burn before the cheese on top would melt. You asked about 'safety', and that answer is 'it depends'. Is it a good idea? Probably not.
Why don't you contact the company and ask them about the steel? They should know about their products
Not sure if it would make it safe or not, but how about a piece of parchment paper between your dough and the steel? At least the dough wouldn't be in direct contact with the steel.
I, and in general we, cannot answer if something is safe. There are instances where we can say something is clearly unsafe, but when dealing with things like is this piece of metal safe for cooking we are not equipped to give anything but anecdotal answers and partially informed opinions.
The only safety answer that is actually reliable would come from lab testing and that is why we shell out tax dollars and public funding for organizations like UL and USDA in the US and similar organizations in other countries. They do testing and declare metal products, glass, plastics, etc. to be food grade or not food grade according to their composition and reactivity to normal food products. They are not always correct, but their declarations are made from testing results, not guesses and partially informed opinions, mine or anyone else's.
Also an opinion, but one that I think is really the only prudent and reasonable one to make is get a product that is rated food grade, not a custom made item you or others think is safe. The amount of toxins in the metal may well be low, well within standards, but that does not say it is not in a reactive form which will enter you food on first contact with a slightly acid item, and lead may even be one of your least concerns. A piece of steal which was not manufactured under food grade conditions could have many other toxins that are not permitted in food grade manufacturing, permitted because they are in low amounts that are safe for the intended use but become readily transferred to food.
Would you know how to find out which steels are food-grade? I have been doing some research for quite a while now, and I can't find anything about which kinds of steel are okay in the EU.
@user48884 I would think as GdD suggested, the manufacturer should be able to tell you, but really only if you trust the manufacturer. If they cannot tell you, then you have to assume it is not food grade by default. If the manufacture makes other food grade items and use the same base stock for a custom cut, then you are OK. If they make just regular industrial steel item though, not so much.
+1 stick to food grade items. There could be other problems than lead to be concerned about.
Unless you are paying a premium for "free machining" steel , there is "no " lead in it. Normal steel will have < 0.02 % lead. And "free machining" plate or sheet would be a very unusual product ; free machining is typically bar product , most likely containing sulfur and maybe lead.
Numbers aside, with the amount of steel that most food comes in contact with during packaging, processing, and shipping, your baking sheet would be the least of your concerns.
But that is specifically 'food grade' metal (stainless steel, aluminum, etc)
Belief with it being OK to use non-food grade in cooking to me is akin with belief in the 5-second rule for items dropped on the floor.
"Food Grade" got my interest , since I have never seen it in a specification. I checked the ASTM index , there are no :food grade" material specifications..( I was on the ASTM steel committee a few years ) .However the 304 and 316 family of stainless totally dominates the food industry. Today duplex stainlesses must have some applications because of the 304/316 Achilles heel of chloride stress corrosion cracking. ASTM A-270 Stainless Sanitary Tubing , intended for food and dairy industries is the only spec with a scope for the food industry. It has no special requirements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.153616
| 2017-08-01T08:24:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83417",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Cos Callis",
"GdD",
"Nobody",
"Wolfgang",
"blacksmith37",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"user48884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66379
|
How do I cook beans without having too many that are split?
Whenever I have cooked beans from raw (dried), many of the beans split. But if I buy canned beans, there are fewer split beans. How are the canned beans cooked so that there are fewer split beans?
Beans split because the seed coat isn't soft enough when the interior of the bean rehydrates.
Two factors that can help ease this problem:
soak your beans to make sure the seed coat is well rehydrated when the bean interior cooks.
This is the big one- heavily salt your soaking water. The salt ions will replace calcium in the bean skins and soften them. You will have magically whole beans.
Refer to the Food Lab article on chili which contains this image:
That is exactly what I have been seeing with my beans. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.154514
| 2016-02-09T21:31:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66379",
"authors": [
"Chris May",
"Cricket Hendrix",
"Patrick Fetterer",
"Tess Grant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43270",
"mary dick",
"user19474"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67122
|
How to tenderizing chicken with soy sauce instead wet brining?
Since brining is about how much salt/water you use, how do I switch to a soy sauce marinade?
If the standard brine for 2lbs of meat is 1/4 Cup of Table Salt and 1 quart of water, then that means that is 28320mg of sodium. For 30 minutes to an 1hr. 1 tbsp of Kikoman Soy Sauce is 920mg.
So 28320/920 is 30.7. That means I have to marinate 15 to 30.7 hrs instead of 30 mins to 1 hr?
Or increase the amount of soy sauce up to 1 cup?
Can you check your math? I think 1 cup of salt is approximately 270 gram, with roughly half of it sodium. 28320g is 28 kg!
Forgive me, but if you need to marinade the chicken for it to be tender after cooking, there is either something seriously wrong with the quality of the chicken or the way it is cooked. And marinating for a prolonged time first and foremost does one thing: whitewashing the taste of the chicken.
To use soy sauce as a substitute for salt in a brine, you need to calculate the concentration of salt to water. Since we can accurately calculate grams of salt per volume of soy sauce by using the nutritional information on the label, and 1/4 cup of salt per quart of water is a down and dirty way to make a 5% salt brine, let's simplify things by just using grams of salt/metric volume of liquid.
