Datasets:

common-pile
/

stackexchange

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · ~30.4M rows (showing the first 1.26M)

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
108046	Yogurt made with heavy cream I like to make yogurt from heavy cream so when it's frozen, it keeps creamy texture when stored in the freezer in several days. Do you think this works? Does high fat content affect incubation process of yogurt? Should I use heavy cream or half heavy cream half whole milk? I answered, but misread the question. Do you want to make the yogurt with cream...or add cream to yogurt when making frozen yogurt? Also, your question probably won't survive long if you are just asking whether or not this is a good idea. We don't really respond to opinion based questions. So, you might want to re-frame your question. Thank you, I edited my question. I want to make yogurt with cream then freeze it after incubation Should this say "I would like to make.."? Right now it reads like you currently enjoy making yogurt with cream, which makes the whole question confusing. This is a very normal thing to do. The result is not called yogurt, but sour cream. You can use yogurt, especially lactobacillus yogurt, as a starter for full-fat sour cream of the Eastern European type. The fermentation process is the same as for yogurt. It gets a very nice characteristic smell which is different from that of yogurt. It might stay slightly soupier than yogurt, even after sitting in the fridge, that's normal. There is nothing special you need to consider, just go ahead and make it. You can add cream to milk when making yogurt. This will increase the fat content. However, if by "creamy", you are referring to texture of your yogurt, there are other variables that contribute besides fat content. See this question, for example. Also, there are variables besides fat (sugar content, for example) that influence the texture of frozen ices.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.259581	2020-05-01T17:25:35	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108046", "authors": [ "Kat", "Nguyen Ngoc Long", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84032", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108517	Roughly how long should I cook 3.5kg pork belly ribs in electric smoker? I know they are done when they are tender—not at a set number of hours. But we need to eat at about 6pm for logistical reasons. Was thinking of putting them in at 4am so 13h total cook time + 1h rest. Anyone done this before? Want to smoke at 225 degrees Fahrenheit. Welcome to the site. I don't see a question, you seem to have a plan already. Asking for opinions is off-topic, are you asking whether your cooking time is about right? That sounds like a really long time. Spare rib, baby back, or country ribs? Just the ribs, or are they still attached to the belly? @moscafj They are still attached to the belly. Based on your comment, you are basically barbecuing pork belly with the ribs still attached. I like the approach these folks take. You will want to maintain your smoker temperature at 225F (107C). You will also want to use a probe thermometer. They suggest treating the belly almost like one would treat brisket; that is, when the internal temperature reaches about 165F (74C), to wrap it in foil. Then, continue until the internal temperature reaches 200F (93C). Their belly took 8 hours using this method. Given that yours still has the ribs attached it will likely take a bit longer. It's hard to estimate time beyond this. You will want to monitor temperature. If it is done early, just keep it wrapped and place it in a cooler.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.259746	2020-05-21T05:59:34	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108517", "authors": [ "Derek Fulton", "GdD", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84393", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
109263	Making my Chicken Madras more savoury I have been trying to imitate the gold standard of curries; The British Indian Restaurant (BIR) Chicken Madras and have had some success. I have made the base-curry sauce as per the books and it works out OK but there is a lot of preparation and the taste is not quite there. One thing about BIR Madras is that is it always savoury. When I follow homemade curry recipes I always find that my curry is too sour from the tomato, so I have taken to adding chicken stock (using Knorr cubes) and my curry is starting to approach my goal. Can anyone suggest ways of making my curry even more savoury? EDIT: This is my recipe, which won't surprise many people. Marinade chicken breast in yoghurt and lemon for 30 mins in the fridge. Rinse off marinade and partially fry the chicken and set aside. Fry onion in Ghee until it starts to brown. Add garlic and ginger paste. Wait 2 mins. Add dried kashmiri chillies. Stir in spices; coriander powder, cumin, garam masala, hot chilli powder, tumeric and fenugreek powder. Wait 1 min. Add 1 mug chicken stock (1 Knorr cube). Add tomato passata. Add chicken back in and cook for 15 mins or so. EDIT 2: I have seen several places that the garam masala should go in last; I will actually do that next time. You mean Dan Toombs? He doesn't use passata - in fact I've never known passata in a curry. The base sauce uses canned chopped tomatoes, the 'madras tweak' adds tomato puree, about a tablespoon. Anyway, as we don't actually know your recipe or method, there's not a lot we can add. Look up Pat Chapman too, if you're looking for 'curry house' recipes. btw, I don't particularly agree with the dupe this was closed against, but we don't have enough info to re-open it yet. Edit your question with your exact method - getting the onions wrong can have great effect, as can your bhuna/bhogar stage. Sorry, but that's nowhere near a 'restaurant' sauce method. That's a quick-cook you'll never get anywhere close to a restaurant curry. All I can suggest, if you're going to follow either Toombs or Chapman is… follow them, don't think that using the same ingredients with a totally different method is going to taste the same. You can cook out some sourness from the tomato paste, by adding it after the ginger and garlic, before the liquid. @Daron - he's using passata, not purée [US 'paste' I think] Passata is about the consistency of tomato soup, it's canned tomatoes finely blended & then sieved. You can't fry soup ;) Let me try to at least start this one off… Your recipe, as it stands, isn't bad for the finalisation stage of the curry, but what you are seriously missing is the base sauce. The base sauce has all your depth, & a fair proportion of your texture & mouth-feel. Your 'tweaks' are just what is needed to get the chicken right at the end. It's just the add-on segment. BTW, some of the 'sour' could be coming from your marinade - yoghurt & lemon. BIR chicken curry is not marinated. The only marinated chicken is tikka. You need to start 6 - 8 hours earlier. Your actual ingredients are really the least important part of this, it's the method & time spent simmering that makes all the difference. Start by par-boiling onions. Then puree them. Then get your bhuna or bhogar going [this is either wet or dry spices, depending on result required. Wet is easier to get right, but needs a good amount of oil, you can't skimp the oil/ghee - whenever you think you've got too much… add some more. Garlic/ginger purée can go in now, 2 mins, then, if you're going the tomato purée route, add now. If you're going with canned, wait til after your onions are at a simmer. Then fry your onion purée in your spice blend. Once your onions start to go in, a bit at a time, whack the heat right up [watch out, they spit]. This is a bit of a 'be careful' moment. You don't want to burn your spice blend, but you need to caramelise the onions. Once you get a good bit of caramelisation going, drop the heat & simmer. That is your absolute basic sauce starter. Give it at least 4 hours, preferably more. Think of it as a stock pot. Season to taste after maybe an hour, when it's settled enough to gauge accurately. You can tweak towards the end, so don't go overboard. Done this way your onions & oil are your sauce base. You won't need to add any additional water. Can of tomatoes is as far as I'd go for additional liquid. I wouldn't dream of adding stock cubes to it. It doesn't need it. If you want actual onion chunks for texture at the end, that's what your quick-cook does. What it doesn't do is give the sauce anything to stand on. I'd probably get the Kashmiri chilli in at the initial sauce stage. tbh, I usually use pre-ground Kashmiri mirch, which is a fabulous colour-booster without adding much in the way of heat. It's a bit like paprika in that respect. If you want the rehydrated chilli chunks/whole vibe [which certainly can work nicely] then save the whole ones until your later stage & use ground in the base. ...and leave out the passata & stock in your 'tweak' sauce. They're not helping. A tablespoon of purée, fried into your onion/spice blend, will give you the tomato addition that a 'Brit madras' needs. When you get to the point you'd add your stock - that's when your base sauce goes in instead. Your garam masala can go in twice - once to your base sauce, then again at the end. The long vs short cook on these aromatics will give you depth plus top notes. Late notes after other answers & comments [includes some sweeping generalisations]. There's no colour on the chicken in a madras, other than what it picks up from the sauce. It's boiled, not fried. In a restaurant it's often pre-boiled in a simple spice blend, then cooled, so it can be dropped in the last 2 minutes to a take-away order. If you want pre-cooked/charred edge, you order tikka madras. It's always chicken breast, skinned & off the bone, no dark meat. That's the way the Brits wanted it originally, that's what it became. Unless you order tikka, it is not marinated at all, it's just boiled in spices from fresh. Although I imagine it can happen in some takeaways, MSG is not needed to get a curry right. Coconut is for Southern Indian dishes, not Northern Indian/Pakistani, which is where 'BIR' originated. If you want a totally different experience, including coconut, pandan & curry leaves, try Sri Lankan. It's fabulous. That's actually my preferred home curry style, partly because it's the one I can do better than any restaurant I've ever eaten in. My madras is not quite as spectacular, but it's still pretty good ;) Quick list of spices I'd envision in the sauce base Cumin Coriander Turmeric Garam Masala Kashmiri mirch [if you can't find that, paprika will just about do instead] Red chilli powder of any type, cayenne-like, depending on intensity required] Fenugreek [ground seed] … & then the ones missing from above Cardamom Cloves Garlic powder - it's a BIR thing, different taste to fresh, which should be in too] Asafoetida - gives a kind of sweet onion taste [smells revolting until it cooks in] Black pepper - vital, different kind of hot to chilli Methi - dried fenugreek leaves [totally different to seeds] That's your basic - anything else will become dish-variant & go in your final cook. I am having a hard time believing this is authentic to Indian cooking. Did the village people where these recipes orginated historically have access to a food processor for pure-ing? Honestly, this has absolutely nothing to do with traditional Indian village cooking. Both the question & answer are talking about BIR - British Indian Restaurant - cooking, which is what we expect to eat in the west & not just in Britain. I know a few small family restaurants in high density Asian population areas in the UK who do also sell 'real' traditional food, but they actually try to dissuade Westerners from ordering it, in case they're disappointed. [I have tried it, it's quite different, but I like it too.] Long & short, you will never have eaten true traditional cooking, so it's not going to be what you're trying to copy. Additionally, if you cook onions for long enough, you can eventually break them down just by stirring. Alway remember 'traditional' cooking would always be done by women with "nothing else to do all day" [which of course is rubbish, but they did everything else whilst already having dinner on just after breakfast. ;) … then of course, there's the traditional Nihari - which is prepared the night before, in order to be cooked to perfection just in time for breakfast. This is a difficult question to answer, as there's a lot of things that can potentially make a difference, including ingredient selection. I'm going to run through a things that I think might improve your dish (although, it might not give you exactly what you're trying to emulate). I wouldn't recommend putting in the spices last. It might be okay for a long-cooking sauces, but for quick cooking, it helps to 'bloom' the spices in the oil until you can smell them (about 20-60 seconds). If anything, I would try adding them just before you add the garlic and ginger. I don't know if it'll work here, but many American recipes for quick cooking tomato sauce (the Italian type sauce, not the British one) call for adding a pinch of sugar to help balance out any sourness. You didn't mention what type of onions you're using, but I would recommend avoiding sweet varieties of onions (they're usually more disk shaped, rather than closer to spherical), as they don't tend to have as deep of a flavor as most other onion varieties (white, red, and yellow). Give up on the chicken breast (which has very little flavor), and switch to chicken thigh meat. It can be a little bit trickier to deal with, but it's typically cheaper. If you can get boneless, or even boneless skinless (as I wouldn't use the skin for this anyway), go with that if you're trying to keep this quick, although I still recommend feeling around with your hands just to see if the butcher might've accidentally sliced through a bit of bone or cartilage and left a shard in there. As you're not spending the time to cook down the tomatoes, I would recommend using an already cooked tomato product, such as tomato paste, canned tomato sauce (the American kind, which is usually thinned out tomato paste possibly with some herbs in it), or tomato soup concentrate. If this were a Mexican dish, I'd also toast the chilies earlier, in a dry pan, then possibly set them aside while cooking the other stuff. I'm not sure how much that might change the flavor profile, though, and if that would detract from the 'Indian-ness' of the dish. I also suspect that you're not getting much color on your chicken, as you're rinsing off the marinade. At the very least, pat it dry with paper towels, and work in batches so there's plenty of space between the chicken. This will prevent steam from building up, which will prevent your chicken from browning (which is a chemical reaction that brings many deeper flavors). You can also cook the chicken in a very hot oven, spread out on a wire rack over a sheet pan, or on a sheet pan under the broiler (or grill, whatever you call top-only heat in your country), as this will be closer to cooking in a tandoor. You want to cook them over high heat to get some brown (and possibly even a few blackened spots), and then finish the cooking in the sauce. And as for the chicken cube -- my mom used to frequently use bullion (either chicken or beef) to add flavor to vegetable dishes when growing up. She would just crumble it up and sprinkle it on in place of salt when she was cooking things like brocolli. I suspect that part of the advantage is MSG, which is frequently in powdered bullion, but most households don't keep a container of. If you have MSG, you can always try a pinch or two of that, and skip the bullion. (although as this is a chicken dish, you're probably fine just using the bullion). The other answers have some great ideas for how to deepen the flavor of your curry! However, even if you are not interested in significantly changing your process, I think we can solve your immediate problem: my curry is too sour Let's take a look at the acidic ingredients you are using. I see three: Yogurt Lemon juice Tomato Since you only use yogurt and lemon juice in the marinade, and remove most of it before cooking, they are probably not the culprits. You could try reducing the amount of lemon juice, but honestly I don't think it will make a difference. Instead, I would blame the tomatoes. Tinned tomato products are often rather sour, some brands more so than others. One solution is to add a pinch of baking soda to neutralize the acid. Start with, say 1/8 tsp, and add more to taste. A bit of sugar for balance might help too. Another alternative is to use fresh ripe tomatoes. Fresh tomatoes will be sweeter and less acidic than the canned ones. Passing them through a food mill or blitzing in a food processor could give a fresher more balanced tomato sauce than a canned product. (Alternatively, dice the tomatoes for a more rustic sauce). Finally, you could sub some of the tomato for tomato paste. (Perhaps "tomato concentrate" in UK parlance?) Add it right after browning the onions to "cook out" a bit. Since tomato paste is a cooked and reduced product, it will have a less sour and more savory flavor than either fresh tomatoes or tomato passata. Thanks for your answer. The UK parlance for tomato paste is tomato puree :) I'm a bit of a heretic when it comes to curries, but I think they turn out great. In addition to using stock instead of water, I suggest you try beef stock instead of chicken (unless cows are holy to you), or possibly mushroom stock. I also improve the taste of my curries by adding a small amount of soy sauce; like one of the commenters says, it's probably just MSG, which soy sauce contains plenty of. Finally, I also add some coconut milk to my curries, it softens the sharp tones in the curry, so I can add more spices for fuller flavour.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.259921	2020-06-24T09:06:16	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109263", "authors": [ "Brian", "Daron", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84475", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288", "trojanfoe" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108584	Unidentified growth in purple cabbage I cut open a purple cabbage and there are some strange sort of greyish, slightly yellowish sprout-like masses inside. Is this normal? I saw another post on this stack with a similar question, but my 'masses' look more...moldy, I guess? Is it immature flower shoots as the other post says? Is it safe to eat this cabbage? Thank you in advance Does this answer your question? What is this yellow and white mass inside my red cabbage? Well it seems somewhat similar, but as I said, my 'masses' seem much darker, almost moldy ... The other post looks ...fresh. it's just hard to tell. Can you see my image? You say they look moldy, the picture look moldy and rotting to me too... is there any other smell/texture/anything that is inconsistent with mold or rot? No, not at all - seems fine otherwise I think what it might be is indeed the 'immature flowering' that the other post concluded, but that this head must be a bit older, and the sprouting flowers have started to decay just a bit...not quite rotten, but dying. Does that seem feasible? At any rate, I've let the head go, but thanks for the replies. Still, such an odd thing. Could not find much other info on it anywhere besides the one other post on this stack. Would still be interested in other thoughts on the subject tho...cheers! I'm also quite sure it's the same thing - cannot say why the flowers rotted while the other part looked intact, but that happens in vegetables every now and then, that some parts get sick or spoil while others are still OK.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.261301	2020-05-24T02:40:16	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108584", "authors": [ "DonnaKaye", "Peter Duniho", "Phil", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84607", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