According to the label, Kikkoman Soy Sauce has 920mg of sodium in 15ml of sauce, so 500mls of soy sauce has 30.7 grams of sodium. NaCl (salt) is 40% sodium by weight, so 500mls of soy sauce has the equivalent of 76.75 grams of salt.
By definition, a 5% salt brine would have 25 grams of salt per 500mls of water.
So, Kikkoman Soy Sauce is almost three times as salty as a 5% salt brine. To roughly approximate a 5% salt brine with soy sauce, mix 1 part soy sauce with 2 parts water.
You can also use a stronger solution for less time, but it will take some tweaking. I recommend that you try it the first time as I recommend for replicating a 5% brine, and then tweak from there. Or use a recipe that calls for a 10% salt brine and use half soy sauce, half water which will cause the chicken (especially the skin) to darken nicely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.154638
| 2016-03-05T22:24:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67122",
"authors": [
"Alice'a Stanley",
"Kate M",
"Maduka Herath",
"Magy Chiketo",
"Markus W Mahlberg",
"Michael V. Wardell",
"Mien",
"Sandra Beadles",
"Virginia Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"john Chapman",
"leon gutsche"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105641
|
Minimal time to boil squid
I know that squid is often cooked for one-two minutes to make it still tender. However is one minute enough to kill possible parasites? What is the minimal time of boiling for squid? If that's important then lets say it's already cut into small rings. It's frozen but I am worried that freezing might be incorrect or not enough.
Is your squid fresh, or frozen?
@Onyz It's frozen. But people who freeze it in Russia may not be trust-worthy. Maybe it's frozen in a wrong way.
Thanks. Could you edit your question to include that information, as well as the caveat that while it is frozen, you would prefer an answer that covers 'unsafe freezing' as a possibility?
@Onyz it's done
Thank you. :) I hope my answer is helpful to you. Have a great day, and I hope your squid is delicious.
As is usually the case with food safety, it is not purely the time something is cooking, but the temperature. Most recipes, even for fresh squid, call for a very short boil in water. If, out of an abundance of caution, you wanted to make absolutely sure that your squid is cooked safely, the CDC mandates that the internal temperature of seafood should reach 145° F [~63° C].
The most cautious method available is measuring the internal temperature of your cooked squid to ensure that it is up to temperature. That is the most surefire, consistent way to test food safety.
However, this is probably overkill and is especially overkill if your squid are already frozen.
If your squid is pre-frozen you don't have to worry; these parasites die when frozen. And most of the squid you buy will be pre-frozen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.154850
| 2020-03-02T21:57:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105641",
"authors": [
"Gherman",
"Onyz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77783
|
Size of pieces of fish for baking
I want to bake salmon with some seasoning in the oven. I was wondering what whould happen if I were to cut fish in thinner pieces so I can have more surface area covered with seasoning. Will the fish bake worse? What should be the perfect size? Or is it get the fish as big as possible, like whole maybe?
In general, the size of the cut has the biggest impact on how long the food will cook. A thinner slice of salmon will cook much more quickly than a thicker cut with the same surface area. Cutting the salmon too thin with a large surface area can also lead to over-seasoning, which will overpower the delicate salmon flavour. I prefer to cut salmon into evenly-sized squares approximately 2 cm thick, possibly thicker (I do not normally measure). Using a whole salmon can be good if you are an experienced cook, however it can be difficult to ensure all the small bones, guts, etc have been removed, and some find the head to be unappetizing. If going that route, it is also important to remember to season underneath the skin, as skin creates a waterproof barrier that will not allow flavours from spices to seep through, and normally one would stuff the opening you cut for removing the bones with seasoning as well (try placing thinly sliced pieces of lemon inside along with whatever seasoning blend you like before baking).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.154994
| 2017-01-25T19:24:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77783",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67869
|
What can I use as a substitute for grated coconut in heavy syrup?
I have a Latin American recipe that calls for grated coconut in heavy syrup. Apparently, you can commonly buy it in cans in Latin America, but not here in the USA. Can I substitute some mixture of dry coconut and syrup? What kind of syrup, in what ratio?
I have some sweetened dry coconut and light corn syrup on hand; if there's a way to make it work with those, that would be great, but if not that's OK too :)
The recipe of what you are making might help us to answer your question. Also, can you get fresh coconut?
@Jolenealaska I'm making Cuban Pastelitos de Coco. I can't find a from-scratch recipe online to show you; I'm looking at a recipe book. Essentially it's a puff pastry with a coconut filling. The filling is nothing but the coconut in syrup.
As a Latin American, we usually use fresh grated coconut, water and sugar to make this type of filling for sweets. If fresh grated coconut is not available, desiccated grated coconut is fine, we just adjust the amount of water when making the filling to reach the desired consistency
This recipe for the sweet calls for 150g of desiccated coconut for 2 cups of sugar and 2 cups of water. 1 cup is typically 240mL, or 8 fl. oz.
Typically when things are "canned in syrup" it's cane sugar and water.
I'd guess soak dried coconut in water (or coconut water) to rehydrate it; drain & save excess water, add twice as much sugar (volume or weight as you like, close enough to the same) as water, heat to dissolve, add coconut back to it, stir - should be close-ish.
It is not necessary to rehydrate the coconut, just adjust the volume of water when making the filling
Have you tried coconut cream? It is a lot thicker than coconut juice/milk. that should be a good substitute for the syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.155140
| 2016-03-30T01:44:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67869",
"authors": [
"Cheezey",
"Jolenealaska",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551"
],
"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
}
|
118156
|
Can you make crepes/pancakes on a stainless steel pan without oil or butter so that it doesn't stick?
Can you make crepes/pancakes (and other pourable batter flatbreads) on a stainless steel pan without oil or butter so that it doesn't stick? Assuming the batter itself has no oil or added fat.
I did not try it with crepes, but I also have good experience with ceramic coated pans and meat, fish, chicken (no butter or oil).
Not sure about the outcome, but you could use some cooking paper (or maybe aluminium foil). Put that inside the pan, wait for it to be hot enough, and pour the batter on it.
Deja: that would give you batter-coated tin foil. Real fun to eat if you have dental fillings!
also wouldn't have the same texture I suspect
@Déjàvu other arguments against it aside, this will most likely produce terrible crêpes. They are quite sensitive to the heating properties of the pan, and a sheet of aluminum foil, loosely touching a pan, is the opposite of what you want. As for cooking paper, pretty much all its coatings will melt into the batter, if it doesn't catch fire outright. It is intended for baking, not for use in pans.
The thing with crepes is that the best pans for making them tend to be the cheapest non-stick kind; very specifically: not the "good ones". Unless you really have no room to have an extra pan, there's no reason not to get one (certainly not the price) - the cheapest of the cheap'o ones are best. Paper-thin metal and crap heat capacity so detested in other cooking allow to stop heating the crepe immediately by removing it from heat and avoid burning it if any distraction prevents you from flipping it or moving to a plate, and stove setting translates into the pan temperature nearly immediately.
No. Any starchy batter, without oil, fat, or teflon*, will adhere to a stainless steel pan, and will be removable only with a scraper.
(* or other nonstick surface, such as ceramic nonstick or silicone)
So how did the French originally cook their crêpe, long before the invention of Teflon?
@BasilBourque with oil.
Or, more likely, with butter.
Butter. Both butter in the pan, and butter in the batter. Heck, I still make crepes in a rolled steel pan ... works better than nonstick.
@BasilBourque I've made crepes for decades. What is Teflon?
@Aubergine they may use it indeed, but it isn't very well suited. At the temperatures you need for good crepes, it burns badly and gives you an unpleasant taste.
@Rob the chemical coating that makes non-stick pans non-stick
@rumtscho Even the French seem divided between butter and oil. But the taste of a pancake with apple rings fried in brown butter cannot be achieved with oil. (OK, tomorrow is pancake day now ;-).) My personal experience is that cooking with butter needs careful temperature management: While the batter is liquid evaporation cools the pan. As soon as it congeals, surely after flipping it, the temperature needs to be dialed down a lot. And after one pancake has been taken out remove the pan from the fire or immediately put in another piece of butter and very quickly follow with the batter.
@rumtscho The key things there are keeping your pan clean and putting the batter in as soon as the butter is melted. Obviously you want the butter to be hot enough to cook the batter, but if it's started to catch then you've left it too long. Quickly wiping the pan after each crepe removes any burnt residue for the next one, and as Peter says, don't leave the pan on the heat and empty.
There is some magical relationship between steel (or cast iron) and oil. Engines usually use steel (or cast iron) for the cylinder. These metals seem to have a sponge-like affinity for oil which stainless steel and aluminum do not. The pistons, which rub against the cylinders, are aluminum. You can have steel rubbing against aluminum, but you can't have aluminum rubbing against aluminum because oil just doesn't have the same affinity for aluminum.
I have an engine with 100,000 km on it. The aluminum pistons have gone back and forth in the same 3" steel cylinder 10 trillion times with no measurable wear to the steel. All because oil sticks to steel.
If you want a non-stick pan (other than Teflon), you need oiled cast iron or ugly old oiled steel. Always store your iron and steel pans with a thin coat of oil. Don't waste time trying to make stainless or aluminum non-stick.
Physics & Mechanics has entered the kitchen :)
(It is the piston rings, which are made of cast iron or steel, which rub against the walls of the cyclinders. Nevertheless, the lubrication is still essential.)
Sorry, I had to downvote. The analogy is misleading. Aluminium and stainless steel are suitable for oiled moving parts, indeed many engine blocks are made of cast aluminium, and so are e.g. some bicycle sprockets. The reason that specialised non-stainless alloys are generally preferrable (and indeed aluminium engines tend to use steel liners) is simply that they can be made harder, but in some cases the weight advantage of aluminium or corrosion resistance of stainless steel may outweigh this aspect. ...