18264	Buying my first set of pots and pans I have NO idea what I'm doing :). I'm looking to buy some pots/pans for my appartment (just moved out). Considering these: http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-MCP-12-MultiClad-Stainless-12-Piece/dp/B0007KQZWU/ref=lh_ni_t I want to spend under $250 and this seems like a good value for my money. Wanted to check with some experts before I take the plunge. I'd ideally like to be able to washing machine whatever I buy... Thanks! Don't buy a set. It always has pieces you'll never use. Start with one pan and one pot, and add other pieces whenever you need them, depending on what you cook (you'll find that out over time). In that case, a microwave and a bowl should be fine :) What do you like to cook? possible duplicate of Questions about cookware set There are several other duplicates of this. Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/nonstick-cookware-or-not FWIW the first pots and pans I bought were a set (Cuisinart stainless steel), I was able to get a large set for cheaper than trying to assemble half the set buying the same parts a la carte. Mind you, I'd been looking for good sales for a couple of weeks before I bought anything. The only thing I don't use in the set is the spaghetti strainer (which I tried a couple times but I just don't like it), but otherwise everything gets some usage. The answers here are part of some very general advice: buy what you need, when you realize there's something you want to do in your kitchen but can't, and buy versatile things. Syrion has already provided some good advice, but I think I can expand it. Note: I live alone and cook for one. And there are a few pieces I use every time. I have more, but I only use them when the primary tool for a task is busy because I am making an involved recipe consisting of multiple components. Beginning cooks seldom make such recipes. So here the list of the minimal setup which will get you through most cooking. Pans The minimum is one ceramic coated pan. They are non-stick and can be heated to 400°C, so they are usable for everything you'll fry. The downside is that they are expensive and lose their non-stickiness over time. So you might want to go with two pans: one standard non-stick (PTFE) for eggs (can't be heated too much) and one normal pan for everything else - cast iron if you are willing to take care of it, else stainless steel. Invest in the thickest bottom you can find, 8 mm is a good starting point. As for size, I don't see why you'd need a big pan if you cook small amounts, my primary pan is 8 inch. Pots Don't buy any. Buy an enameled dutch oven for everything you will boil and simmer. If you live in the USA, you can get a decent size for $50, in Europe the situation is worse, only the expensive brand name stuff is available. An OK size for a single household is 3 liters. If you find yourself often cooking dishes which need two pots (e.g. pasta with a cooked sauce), get additionally a deep sauce pan, SS needs the least maintenance. Again, look for a thick bottom. Oven pan It is for casseroles, roasts, moussakas, lasagnes etc. You can also bake in it - savory things like quiches and filled breads, but also sweet pastries, pies and cake layers. Round is the most versatile shape. A size around 22 to 26 cm diameter and 4-5 cm depth is good for almost everything. As for the material, I prefer porcelain, it ensures a slower, more even baking. It can also be used in the microwave. If you get metal, you can first brown your onions and meat in it in stovetop, then add the veggies and shove it into the oven. Pizza stone A good investment even if you only bake frozen pizza. Great if you ever start making your own pizza and bread. Look out for a massive one, not the thin stuff you get for nothing. Bowls Two are the minimum I've been able to live on. A smaller one which fits on the dutch oven, preferably glass, can also be used as a double boiler. It is also good for whipping small amounts of yolks, cream, etc. You can make 1-2 portions of salad in it. The bigger one is for doughs and batters, but also for salads. If you add a third very small one (3-4 inch rim diameter), you can whip small things even better, but also eat soup out of it, serve nuts and gummi bears to guests, etc. Strainer Very important. It is used for such basic recipes as pasta, stock, etc. You can also wash fruit, veggies and leafy greens in it. Get one which can be hanged over your sink. You can also buy a colander for pasta and washing, but if you only get one of them, it should be the strainer. If you don't bake, that's about it. If you bake, add a springform pan, muffin cups, a silicon mat and a piping bag with tips. (I assume that your oven came with a cookie sheet). You'll also need 2 knives (chef's and a small one), a cutting board (wood, bamboo or plastic, anything harder blunts your knives) and some things to stir/serve with (ladles, sauce spoon, big spoons, tongs, etc). I consider a digital scale and thermometers also essential for a kitchen, but many people go by without them. You're then set up for cooking in a minimal kitchen. If you can get what I listed above as a set, go ahead and buy it. I have never seen such a set, so I think it is better to buy them separately. Later, if you notice that you miss something, you can always buy it as a separate piece. Dutch ovens are great, but if they're hard to find cheap... I'd say that a decent heavy pot doesn't necessarily have to be an enameled dutch oven; I have some thick-bottomed stainless steel pots that I like quite a lot. Cast iron dutch ovens can be found for < $25, and work well for most foods. I've also seen enamelled dutch ovens hit < $30 around the holidays. I would add a pan than can go from the stove top directly into the oven such as a carbon steel fry-pan. I have a deBuyer Mineral B and think it is great; it cannot be put in the dishwasher though. I always check around for a sale first. This applies to things like knives too. Probably my most used pieces are my wok, and my 3 sauce pots (is that the regular name?). You can stir fry, steam, deep fry in woks. And pots are good for soups, sauces, stews, curries - things that you cook for the week. Get a wok with a handle like a skillet. Pots you can put in the dish washer. I don't recommend that for a wok though. Maybe if you get a fancy wok. Caution: If you happen to have an electric stove, a wok probably is not a good bet. And depending on your style of cooking, there's a good chance a normal pan will be better for you than a wok - you might want a larger flat surface that's easy to get a spatula down into. @Jefromi - they make flat bottom woks for electics. And as far as the heat goes, last time wok'ed on the electric, it got hot enough to flash fire the peanut oil when I put it in the pan. Esp if you're cooking for one, wok'ing on an electric is doable. (I don't agree you should only get a wok though) @rfusca: I don't have one myself, but I'd heard that they still didn't work as well as traditional woks on gas, because on electric you don't get the quick-recovery high heat (so initial stir-frying gives way to steaming/boiling). Wikipedia mentions some of this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wok#Electric @Jefromi - there's definitely credence to the issue - I didn't mean to say that. Just that it shouldn't keep you from doing it at all. On electric, just make sure that the ingredients are room temp first and not overloading it (possibly doing it in batches) is a bigger deal. For your first few pots and pans, don't buy a set; you don't know what you like yet, and will end up with something that you don't enjoy. I'd recommend three pieces as essentials: a 12" fry pan with sloped sides that will be your "go to," day to day pan; a 4.5 qt. (or so) sauce pan, for soups and the like; and a 8" or 10" non-stick fry pan for eggs, omelettes, and pancakes. You can spend a chunk of change on each of these items. For example, my 12" fry pan is the 12" All-Clad, and I love it--but I only bought it after buying two sets, neither of which I loved (and pieces of both are still hanging around). Consider these items, designed for commercial use and therefore less expensive than some consumer-oriented products: Vollrath 12" Fry Pan / Vollrath 10" Fry Pan Vollrath 4.5 qt. Sauce Pan / Cuisinart Chef's Classic 3 qt. Sauce Pan (Consumer-oriented) Carlisle 8" Non-Stick Fry Pan These will set you back about $100 total and will do basically everything that you need to do--freeing you up to also pick up a couple of cast iron skillets or a nice knife. Also note that you shouldn't put your pans in the dishwasher. It will ruin non-stick surfaces, take the seasoning off cast-iron, and discolor your stainless steel. Later addition: I also think you should consider a large pot for making stocks and soups, especially if you go with the smaller sizes above. Personally, I love my Lodge Dutch Oven, which is relatively inexpensive and will allow you to do things like No-Knead Bread, slow-cooked stews, and so on. You also can't go wrong with a really cheap aluminum stockpot, which is useful for making stocks and soups. +1: You can probably get away with only one pan starting out, but otherwise, good practical advice. If you're not cooking for a family, I'd knock those sizes down to a 10" and 3 qt. That's a good point, rfusca. When I cook, I'm usually cooking for three or four people. @syrion me too (or more,I own a few really, REALLY big pots), they're just a bit large for a single person. 10" and 3qt aren't so large that they're cumbersome, but large enough to cook for a date. I've added a couple of smaller options. I wasn't able to find a good 3 qt. sauce pan on the Katom site, so I went with a relatively inexpensive consumer-oriented sauce pan. The dutch oven and stockpot are less frequently used (and therefore are more optional), but are very different from the day-to-day pans and therefore make a worthwhile investment. Agree with buying commercial/restaurant cookware. If you are into sauces, the Vollrath Tribute triple-ply saucier pans are great for making a roux and reductions. I'll agree with the others on don't buy a set. I got by for years with only a hand-me down pot & skillet. (and then got a hand-me down set when my uncle died). If you don't manage to get a lot of stuff at once, you can slowly build up your own set, selecting the pieces that you'd actually use. ... or go to lots of estate auctions and yard sales to build your collection (which my mom still does, as she likes old cast iron). Take a consideration of what you like to cook, how many people you're cooking for, and the size of your stove & oven. For instance, I lived alone, and at most I'd cook for a second person at any time, and I had a rather small stove ... so there was no way that I'd have wanted a 12" pan. I started with an 8" and moved up to a 10" after a couple of years. If you tend to do more asian cuisines, you might want instead to use a wok (or flat bottomed wok if on an electric stove, or just a skillet to be more versatile) If you come from more of a pasta background, you'd likely want a larger pot than you'd want if you tend to cook rice-based cuisines. As for materials, if you're used to cooking with non-stick, I'd keep doing that. If you're used to cooking on stainless steel, or cast-iron, just stick with what you're familiar with. The TV show America's Test Kitchen does review of tools, and although All-clad tends to win their rounds of testing for stainless, they also designate a 'reasonably priced alternative'. I've never signed up for their website, so I don't know if they describe their testing methodology on there (so you can see what they thought were important considerations), and if they detail what the drawbacks of the various items tested were. The only one caveat I would make is that for stainless steel, you really need to look into its construction. Stainless on its own is a poor heat conductor, so you need to look to what the proportion (if any) aluminum or copper is used. For years I used (and still use some pieces of) Revereware and also have a few pieces of Tools of the Trade, both of which have a disk of aluminum on the bottom. Some use copper disks (even better conductor), and others like All-clad have it, but it's then encased in stainless, so it's harder to tell how much just by looking at it. (and