...With cast iron pans, there's a completely different story going on: a cast iron pan in proper working condition has a nonstick surface of polymerized fats, which works in much the same way as a PTFE nonstick coating. Such a coating would not properly attach to aluminium or stainless steel (probably because of the passivation layer), but that's a different matter from how monomeric liquid oil coats surfaces,
And finally, oiled stainless is perfectly suitable for some frying tasks, including pancakes. It's just that a liquid oil layer will never be as reliable as a solid polymer one, but that applies to unseasoned cast iron just like it does for stainless or aluminium.
Are you running your engine with cooking oil?
Only with a Parchment layer, though I wouldn't expect great results. Peeling off paper may be necessary
Have you tried this?
Yes, pan over campfire. Where there's a will, there's a way.
FuzzyChef's answer is technically correct, but rather than saying "no", I'll say "no, but...".
I often make pancakes on a steel plate that I've seasoned like a cast iron skillet. However, I don't use no fat like your question. My pancake batter has some butter in it, and I apply a very thin layer of oil to the steel, and then wipe it off with a paper towel. The oil on the steel is a nutritionally insignificant amount of fat.
You should be able to season your stainless steel pan and use it like I do. If it's unseasoned, the food will definitely stick strongly.
You do add fat, so it is not as OP requested.
@Willeke I'm not aware of any diets or medical conditions that would forbid trace amounts of fat. Avoiding fatty foods is a common approach, as roughly twice the calories in the same volume tend to make meals that leave one hungry and craving for more, easily leading to exceeding the recommended calorie intake. Avoiding even trace amounts of fat serves no culinary or medical purpose.
I agree that your method works and is more sensible, but it does not answer the question. Which is clear 'no fat'.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.155323
| 2021-12-11T05:15:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118156",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Andrew Morton",
"Aubergine",
"Basil Bourque",
"Déjà vu",
"FuzzyChef",
"Graham",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Philipp",
"Rob",
"SF.",
"Sneftel",
"Tristan",
"Willeke",
"akhmeteli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96843",
"leftaroundabout",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97500
|
How to cool large amount of liquids in a home kitchen?
I like to prep and freeze large amounts of soup at once but have come to understand that I probably have a food safety issue cooling them in my refrigerator.
I had been putting them is a cube shaped cambro, but have noticed that it takes way, way too long to get it down to 40°F.
My research turned up a lot of food safety strategies for commercial kitchens with a lot of equipment/space that I don't have.
What methods can a home cook use to get a large amount (say, ten quarts) of liquid down to safe temperatures in time?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/62988/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16540/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/88135/67 ;
Please see the answers to the questions @Joe has linked above. All of those suggestions are directly applicable to your question. As such, I'm flagging your question as a duplicate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.155884
| 2019-04-15T17:45:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97500",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74845
|
Does milk make eggs more fluffy?
I just heard that putting milk in eggs make it more fluffy, but is it really a good idea? Some people say putting milk/cream in eggs makes it more fluffy, but some people say that it makes the eggs loses flavor. So, is is it true that putting milk in eggs make it more fluffy?
there's a good chance that this will be closed as 'opinion based', but see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/997/67
No, but I'm not asking about an opinion. I'm asking about the true scientific explanation if putting milk is good or not.
Nathan, perhaps this is a translation issue ... but you have two questions : "... but is it really a good idea" and "So, is it a good idea or not?". That's asking for opinions, as some people may prefer flavor over fluffiness (or use other tricks to get the fluffiness, rather than the crutch of using fat or extra liquid). If you had asked "Is it true?", that could possibly be scientific. You could've also asked why milk makes the eggs fluffier.
I changed it, so can you answer it now? (I have very little experience with cooking, and the only thing I know how to cook is eggs and fried rice) Vote it up! Just kidding... :D
"Good or not" is opinion.
While adding milk may change the flavor slightly, such a small amount is used that it is not likely to be an extreme loss of flavor.
Some people add a small amount of water. With a small amount, flavor loss should not be noticeable. And since most people scramble their eggs with butter or some other type of oil, there is a measure of fat included. (Ref. to below quote.)
Yahoo Food explains the effect and differences:
Some recipes for scrambled eggs call for water or milk. Does this do anything for the eggs?
When eggs are scrambled, the mechanism that transforms the liquidy beaten eggs into a fluffy mound on the plate is protein coagulation—the process by which, when exposed to heat, proteins unfold and then tangle up with one another and set, forming a latticed gel. The more tender the scrambled eggs, the more loosely the proteins have coagulated. Adding water to scrambled eggs dilutes the proteins a little, thereby raising the temperature at which they coagulate and making it harder to overcook the scramble. Water also increases the amount of steam, which puffs up the eggs, producing fluffy scrambled eggs. As for milk, it contains water but also fat, which coats the protein molecules so that they can’t bind with one another as tightly. The key to scrambled eggs that are both fluffy and tender is a balance of water and fat.
Also you can choose not to add anything and just whisk the eggs very well before cooking. This will incorporate air and result in fluffier eggs.
In the end, it will be your choice. I would suggest trying all three ways and deciding which you like best.
I've been cooking scrambled eggs since I was 12. I've made them all types of ways: without anything, with water, with milk, with cream, etc. I can tell you absolutely without a doubt that MILK does the trick and makes the eggs fluffier. The trick is to use a decent amount of milk. 2 ounces of milk is not going to make a noticeable difference. I have been doing it for so long that I don't need to measure, but I eyeball about 1/3 portion of milk in proportion to the amount of eggs.