similar comments on other bits ... I didn't have much of anything else other than utensils, knives and a cutting board. My pot would double as a mixing bowl, and I'd use the lid on the pot in place of a strainer) I have had some bad luck with Cuisinart sautee pans. I had two of them split on the side. The first one during its second trip through the dishwasher (yes, they claim to be dishwasher safe) the second one lasted about 2 years. After the second one failed I replaced it with a cheap stainless pan from a kitchen supply store. I have a set of Revere Ware pots and pans that I have had for about 13 years, with no problems with them whatsoever other than the plastic lids for the steel bowls shrinking slightly over that course of time. That was the starter set that my parents gave me when I moved out of the house. If most pans of a particular material/design break, that'd be good to know, but anecdotal evidence (bad luck) isn't terribly helpful advice. I love my vintage Revere ware! I bought more pieces than I can deal with for just a few dollars at my local flea market. It's important to know that Revere Ware changed in quality over the years — the oldest have the thickest copper bottoms, so those are the ones to prize. You just can't buy cookware like that in the stores anymore. The triple-ply construction of the set you listed is a superb feature, because it promotes even heating even at the corners of the pan. Most pans only have the aluminum or copper heat spreader at the bottom, and the corners can have hot spots that burn the food. Walmart's Tramontina line has pots and pans with the same feature. The stainless steel interior isn't non-stick, but it's not bad, and you don't have to worry about abusing it when you clean it. Absolutely! Cast iron is the best. You can clean it with a sandblaster if you want to, and it heats very evenly. You also get a good workout by lifting the cookware. Lots of people buy cast iron, and then decide to go with cookware that is lighter and prettier, making used cookware extremely inexpensive. Skillets are pretty nice to use. And easy to wash. Don't wash with soap though, it will make the skillets rust. You also have to keep them oiled, because that also makes them rust. you can find them for a reasonable price at williams-sonoma. they come in a few different sizes, so pick a few that would suit your needs. So what do you wash with? He must be talking about cast iron skillets? "dont wash with soap though" / "have to keep them oiled" - sounds like he's talking about cast iron skillet	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.261517	2011-10-08T15:28:02	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18264", "authors": [ "Bob", "Bruce Alderson", "C.C.", "Canadian Luke", "Cascabel", "Cos Callis", "Dean Dickinson", "DisgruntledGoat", "Doddy", "ElmerCat", "FrustratedWithFormsDesigner", "Gojo Slayed", "RJ Cruz", "Rebecca Taylor", "Ryan Anderson", "Sylvester Kohlhuber", "Wesley Vrancken", "asthasr", "coergo", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132056", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132057", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136935", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39460", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39463", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39464", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39465", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39466", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39469", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39477", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39480", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4080", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7624", "jsanc623", "rfusca", "rumtscho", "user3262272", "user45016" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
18435	Toasting sandwich bread before packing a lunch - when is it appropriate? When I make a sandwich to eat fresh, I pretty much always toast the bread. When I pack a sandwich to eat later, however, I don't. I've always thought that eating cold toast would be gross. Recently though I'm starting to rethink this position. What would happen if I toasted bread, made a sandwich, and then ate it hours later? If I did this, does it work better for certain kinds of bread, or certain sandwich fillings? Does it matter if the sandwich is stored in a chilled cooler, or in a room-temperature brown bag? In short, is it ever a good idea to toast a sandwich that won't be eaten until hours later, and if so, when? This question made me laugh.. +1 I agree with everything Reven said. One additional note, though: make sure that the toast is completely cooled before wrapping the sandwich up. Otherwise the bread is still releasing steam, which could soften the bread. Yes, missed that detail. Very true. :) Also, if you use a spread such as mayonnaise or mustard, consider putting the spread between slices of the filling to avoid it making the bread soggy. (For example, put down a slice of cheese or meat and then the spread, then more filling.) I usually toast most of my sandwiches (or the grilled cheese kind) for hikes and picnics. My general rules are: no filling that releases water (fresh tomato, for example) and wrap in paper (tissue or napkin) and then plastic or foil (or a cooler/plastic container). Keep in the fridge until needed or when packing your bag. The paper will prevent most of the moisture from condensation making your bread mushy. It won't have the crispness of fresh made toast, but it's pretty good. Toast your sandwich then quickly place in freezer in foil only this will take any moisture out and give you the perfect sandwich	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.262777	2011-10-18T17:51:14	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18435", "authors": [ "Alice", "Andrei Cana", "Cam McKinney", "Damien J Byrne", "Laura Sparks", "Lee", "Martha F.", "Ray", "Remy Hunter", "Reven", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149445", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149458", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39887", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39888", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39889", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39895", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39948", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7551" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108768	I have used Mr Clean Magic Eraser to clean my porcelain bowl, what to do next? According to https://gimmethegoodstuff.org/mr-clean-magic-eraser-is-it-toxic/ You shouldn’t use it on dishes or something you eat off of as bits of the polymer are left behind. You should avoid formulas with added fragrance or bleach. All that said, as far as cleaning products go, Magic Eraser is actually one is among the safer options, especially considering how well it works. I have used Mr. Clean Magic Eraser to cleaned a porcelain bowl. Should I throw my bowl away? Is there any protocol to clean my bowl afterward to remove any possible polymer on it? I aware that Mr. Clean Magic Eraser is made from formaldehyde-melamine-sodium bisulfite copolymer . My concern is if any trace amount of formaldehyde will enter food ware. Perhaps you should supply more context. The blog you are quoting is in the context of getting rid of absolutely anything which isn't organic from a home. If that's your level of expectation, you should spell it out. If you are just a regular sane person, note that in the end the blogger too continues to use this product, and considers it safe. Just rinse it off. It sounds simple, but unless it's a very porous surface, a quick rinse should work fine. I would say you're even fine to continue washing your things with a Mr. Clean. I'm sure it's toxic to take a bite out of the "eraser" but I doubt very little (if any) should be left over on hard surfaces like porcelain, and would not likely hurt you in such small amounts. I believe they even make one for washing dishes that is infused with Dawn soap (just don't use it on nonstick surfaces, which will be toxic and also ruin your pan).	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.262979	2020-05-31T21:28:23	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108768", "authors": [ "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52014", "tripleee" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108856	What is the Best Way to Keep Digestive Biscuits Fresh I bought a bunch of biscuit packets (ginger nut, digestives, bourbon biscuits) and couldn't resist opening a pack or two to try them. Now I'm afraid they'll go stale if I just leave them half opened. I have Tupperware but not super airtight or high quality. Nor do I have any dedicated biscuit tins. Should I keep them in the packet or transfer them somewhere? Can I use a glass pickle jar? What is the best way to keep biscuits fresh? Any tips on making a DIY tin? A traditional method, used by my mother, which seems to be quite effective is to add a few sugar cubes in to a container with the biscuits. The sugar absorbs some of the moisture there by extending the life of your biscuits. This however is only effective if you are using an air tight container. You're thinking along the right lines. Airtight is what you're aiming for. Old fashioned biscuit tins were probably less airtight than a lot of modern plastic boxes anyway, so just use the smallest tupperware box you can fit them in (all types in together is fine). I'd leave them in their wrappers, but it doesn't matter. If you don't have any container at all, they keep for a few days with the end of the wrapper twisted round and clipped shut; that's enough of a seal. I found a Tupperware shaped like the IKEA jamka. It closes ok, but I'd have to layer biscuits in, does it matter if there's a lot of space at the top and I don't fill it to the brim? Also, are empty jam jars (wiped clean) or pickle jars ok enough to store? Or would a Tupperware be better? Also I saw some trick where you put a paper towel and some dry rice at the bottom. Worth a try? The paper towel and rice might be a good idea in humid conditions if you eat them slowly, but isn't normally necessary. Anything that keeps the moisture out will work. Jars would have to be well washed - I'd be reluctant to use a jar from something strongly and incompatibly flavoured as the smell can stay in the lid seal evert after washing. In my house the way to make biscuits keep longer is to hide them from me! You don't have to fill to the brim, and of course if you did that would change when you ate some would an old jam jar be airtight enough? Yes, probably more so than many plastic containers I agree with ChrisH for the most part - air-tight is the way to go. The only additional concern is that bourbon biscuits contain a filling which is usually some sort of chocolate icing. This releases a little bit of water which can make other biscuits soften fairly quickly, so I would store those separately if possible.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.263133	2020-06-05T01:27:57	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108856", "authors": [ "Chris H", "drivegg", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84811" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108811	Is Soaking and Sprouting Lentils Unsanitary? I got into sprouting lentils for salads and soups, then I read that it's a breeding ground for bacteria. Is it true that sprouting lentils is dangerous and unsanitary? Is soaking also dangerous? Do you still sprout lentils or is the risk too great? There are many questions here, can you [edit] to focus on one aspect you want to know? For what is worth, I sprouted and ate lentils many times as well as other beans. Anything can be unsanitary if you don't keep proper hygiene. @Luciano edited for clarity	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.263354	2020-06-02T18:06:15	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108811", "authors": [ "Luciano", "drivegg", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84811" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