Please note that this site, like the whole Stack Exchange network has a Code of Conduct - and that we enforce it.
From my experience, the thing that makes the eggs more fluffy is whisking them before cooking, since you allow particles of air to be introduced among the eggs, then due to heat these air particles will expand a little givving more volume to your eggs.
However milk or cream give more nutrients to your meal, and yes decreases the eggs flavor a little bit.
Yes in my experience eggs will fluff more with milk. Some people like that.
Yes milk will change the flavor. Some people like that flavor.
When you mix the milk helps it to become homogeneous. In bulk I would mix the eggs slow and then add just enough whole milk or cream to get it blend out.
It is more about how you cook them. If you keep the egg(s) moving they will fluff more. With milk even more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.155992
| 2016-10-19T01:47:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74845",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Nathan Tran",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100342
|
Ice cream stabilizer - locust gum - use and cooking procedure
I have a locust gum (powder). I searched online and it needs to be heated at least to 165 F to properly hydrate the gum.
I have a few questions:
should I still use eggs in the recipe? Won't it be too gummy?
should I cook all liquid ingredients, including fruit, with the locust gum so all liquid is incorporated by the gum?
how long should I cook it? Just until it reaches the right temperature? Or keep cooking like 20 minutes? Is there a minimum and maximum?
I could not find much clear directions on how to use it for ice cream, bit this site helped a lot: http://icecreamscience.com/locust-bean-gum-in-ice-cream/#44_heating_and_hydration
'm just trying to get more real experience from others.
Thank you for any help!
Eggs don't contain any starch.
@moscafj thank you, I probably expressed it in the wrong way. I heard that egg already does something similar to the gum, so I just wondered if it would be too much.
another point. Unless you're talking about something that doesn't contain water (like oil, or gasoline), you don't hydrate a liquid. I think you mean hydrate the gum
@JulianaKarasawaSouza I don't how my mind did not stop me from writing "hydrate the liquid"! Yes, I meant the gum. Obrigado, thank you!
LBG hydrates at 80C (176F); which might be a bit high for eggs. You should simply the cook the milk+cream with LBG until it hydrates and thickens; then proceed with your recipe, i.e while tempering the eggs at the right temperature as the mixture cools down...
I would mix in the fruits at the end to the cold mixture, as heat can alter the taste of fruit greatly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.156330
| 2019-07-24T04:55:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100342",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76687",
"igorjrr",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100441
|
How to add alkaline to a drink?
I've recently become fascinated by the use of butterfly pea blossoms to add colour to alcoholic drinks. (Yes, I've been watching How To Drink on Youtube). It acts as a natural pH indicator--add lemon juice to blossom-infused gin, and it'll go from purplish-blue to pink.
The thing is, for Reasons I want to do the reverse! I'd like to make a slightly acidic beverage, then elevate the pH, so it turns purple in the glass.
I'm familiar with using e.g. bicarb to elevate pH in savoury cooking--for caramelizing onions, that sort of thing. But I'm concerned about the flavour effects on an alcoholic drink. Are there any edible ways to elevate pH that are flavourless, or would be easily masked by a cocktail?
If there aren't, would an Alka-Seltzer tab provide the right pH reaction? I'm not a chemistry person at all so I'm not sure if the acid-base reaction would provide colour change as well as the bubbles.
ETA: TLDR what I want to do is dye a spirit with butterfly pea blossom, add acid to turn it pink, then at the moment of service add (ideally flavourless) ____________ to turn it purple/blue again.
Thanks in advance, all!
By the way, acidic solutions have a low pH. To make something more basic, you want to raise the pH.
Calcium hydroxide is nearly flavorless, and will raise pH.Sodium carbonate, made by baking bicarb in a 350°F oven for 90 min. will also raise pH. I prefer the absence of flavor of small amounts of CaOH. If low is really the way you want to go, lemon juice should hit the spot.
Thank you both, I edited my xpost but forgot to fix this one, got the pH scale backwards. In my defence it has been many years since chemistry class. CaOH sounds like it's what I need, flavourless and soluble in water (and presumably alcohol?)
Oh dear. It turns out that CaOH is insoluble in alcohol.
@Sebastion It'll still react with acid, and raise pH. I use in on my store-bought canned tomatoes every time. Fixes up the pH just fine.
Yes...but chunky lumps of CaOH in a cocktail is not exactly something I'm aiming for. If I were to make a water solution of CaOH, would it precipitate out when alcohol is added?
Solubilty of CaOH is about 1.75 g/L in water. I doubt 20% alcohol would change it much. You could filter, but that gets messy. All the sodium bases have some of that ugly bicarb flavor. Amines, or ammonia are also icky. For a foodish purpose CaOH is top of the list. Dibasic sodium phosphate-food grade pH 8 can be had online. That doesn't taste too bad, and might do the job for you. Have to use deionized water with that, as Ca-phosphate will form a hazy precipitate.
Do you mean for your drink to be actually drinkable or just decorative? High pH leaves an unpleasant mouth feeling and you need to be very careful when balancing out the flavors to make sure it is masked well, and also take into account the effect of that into somebody's stomach after they had a few drinks. There is a reason why basic stuff is meant to be consumed in small quantities (Pepto) or not ingested at all (toothpaste), and they all use very heavy-duty flavoring.
It needs to be drinkable, yes. That's why 'flavourless' is an important piece of the puzzle. It has been suggested to me that a simple syrup (pH8 might work), I'm going to try that first, and then if necessary minimal amounts of CaOH until it works. I know this may not work at all, in the end, which is unfortunate.
Related on Beer, Wine and Spirits SE: How to increase pH. In a cocktail?
@KenGraham It is actually the same post, C+P
I had a look at the actual scientific paper describing the use of this substance as a pH indicator and a few other blogs, this is the overall advice:
1 - Please make sure that the FINAL pH of the solution is NOT basic-ish. This will not sit well in your customer's stomachs if they consume a full dose of a cocktail (120-150mL) with a final pH of more than 7.5. As I mentioned in the comments, there is a reason why you don't ingest toothpaste. Basic substances also leave a very unpleasant mouthfeel - it is a mix between a very tannin-ish feel and corrosive irritation.
2 - Do NOT add Alka-setzer. One person tried to do that and it ended-up being a gray-white shade, very unappealing for food and/or drinks
3 - There is not enough documentation on the REVERSIBILITY of this process (not all pH indicators are reversible), so you're going to need to experiment with it
4 - Aim for a final pH level of 5-6, this is where the blue color is at its optimal level. I suggest using CaOH (pickling lime / limewater) because that's easy to handle and nearly flavorless. Note that this is used in a lot of clarification processes, so you need to choose mixers that are low in protein so you don't get nasty precipitation when you add your limewater.
Reference:
The Butterfly Pea Flower as a pH Indicator
More importantly, don't add alka-selzer to a drink because it's a drug, with various possible risks and side effects. It should only be taken in when medically appropriate and in controlled doses.
Maybe it will be a good idea to decrece the pH of the drink by usig Dry Ice, in contact with the liquid it will release a bunch of CO2.
CO2 allows pH adjustment, neutralizes carbonates, scale precursors, without hard decreasing alkalinity and promotes pH stability, the pH should be around 6.5. The best of all it is flavorless.
The OP specifically wants to make the drink alkaline (i.e. to raise the pH above 7, despite an error in the post). Adding an acid isn't going to help.
What I mean with this idea, is that (e.g if i have drink with lemon, the pH should be something like 3.5, cuz the lemon ph is 2.4, so using Dry Ice, it will balance the pH to 6.5-7, the color change in the butterfly pea blossoms should be significant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.156492
| 2019-07-29T12:15:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100441",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Juhasz",
"Jujosiga",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Ken Graham",
"Sebastien",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76819"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116364
|
Do I need to re-pasteurize my soft serve mix?
I'm using all prepackaged ingredients, and following good sanitization (QA) procedures of utensils and work area. Do I need to re-pasteurize my mix before feeding it into the machine? The machine has been sanitized using QA as well.
I would think that if all the ingredients are pasteurized then you wouldn't need to re-pasteurize anything.
Where I've heard of people getting into trouble is when they add something like raw fruit to an ice cream mix, and the fruit hasn't been pasteurized (cooked to a particular temperature for a particular amount of time).
But note that just because it's prepackaged doesn't necessarily mean it's safe for raw consumption. For example, you can make "cake batter ice cream" by adding boxed cake mix to an ice cream base, but the flour from the cake mix isn't pasteurized or safe to eat raw.
I think it also depends on how long until its served. If it's going to be used right away there's little value in re-pasteurizing it.
As well. Thanks. My machine has a refrigerated mix tank, and I dont keep anything beyond 72 hrs. Even though it's been at <40F (so far temps at 35 - 37). Just trying to make sure my customers are safe. Again, thanks.
@TwistyExpress - Great! Please consider selecting my answer if you think it covers what you asked about. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.157039
| 2021-07-09T14:46:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116364",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Russell Gilbert",
"Twisty Express",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77414
|
How to improve the texture of frozen yogurt?
I made some frozen yogurt for the first time yesterday. It turned out better than I feared, but had two problems:
It had some ice crystals, and was more sorbet-like than ice-creamy.
Once served, it melted rather rapidly into a thick soup.
Both these problems boil down to texture. How do I get a consistent, thick texture for frozen yogurt that will last long enough for someone to get through a serving?
Here are the details. The recipe I improvised was this. All measurements are US:
Make the yogurt
Put three cups of full-fat, lactose-free milk into a Pyrex bowl
Steam the milk for 30 minutes in an Instant Pot
When milk has cooled to 110º F, remove 1/4 cup milk
Add removed milk to 2 tbsp of full-fat Greek yogurt and stir thoroughly
Add mixture to rest of milk
Empty water used for steaming from Instant Pot and put Pyrex bowl back in
Leave on yogurt setting for 8 hrs
Refrigerate for 8 hrs
This resulted in a caramelized, creamy yogurt.