108885	Can "juice from concentrate" be diluted 100% juice? If products labelled as juice from concentrate is just water added to concentrated juice, and concentrated juice is 100% juice with water removed, can juice from concentrate have more water added than previously removed and effectively be diluted juice (compared to the original 100% juice)? Or is there a legal requirement for producers to add the same amount of water that was removed? Are typical "juice from concentrate" products sold in stores equivalent to 100% juice (ignoring the removal and readdition of water), or could they dilute it and still sell it? As soon as you mention "legal" you need to mention a jurisdiction if your question is to have a hope of being answered sensibly Don't say the L word! As you have a Canadian website in your user profile, I assume you are asking about the legal requirements in Canada. Canada's Food and Drug Regulations state the following (emphasis mine): B.11.133 [S]. Reconstituted (naming the fruit) Juice or (naming the fruit) Juice from Concentrate (a) shall be fruit juice that has been prepared by the addition of water to fruit juice of the same name from which water has been removed; (b) may contain juice of the same name, a sweetening ingredient, and natural pulp, oils and esters of the named fruit; (c) shall conform to the standards for the named fruit juices as prescribed in this Division; and (d) may contain, in the case of reconstituted lemon or lime juice, not more than 10 parts per million dimethylpolysiloxane. Thus, it is not explicitly illegal to add more water to the concentrate than you removed from the original juice, as long as the resulting product would be marketable as "juice". The rules for that differ per fruit, but see for example the definition of orange juice. Mostly, constraints are placed on which compounds can be present in the product at which concentrations. It seems legal to add more water in Canada and the US (although the FDA requires a minimum concentration of fruit solids), but if producers overdo it, they might have a harder time selling products. Would they just add as much water (and citric acid for "100% juice from concentrate + citric acid") as possible without impacting their sales? This seems similar to how oil refineries add cheaper hydrocarbons to their product in blending tanks, as long as it stays within specification. @Victor "would they" is impossible to answer. They cerainly could from a legal standpoint. By "would they", I mean "do they" actually do it? Do the "100% juice from concentrate" products we buy actually have the same volume of water removed and added, or are they slightly diluted (within the constraints of the law for the US and of consumer acceptance)? Or is this impossible to know? @Victor impossible to know without asking the producer.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.263439	2020-06-06T17:53:53	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108885", "authors": [ "Chris H", "GdD", "LSchoon", "Victor", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84893" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
109242	Beef Short ribs still chewy after internal temperature reach 201F so i currently start to cook beef short ribs on a vertical smoker. The short ribs i used comes from australian company called hardwicks. I cook the ribs at 250-285F. Vent are fully opened. Weather is sunny. I marinade them on sweet soy sauce overnight. I use black pepper, cumin powder, paprika powder, onion powder, garlic powder, and sea salt. I spritz them when it reaches 170, and when it hits 190, i wrap it on alumunium foil with some spritz. After hitting 201F i take it out, rest it for an hour, but instead of being butter-like texture, it still chewy. I don't know how long i cook, i jjst focused on the internal temperature itself. So does anyone know why it still chewy and not butter-like when it cutted? Thanks everyone, sorry bcs english is not my first language. Cheers! I'd think chewy or not would be a factor of whether the collagen and connective tissues have had enough time to break down. So, it's not just important about the temperatures used, but how long. How long, at those temps, does it take to get to that internal temperature? The mantra is "low and slow," so we need more info on duration.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.263669	2020-06-23T14:18:47	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109242", "authors": [ "PoloHoleSet", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
110292	oil shimmering or just smoking? So im relatively new to cooking and im reading all the technique focused books I can. I noticed that for the same exact goal (ie browning a piece of meat) some books call for you to heat the oil until it shimmers (Salt Fat Acid Heat)) whereas others call for you to heat the oil until it is just smoking (ie most of the America's Test Kitchen books). Can anyone clarify which is correct? Or are there any guidelines for knowing whether your oil should be shimmering or "just smoking"? Maybe im overthinking this and the difference is negligible? Thanks! It doesn't matter. All you need is for the oil to be properly heated. You can use the cue which is most convenient for you - shimmering, smoke, an IR thermometer, smell, throwing stuff into the pan, or your spidey sense that suddenly reminds you of the pan after enough time has passed. Go with whichever is most convenient for you, they are all correct. That being said, shimmering is usually visible in stainless steel pans, but more difficult to notice in pans with a dark bottom such as seasoned iron pans or PTFE coated ones, so it might not be the easiest one to pick. I only can provide an incomplete answer, because when double-checking what I thought I knew I discovered that there seem to exist in fact two opinions on this topic. One is that oil should never be heated to it´s smoke point when cooking, because there the ingredients of the oil start to disassemble to burnt products that are unhealthy to consume, while the other argues that the smoke point still does not mean that the oil is effectively burning up and only some minor fractions of it´s contents start do break up and evaporate. E.g. compare here vs. here. I personally prefer to go on the safe side and use heat resistant oils or fats like sunflower, canola or clarified butter fat for browning and frying.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.263787	2020-08-19T15:18:14	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110292", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
124379	What is the proper way to prepare a cup of English tea? I have been searching the internet and I am getting conflicting information about how to prepare a "proper" cup of English tea. Some sites state that you absolutely never use a tea bag. They state that you are to use loose tea only and serve while pouring through a strainer. Some sites state that you absolutely only use a tea bag. I am really interested in how the traditional English cup of tea is prepared. For example: How would Buckingham Palace prepare and serve tea to the King and his guests? What is the traditional and "proper" way to prepare a cup of English tea? I can see you getting 5 answers to this, all correct in the opinion of the poster, with vociferous arguments developing beneath each ;) I would immediately discount the must-use-a-tea-bag sites, given how tea bags are a relatively recent innovation. @Tetsujin yes, there'll be some from George Orwell, Douglas Adams and the International Organization for Standardization https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/a-nice-cup-of-tea/ @StuperUser The ISO methodology is particularly interesting because so many people seem to misinterpret it. It’s not meant to make a good cup of tea, it’s meant to make a consistent cup of tea to allow sensor studies involving taste or smell to be scientifically reproducible and comparable. That said, it actually produces a decent cup of tea if you have good quality tea leaves (speaking from experience because in my circle of friends, openly using ISO methodology usually silences any and all arguments about what I’m doing). @chepner Teabags and Espresso were invented around the same time, no one claims espresso isn’t ‘proper’ coffee. Tom Scott making the ISO standard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsrsMPftOI There is no definitive way to make tea, it isn't like Italy's Accademia Italiana della Cucina declaring one recipe to be the official classic Bolognese ragu or Neapolitan pizza having the art of its making included on UNESCO's list of intangible cultural heritage. The way most Britons make tea has changed over the years. It used to be that most people used leaf tea, and tea bags have become increasingly popular to the degree that many regard that as the default means of making tea now. Tea making styles have always been stratified by class, so what was 'proper' for the working classes was not what was 'proper' for upper classes. Working people appreciated a strongly tannic brew that was relatively high in caffeine and could stand up flavourfully to the addition of milk and sugar, the leisured classes valued a delicate tea to sip as part of genteel social gatherings, thus the robust Indian teas are broadly seen as less classy than china teas. Such stratification still exists, some people expressing what amounts to an inverse