Make the golden syrup
I figured golden syrup, since it's an invert sugar, would prevent crystallization. I followed this recipe from the Totally Sacha YouTube channel, which involves adding boiling water, sugar, and a lemon wedge to some caramelized sugar and then letting the whole shebang simmer for ~45 minutes.
Make the frozen yogurt
Mix 1 cup golden syrup into the yogurt
Mix 3 tbsp Bailey's Irish Cream into the yogurt
Grind about 1/8 tsp Himalayan Pink Salt into the mixture and stir
Freeze for an hour
Use a stick mixer to break up crystals and blend the yogurt
Freeze overnight
Use stick mixer again
Freeze until time to serve (about 6 hrs)
What could I do differently to improve the texture? It served reasonably well: neither too mushy nor too firm. But as mentioned, the texture was a tad icy and did not stay firm.
Perhaps I could blend it a couple more times to break up the crystals more, as the answers to this earlier question say. However, the bigger problem was the melting. It melted far more quickly than desirable. Eaten at a reasonable pace, the last quarter bowl of each serving was the texture of clam chowder.
I thought of some things that might work, but I'm not confident they will:
Add some pectin?
Reduce the amount of alcohol?
Use some sugar to replace some of the golden syrup? I don't just want to add sugar, as the yogurt would be too sweet. The answer to this question says that sugar will result in a softer set, but I'm not sure "softer set" == "won't melt as quickly". Sugar might make the crystallization and the melting issue worse.
Add an egg to make the yogurt more custard-like?
Strain the yogurt to thicken it before adding the syrup, etc?
I don't have an ice cream maker or a stand mixer; much though I'd like them (especially the latter), that situation is unlikely to change any time soon. So I'm limited to the equipment at hand.
One of the reasons it melted quickly was the Bailey's Irish Cream. One of your guesses is to reduce the amount of alcohol.
Alcohol lowers the freezing/melting point - it makes the mixture harder to freeze and quicker to melt.
I would make the frozen yogurt without alcohol, then serve it with a splash of liqueur over the top. And I'm suspicious from your recipe that the Bailey's would any significant flavor.
The Bailey's did impart a pretty strong flavor, actually, so I was thinking about reducing it for that reason in any case. I'll try it (and also some of @rumtscho's suggestions, like blending in my food processor rather than using the wand) and let you know how it turned out
First, you shouldn't have the expectations that your ice cream (or frozen yogurt, or whatever) will turn out to be like storebought. You can get to a "better than now" state, but not to a "out of the heart brand tub" state.
For your ideas, some are off the mark, some are worth trying. 1) a hydrocolloid is generally good in ice cream, since it binds water and prevents it from making large crystals (helps with "icy"). Pectin is an unusual choice though, guar gum works better. But you can start with pectin and then graduate if not happy. 2) don't reduce the alcohol, it will get icier. 3) for the purposes of setting, golden syrup is sugar. You can add more if you want, substitution won't help. 4) frozen yogurts are not custards, cooked yogurt is not tasty. 5) yes, reducing the available water can make it less icy, so do strain.
When you add the emulsifier, you will have done about as much as you can at home to get rid of the crystals, seeing that you are also already adding both salt and alcohol. So, not much more that can be done in that department, except of course proper churning.
And here we are coming to the crux of your problem - you are not churning properly. The "blend, then reblend" method is a substitute that never works as good as an ice cream machine. Also, you are mentioning a "stick mixer" - so you most likely don't have a powerful blender which can turn a block of water ice into snow, just a standard model. You probably have zero overrun, so of course it is melting right away.
The solution is to buy an ice cream machine. Make sure to read test reports, there are some disappointing models on the market. A standard frozen-bowl style will already be an improvement, although it will still have some melty tendency. If you want gelateria-style ice cream and have the space and the money, you'll have to invest in a compressor machine. I doubt that you can ever get supermarket-style at home, unless you get into serious equipment and recipe modding.
Some clarifications. (1) With regard to egg, I was thinking of heating the egg separately to around 160° F, cooling it, and mixing it in with the rest, as in ice cream recipes. I wasn't planning to cook the entire mixture. And to the general point that cooked yogurt isn't tasty, it's an ingredient in plenty of Indian recipes. (2) The link in the original question says that invert sugars retard crystallization; how do you mean "for the purposes of setting, golden syrup is sugar"? (3) what does "zero overrun" mean?
@verbose 1) if you mean to pasteurize your egg (it's not 100% clear to me what you mean, the link recommends heating everything and it is about safety anyway) that won't help you with texture because will not make a custard. 2) Invert sugar is irrelevant here, that's for candy making. Whenever you read something about using sugar in ice cream, it doesn't matter if you use sugar or golden syrup (unless you have access to specialized food technology books which tweak the finest details). 3) Zero overrun means that zero percent of your ice cream's volume is air beaten in.
The article I linked to says invert sugars are used "in the preparation of sorbets and ice cream since it has the ability for controlling crystallization and creating a smoother mouth feel." Is that wrong?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.157176
| 2017-01-13T09:16:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77414",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"rumtscho",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78747
|
Should I refrigerate homemade yogurt before making Greek yogurt?
I have a yogurt maker and a so-called Greek yogurt maker; the latter is basically a fancy strainer. Both gadgets are from Euro Cuisine. My process for making yogurt is as follows:
Scald milk at about 180º F for about 20 minutes
Let milk cool to between 100 and 110º F
Add starter culture
Incubate in yogurt maker for 8 hours
Refrigerate for at least 4 hours.
The yogurt seems pretty thick to me when I take it out of the machine after the incubation, but the instructions that came with the yogurt maker say that the last step, refrigerating, is needed for the yogurt to set properly.
The instructions that came with the Greek yogurt maker say:
Put yogurt into strainer
Leave in refrigerator for at least 4 hours, longer for greater thickness.
My question is: if I make a batch of regular yogurt intending to convert it to Greek yogurt, do I need to follow the last step of refrigerating the yogurt for 4 hours before putting it in the strainer to make Greek yogurt? Or can I just put the yogurt into the strainer as soon as the 8 hour incubation period is done?
Update: I checked with the manufacturer and got an email back from them that said:
You can move the content of your yogurt made in the YM100 into GY50 after yogurt is ready, without putting the yogurt in the refrigerator for 4 hours.
It isn't necessary, and many recipes don't call for it.
But the results will be slightly different, since the yogurt will continue to ferment (even in the fridge), and the gel structure of the proteins will set. That will alter composition of the whey that you're straining out, which means the resulting difference will have a slightly different texture and flavor.
Since that texture and flavor also depend on the milk you use, the temperature you process it at, the strain of culture you use, etc. I can't really say exactly what the differences will be, and how significant they are. You'd have to make it yourself and see -- and, of course, decide which you prefer.
I can say, however, that you won't ruin a batch of yogurt by straining before refrigerating.
I have found that draining the yogurt while still warm yields a thicker end result, and more whey drained. I prefer it that way, but it does make a rather thick product that may not be to everybody's liking. I make much of my yogurt into tzatziki and therefore prefer it thicker. I also salt and dehydrate my cucumbers and thoroughly drain them to avoid the addition of too much additional water to the finished product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.157680
| 2017-02-27T06:09:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78747",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78520
|
Can I use parboiled basmati rice just like ordinary non-converted basmati?
tl;dr Do the cooking time, behavior, taste, and texture of parboiled rice differ significantly enough from non-converted rice such that a simple substitution will yield undesirable results?
I accidentally purchased a large bag of parboiled basmati rice. I make a variety of dishes with basmati rice, but I've never tried any of them with the parboiled version. Can I just use the parboiled rice in place of the non-parboiled? Or do I need to make various adjustments to cooking times, steps in a recipe, methods, etc? And will the results (taste, texture) be different from non-parboiled even with said adjustments?
For example, here is my basic basmati rice recipe, which I make in a pressure cooker. Will this recipe work with parboiled?
Rinse 1 cup rice until it runs clear
Let drain ~15 minutes in colander
Heat 1 tbsp oil or ghee in pressure cooker
When hot, sauté the rice for a minute or so
Add 1.5 cups of water or vegetable stock
Close pressure cooker lid and wait for full (high) pressure
Manually pressure cook for four minutes.
Let pressure come down naturally
Fluff and serve.
Also, the directions on the bag say to soak the parboiled rice for an hour before cooking. I don't typically have the time for this: the whole point of rice is that it's easy and quick to make. But plenty of recipes using basmati, including ones for just plain basmati by itself (i.e., white rice with no added meats or veggies, as in the preparation above), ask for the rice to be soaked, and I never do; I just wash it and let it drain for about 15 minutes. Is soaking de rigeur for parboiled?
Finally, I'm worried that cooking times for more elaborate dishes will be thrown off by the parboiled rice, resulting in unevenly-cooked mixtures of rice, veggies, spices, and (on the rare occasions I cook it) meat; and that the resulting dish will be significantly altered in taste and texture as a result of using the parboiled rice instead of white.
Are these concerns valid?
Since parboiled rice has been soaked, steamed, dried and hull removed, wouldn't it be better to skip the first two steps? Have you tried that?
I've not tried anything. I have not cooked with parboiled rice before. But hull removed is hardly unique to parboiled....
Parboiled rice should be cooked more or less the same way, but may come out a little less sticky than regular rice. It should taste exactly the same. Your recipes should work just fine.
I would probably do a trial run with a quick batch of the plain rice as you would normally do it just to make sure since parboiling as a process is different in different parts of the world.
Good luck!
Thanks, this is reassuring. What is your source for the info? Personal experience? It would be helpful to know. Also, I take it you mean that the pre-soaking is not needed either?
Both personal experience and some more authoritative sources online. I also looked at recipes that call for parboiled rice and they look identical to how I would cook unconverted rice. I wouldn't presoak it. I skip that step usually myself.
Parboiling is meant to recapture some of the lost nutrients from the shelling/de-husking process while maintaining the white rice consistency.
I will wait a day or two to see if there are any other answers before accepting :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:59.157907
| 2017-02-19T03:01:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78520",
"authors": [
"CMB92",
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54783",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.