snobbery in their avowal of the superiority of 'builders tea' by which they just mean a strong dark one, likely based on tea grown in Kenya or other African tea producing countries. Personally, if i am making tea just for myself, I chuck the teabag in the mug, pour on boiling water and that's it. I don't add milk and I don't remove the bag. This grosses my partner out. But sometimes, If I'm drinking Lapsang Souchon for example, I make it in a pot with a mesh insert, so I can pour it straight to a mug with no need to strain it. If I'm making tea for several people I might make it in a pot, but with tea bags, then I can top the pot up with water after the first pour. There have been times in my life where all my tea was leaf tea and I had a silver strainer and I made a right palaver over it. Then I got over myself. Some people like to make it the fancy way, some people have staff to make it the fancy way for them, but there is one thing on which almost all Britons will agree, the water goes onto the tea when it is freshly boiled. Any weird foreign habits about serving one a cup of hot water with a tea-bag in a sachet on the side are definitively NOT 'proper' British tea. So you can pretty much make it any way you like, with that one proviso, and someone somewhere will be happy to call it proper British tea. And Charles III is Charles III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King he has no title of 'King of England'. Indeed, the last King of England died in 1702. I can see you getting 5 answers to this, all correct in the opinion of the poster, with vociferous arguments developing beneath each ;) So, let me try pre-empt them all. Traditional, traditional, historical origins. Loose tea; tea pot. First warm the pot with about a cupful of boiling water & discard. One teaspoon* of loose leaves per cup, plus 'one for the pot'. Add boiling water sufficient for your cup count. Allow to steep for four minutes before serving. Upper class variation Pour through a strainer into each cup and serve, to which each guest adds milk & sugar to taste. Middle class variation Milk goes in the cup first, poured by the server not the guest. This is because very expensive porcelain is really not subject to the disparities of heat expansion of cheaper porcelain [china] which could crack if very hot tea was added, so the server pre-empts the possibility. This is also the origin of the 'teaspoon in cup as you pour' affectation. One of the sad and sorry lessons of the British middle classes of the 20s to 50s. Working class variation. Milk last, probably straight from the bottle. No-one could afford china, and cheap pottery [stoneware, ironware, earthenware etc] is immune to being cracked by a bit of hot water. Tea first or milk first has been a source of heated debate for a century or more, though actually it was only the middle classes who were initially afflicted/affected. Modern version. Tea bag in mug. Then either… a) Add boiling water. Steep 4 minutes, squeeze & discard the bag. Add milk & sugar. b) Add milk, then boiling water. Steep & keep stirring, squeezing the bag repeatedly against the side of the mug as long as you have patience for, or until it looks about right. Modern pottery, of course, is far less affected by heat as its Victorian counterpart, so the choice is now one of education/upbringing rather than necessity. This is subject to the historical prejudices of the generation before last's grandparents' version of any of the above choices. The debate continues, milk first or last. The answer, as it has always been… is last, unless you have cheap china or no patience. Let the comments begin ;) One thing to note is that originally, the teaspoon used to measure the tea was larger than the one for used by guests for sugar & used to stir. This may be the origin of the 'one for the pot' as we tend to only own one size of teaspoon these days. Note 2: I'm referring to Indian 'black' tea, which only became popular in the UK around the end of the 19th century. Assam/Ceylon tea was only grown commercially for the first time in around 1870. Before that, there was Chinese green tea - which had almost vanished by around 1900 in the UK. This cultural and socio/econmic structure was therefore almost entirely developed and engendered in the first half of the 20th century; along with the rise of the middle classes. If one is not actually in the UK, "tea bag" may not be sufficient to get proper English tea. American Lipton or Red Rose black tea bags are very different - brighter and less robust. You can get PG Tipps and Teatley bags in the US which I’ve been told are much more accurate in flavor to black tea consumed in the UK. A Dubliner I once knew (so, not English) said hot water in first then "dip, dip, then out" with the bag. Obviously that’s a weaker tea than a four minute steep, but not by a huge amount, 90% of the flavor and not bitter. She also would use bags a second time to save money. I think you left out the most common way: tea pot + tea bag(s). I always wondered why my tea sometimes tasted bitter, until I realized that (a) you must not let it steep for too long (4 min is fine for Assam, but Darjeeling is more like 2 min) and (b) you must not squeeze the tea bag (if you use one). If the result tastes too "watery", use more tea instead of squeezing. @ToddWilcox ‘Tetley’, we may drink tea as though it was mothers milk, but we don’t name it as though it were. (Also PG Tips rather than ‘Tipps’). General comments on comments: I have never had tea in the US, so I have no clue what they make over there. I don't know of anyone who owns a teapot, other than as an ornament. Few people in the UK have any idea as to what type of tea is in a tea bag. The majors, PG, Tetley, Yorkshire, say little to nothing about the blend. Twinings, who do, are appealing to a completely different audience. Think… PG, chimps; Tetley, cartoon Yorkshiremen; Yorkshire, Sean Bean; Twinings, Steven Fry. Older books specify that the pot must be taken to the kettle, not the kettle to the pot. However that is possibly an artifact of the days when the kettle would be boiled by staff "below stairs" while tea would be served in the drawing room. My understanding of "add water to milk" is so as not to "scald the milk". Working men would use neat Condensed milk and be done with it. There's a lot of local variation in terminology: brew, stand, steep, mash, make and so on. And historically, bags were considered to contain powdery sweepings: the best tea I've had was loose Darjeeling from Bristol docks. @MarkMorganLloyd - no-one learns to make tea from a book;) The working man, even in the war, wouldn't be seen dead drinking condensed milk; rationing had fresh milk & powdered. Tea bags are a relatively 'new' idea, not taking off until the 70s, by which time the 3-class system was starting to collapse, but hadn't completed the transition to 'modern'. The 'floor sweepings' thing is a late middle class snobbery, no-one else cared. @Tetsujin Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your answer, merely providing additional material. The book I referred to was my grandmother's tome which might have been bound from a subscription series, it was very much "traditional" with special sections for sick-room recipes and so on. My observation on Condensed milk was due to a well-known working man's caff in Birmingham in the 80s, where you got a choice of fresh, condensed or evaporated... just don't expect a clean spoon. Dialect was courtesy of an old Reader's Digest atlas, but most if not all I can attest. @Heinzi Working man's stewed tea, strong enough for the spoon to stand up in it, was notorious /but/ most traditional blends had a healthy dose of Chinese-style leaves which were far more forgiving than Indian. Chinese and Russian style teas, kept hot, are of course a topic unto themselves: IIRC there's a discussion of serving tea from a samovar to the household in War and Peace. @abligh OP's question was specifically "how to do it right" citing Buckingham Palace standards. However I seem to recall that somebody sneaked some photos of Her Late Majesty's breakfast provisions a few years ago: can anybody research what she was drinking? @Tetsujin - PG = chimps? Is that britspeak for the lower classes? @lonstar - nope. It's Britspeak for …chimps [Skip the very early black & white ones, they got into the swing of it properly in the 70s] @Tetsujin those are some fancy simians. I did not realize monkeys prepared and drank tea with such grace. I can't even carry a tray of tea up stairs like that. Personally I did not even really like tea - now I realize it was because all I'd ever had was the Des Moines style lukewarm water with a stale bag of Lipton referenced in another post below - until I tried PG Tips (and now I know why they offered a sock monkey if you ordered a bunch online). @lonstar - The monkey is a more recent campaign with Johnny Vegas… & a sock puppet monkey… & far less cause to complain about potential cruelty to socks ;)) Many years ago I did a project on tea at school. When it was first introduced into the UK it was incredibly rare and expensive and only affordable by the very rich. Milk was not refrigerated in those days and could quickly go off. The story I remember reading said that the reason for "milk first" was so you could quickly tell if it had turned sour and needed to discard it. Pouring bad milk into tea would ruin a very expensive drink, so the protocol was milk first. @LaconicDroid - it's an interesting anecdote, but it's far simpler to sniff the bottle first;) We didn't have ubiquitous refrigeration in the UK until about the 1970s, so it was habit to check the milk before using, always. @Tetsujin - The middle class porcelain cracking theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny either as the aristocracy were pouring their milk first in the late 17th century long before the middle classes could afford tea. @LaconicDroid - citations please. tbh, I know nothing about Chinese green tea from so far back. My reading on this starts really at the [amusing false starts to] cultivation of tea in Assam in the late 19th century. Before that, tea was nowhere near as ubiquitous as it became in the 20th C.. [Also, I'm not sure green tea counts, does it? Did people put milk in green tea back then?] Trouble is, I can't find figures or even quality research, it's all anecdotal. BBC has this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zm2txyc which doesn't greatly help:\ Never ocurred to me that Wikipedia might have a dedicated article Tea in the United Kingdom which I won't have time to read today; my end-of-working-day here, dinner to make ;) @Tetsujin Milk wasn't bottled until the C20th. Before that you collected it in a jug... in fact there were early vending machines for installation in e.g. a shop door which filled a jug on payment of a penny. This "don't crack the porcelain" stuff, if it was ever true in the first place, is not relevant. Milk first with a teabag will clog the bag. Milk last with a pot will do unpleasant things, especially with hard water. Other answers cover well the issues of whether you should use teabags or loose leaves, what type of cup to use, how long to brew for, in what order to add the milk, etc. — and why some of those are a matter of tradition and don't necessarily have any significant impact on the resulting tea. But one important principle applies in all cases: for black tea the water must be boiling at the moment it contacts the tea. No less luminaries than George Orwell, Douglas Adams, Maggie Smith, and Dave Gorman have made this point well. In fact, some of the traditional practices, such as warming the pot first, and using a tea-cosy, exist because they ensure that the water is and remains as hot as possible while the tea ‘brews’ (infuses/steeps), in order to get the best result. Conversely, the colder the water at the moment of impact, the worse the result. As Adams said: “Americans are all mystified about why the English make such a big thing out of tea because most Americans have never had a good cup of tea.” I don't know whether this is as true now as it was then, but I can well believe it — the last time I was in the USA I was horrified to be served a glass of warmish water with a teabag on the side. (I didn't complain — I'm English, after all — but the results were predictably dire. What were they thinking???) So any method which doesn't involve combining tea with boiling (not boiled) water isn't a proper method! (* For most black teas, anyway. Oolong, green, and white teas have different requirements for temperature and time.) As an American, I can tell you that when you order a cup of tea in a restaurant in the U.S., the majority of the time you will be served a cup of hot water with a rack of tea bags to choose from. We have no clue how to prepare a cup of tea ;) American tea is very different. Probably the most popular way Americans serve tea is ice cold with enough sugar in it to cause instant type II diabetes. ("Sweet tea") An "Arnold Palmer" is another very popular way - again an iced drink consisting of 1-2 parts unsweetened iced tea and 1-2 parts lemonade. Hot black tea is not very popular here. As I mentioned in another comment, tea blends in American tea bags generally have a very different flavor from British blends. The first time I had a bag brought over from the UK it was like a whole new flavor I’d never experienced before. As to "what were they thinking?" - probably something like order coffee or a coke like a regular person - this is a diner in Des Moines, not parliament @ToddWilcox also that pot/cup probably has been 99% used for black tar coffee which imparts its own uniquely unsettling flavor. @ToddWilcox Ironically, speaking as someone who semi-frequently gets cups of tea in Parliament's cafes, they're not very good... Dave Gorman has an excellently funny sketch about how coffee makers have ruined tea due to the water temperature, which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBl9aXbljLA @ChrisMelville TVM for that — I hadn't seen it, but he clearly Gets It too. I couldn't resist adding that link into the answer! The importance of boiling water for tea at the palace has had a number of mentions over the last year or two, eg https://britishheritage.com/royals/strict-rules-king-charles-makes-sure-his-staff-follow I've seen a lot of silly answers out there (not any of the others here by the way), so I'm going to say that the proper way is the way most people do it here in the UK. The vast majority of tea made in Britain is using bags, and there's no trick to it. You pour some boiling water in a cup, drop in a bag and let it steep for a bit, or you pour the water over the bag which is what most people do. Much of Britain has hard water, so rather than letting it steep it's better to stir it around for a few seconds and get the bag out right away, otherwise you can get hard water scum on top. Few people I know have loose tea in their houses, or strainers to use it. I have 10 varieties but that's pretty unusual. Traditionally people made tea loose because tea bags didn't exist, nowadays loose tea is a specialist item, smaller grocery stored often don't even stock it. I know from a former royal protection officer that when the royals go to functions they often drink tea made from bags as it's what's there, however if I was serving the king I would make loose tea as it's generally better and there's some ceremony about it. I would ask him whether he wanted the milk added before or after the tea as it's a matter of personal preference, leading to the other definition of what's proper, which is to make tea how someone likes it. If you use a fork to stir it, that seems to make the scum disappear—maybe it breaks it up into small pieces that aren't so visible. Also, I think it's more effective than a spoon at squeezing the bag against the side of the mug. But each to their own, as you said. Already some great answers covering the question in detail, but I believe they all miss a little of the minutiae surrounding the use of tea bags which I think could be visited. (I would however agree that using tea bags isn't really the 'proper' way to prepare tea [which would be to use leaf]). When using tea bags, the length of steeping and how vigorously you agitate (and squeeze) the teabag can have a large alteration on the finished taste of the tea (when making black tea, this is more obvious). A shorter steep and gentle stir will release the more aromatic, lighter flavours whereas a longer steep time will release the darker, stronger and potentially more bitter flavours which is why different varieties of teas will have a suggested steep time to get a full-rounded flavour from each. In my experience, a heavy-handed squeezing of the tea bag forces out the much heavier tannins from the leaves, so if you're getting a lot of scum/oil on the top of your tea you are probably over-squeezing your teabag. My preference is a gentle stir and once steeped, only squeeze enough so the bag can be removed to the waste bin without a spillage of excess tea across the kitchen floor. Getting back to the question though, with making a 'proper' cup of tea, I am surprised no-one has yet mentioned the use of a slice of lemon (used in place of milk) and usually associated with Earl Grey (but can be used with many other teas). Adding a slice of lemon, does more than just adding the flavour of lemon, as the slice will clarify the tea, gradually removing the heavier tannins; resulting in a lighter, cleaner, more aromatic drink. Indeed, you can see a dark tea gradually lighten in colour when a slice is added. Again, avoid over-massaging it where you would end up getting a much stronger lemon flavour than you may want. Even though I’m American, I have been repeatedly served tea by a British expat that is exactly like this. One point of emphasis: when an American adds fresh lemon to tea, it’s a wedge on the rim. This Brit always served me a slice floating in the tea. Somehow it makes a very noticeable difference. Tea well-steeped & squeezed until every last bit of colour & flavour can be extracted is known in the UK as "builder's". It's supposed to be like that;) If you make someone a cup of thin, tasteless tea, they will tell you immediately, calling it "witch's piss". I've never known anyone to put lemon in tea as a habit; maybe when out at some posh establishment, but never at home. @Tetsujin I’ve had phases where I used lemon slices regularly. I’ve never previously heard the term ‘witch’s piss’ used for anything, let alone tea. It’s the variety in the UK that confounds this sort of Q as there is no one true way to tea. Re: the clarifying & lightening effect of the lemon. Sometimes, I'll add a bit of ginger cordial to my tea. It has a similar effect on the colour. If you want to make a cup of loose leaf tea as opposed to a pot, use a tea infuser. There are various designs. I prefer the ball with handle style as shown here, because You can get it completely submerged. Some designs sit on the rim of the cup, to me this seems to float a lot of the tea to the top of the water so it won't infuse well. It's easy to open with the handles, just squeeze them. To use it you fill one half of the infuser with loose leaf tea (not both halves since the tea will expand and not all be free to infuse), put it in your mug, pour in the water, I then shake it to get excess air to bubble out. This essentially makes your mug a very small tea pot, so read the other answers for general tips of making loose leaf tea with a tea pot, water temperature, etc. You can use two infusers for a double sized mug. I'm not sure why this has been downvoted, as it shows some effort and seems eminently sensible. (I've used infusers of that type and others, and they seem to work fairly well, though I suspect a little less well than letting the leaves spread throughout the water.) You could argue that it doesn't strictly answer the question, but then neither do some other upvoted answers (including mine!). @gidds you can gif ferment sized infusors, and if it’s not the same size as the cup, you can swish it around some to better expose the tea to the water. If you check Asian grocery stores, you may be able to find HUGE infusers that are meant for spices when making soup (I have one that’s long, so it can hold cinnamon sticks). You’re usually the hinged style with a chain, not the spring loaded ones, but that’s still better than the old tea balls that were two pieces that screwed together @Joe To follow up on this, I recently got a larger, basket-style infuser (like this one), and it works much better for me: less fiddly to fill, allows plenty of room for larger leaves to expand and circulate, infuses faster without needing any agitation, and much easier to clean afterward! I'd definitely recommend that style over the ball-style infuser shown in this answer. Hot, very strong and sweet with just a dash of milk. Tea should be able to support a teaspoon vertically unaided. OK, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but such is the definition of "Builders tea" and I have never had any complaints about my tea making so far. The question isn’t asking for personal tea preferences.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.264013	2023-06-05T12:25:12	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124379", "authors": [ "Adeptus", "Andrew Morton", "Austin Hemmelgarn", "Brondahl", "Chris Melville", "Dragonel", "Heinzi", "Joe", "Laconic Droid", "Mark Morgan Lloyd", "OrangeDog", "Sneftel", "Spagirl", "StuperUser", "TRiG", "Tetsujin", "Todd Wilcox", "ZsigE", "abligh", "chepner", "gidds", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104614", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26482", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34675", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4097", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42791", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45749", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49568", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61458", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80273", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594", "lonstar", "steelersquirrel" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
124851	Tomato sauce from garden different types and ripeness okay? I grew mortgage lifter, pink fang and cherry tomatoes... first garden in 35 years. Ended up with bad septoria which led to bite, been tough keeping these 12 foot plants going in cheap cages. 20% have blossom end rot. A few have a little white mold and a couple smell a little off. Wind blew down the plants 2 weeks ago, so lots of green tomatoes fell. About half are ripe now. So I have a counter top full of different tomatoes of different ripeness, about half are green from the hurricane and 40% are ripe or over ripened, 15% have some kinda end rot. I was planning to make sauce... is it worth it, should I just cut off what looks bad and mix it all together in one sauce or should I say screw it and go buy romas? More cherry tomatoes need to be picked, just a few I started with. Is it okay to throw in the ones not fully ripe? Do you include the tomato seeds in your sauce recipe? I bought the Westinghouse tomatoe mill. It seemed to remove most of the seeds, but then I ran the skins thru a second time and there were tons of seeds on the second go. Maybe the screen is too large. Might return for a better one. Amazon sucks. I’ve been volunteering at a farm this season, and have done something similar with the stuff that can’t be saved for distribution, typically because it’s either split, or has a bad spot on it. There are two main problems that I’ve run into: Some of the tomato varieties are just too sweet. I solved this by adding some sort of hot pepper in to balance it out. Non-plum tomatoes can be very wet. This either requires cooking down the sauce for a very long time, or finding some other way to thicken it. My solution has been to cook it down for a while, then add a pound of some sort of really chunky pasta to it. I then use a spider to extract the pasta while leaving most of the sauce behind. So, some specific answers to your situation: You can make sauce with the tomatoes with end rot, if you cut out the affected portions. However, this will make it challenging to peel the tomatoes; if this is your plan, look seriously into getting a tomato mill. Mortgage lifter tomatoes will make a fine sauce, as will most cherries (but, again, tomato mill to peel them). The pink fangs are intended for sauce. Do not use the underripe tomatoes; those will result in a vegetal, acidic-tasting sauce with chunks of green tomato in it. Instead, save those green tomatoes and ripen them indoors, for table tomato purposes. Or make something like green tomato chutney, if you've got a glut Made some sauce with everything. It's crazy all those red tomatoes made 1 jar plus 1 big plate. It was superb, maybe better than anything I had in italy and france. A little sweat, but so fresh. Might try to grow 24 roma plants before season ends, it might not freeze till January in georgia. I think I get the sauce thing.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.265940	2023-07-29T16:55:02	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124851", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Kingsley", "gunslingor", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105364", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
110687	How does water behave in Dutch oven baking? Recently I made a research about how steam works in baking. I found four main functions: Steam condenses and keeps the dough surface cool, preventing the crust to form too soon, what could hinder the oven spring. As the water condenses, it releases a lot of energy into the dough, heating it faster. Because the surface is not too hot, the enzymes work longer and we get a better crust. The combination of heat + water gelates the starch and we get a crispier and shiny crust. That makes perfect sense. Almost all of that information I got from the amazing book "On Food and Cooking", Mcgee. Knowing that, now I am am very confused about how baking in a dutch oven works. Because all the water in the environment (Dutch oven with lid on) comes from the dough. I understand that it won't condense back into the dough, so I won't get that "water layer", neither the initial "blast" of energy of the steam condensing into the dough. Is that right? What am I missing? My personal experience says that the Dutch oven works, I get a good oven spring and crust. But I don't know if this is because of the "humid environment" of the trapped steam as almost everybody says, or just because the dough is closer to the radiant source, so it heats faster. By the way, do we really need to bake at that high temperature? What would happen if we could bake at 100º C (212º F) to get the oven spring and only after work on the crust color? Welcome to SA! Your English is great. However, might I suggest changing the title of your question to "How does water behave in Dutch oven baking?", since that's the actual question you have? "Condensate" is a noun, I think you meant "condense". I've proposed an edit to correct that and some other minor issues. That said, the first two points you mention seem to contradict each other. Only the second is accurate; condensation releases heat, so steam condensing isn't going to "keep the dough surface cool". It would be helpful if you could review both of those statements and make sure they express what you meant to express. Thanks for the suggestions :) I also changed the title as you suggested, it makes more sense. I agree with you about the first two points contradicting each other, but this is exactly how is in the book "On Food and Cooking". What I think it that it reaches almost 100ºC faster, but the water layer prevents it from drying out (?). At least that is what I tough. Now I am reading "Modernist Bread", and it says that indeed that first point is false. I am digging deeper trying to understand it. For now everything is just so confusing. Why wouldn't the water condense back onto the bread? I don't see any reason for that assumption. The recipe I use, after putting the dough into the hot pan, calls for lifting the lid and spraying water in - so "all the water in the environment comes from the dough" isn't necessarily true. This recipe also starts hot and when the lid is removed after 20 minutes the oven is turned down. There are "steamed bread" recipes that cook at 100C in a boiling water bath - reading about those might answer your last point I understand that the steam comes from the dough surface, so the temperature is already high enough that it won't condense back into the dough. At least this is the model that I have in my head. When the water condense, it releases energy to the surface. Like when we get burned with steam. But in the case of the Dutch Oven, I don't see that happening, I understand it more like the dough was "sweating". It should be noted that any condensation back onto the bread would not result in net energy gain to the bread. Initially, there may be some moisture (a very small amount) that condenses back on the dough while the surface is relatively cool. But that moisture would have removed energy upon initial evaporation, so any energy from condensation will just restore what was previously lost. Overall, the dough will have more net energy loss from evaporation than any small amount of water re-condensing. I think we need to deal with the two different elements of the question: first, I'll discuss better oven spring, and then I'll get to good crust formation. Most oven spring comes from inside the bread. Air is already trapped inside the bubbles in the dough which expands as the internal temperature rises. Additional steam is released internally as the dough heats, adding to the pressure for expansion created inside the dough. The only thing necessary for good oven spring in most breads is allowing these internal gases to expand and evolve. The main thing external steam does to impact oven spring is prevent early crust formation (as alluded to in the first point in the question). The mechanism is not only due to cooling, but due to humidity of the surrounding air. For a crust to form, the dough has to be heated above boiling temperatures. In order for the dough to get that hot, it needs to lose significant moisture (at least on the surface), effectively drying out. If a section of dough has substantial moisture, it will continue to boil out. With normal air pressure, water boils out around 212F/100C, which means that while water is boiling out of moist dough, the temperature of that portion of the dough will maintain a temperature around that boiling point. By surrounding the dough with high moisture air, you slow the rate at which water boils out of the surface of the dough. (Water will boil out faster in a low-humidity environment compared to a high-humidity one.) So, filling your oven with steam will slow crust formation by keeping the outer layer of dough hydrated longer, which means it stays soft and doesn't harden (which would halt oven spring). The same effect is still possible in a dutch oven, because there's a much smaller volume of air to fill with steam. A significant amount of moisture escapes bread dough while baking, and there's enough in the early phases to create a fairly moist environment inside the dutch oven, effectively simulating an oven filled with steam already. As long as a relatively high humidity environment is maintained around the dough, it will delay crust formation and aid oven spring. The radiant heat from the dutch oven on all sides also may add to the oven spring by introducing more energy quickly into the dough. (That happens even without the condensation mechanism discussed in the question. I mean, some moisture may condense back on the cooler dough, though nowhere near as much as with an oven filled with external steam. My guess is that the condensation mechanism to deliver heat is less important for oven spring than keeping the outer layer of the dough soft and hydrated. Also, even without significant condensation, moist air will transfer heat faster than dry air.) The previous paragraphs discuss where better oven spring comes from. The good crust formation then is also aided by the third and fourth points in the question (extended enzyme activity, which aids in ultimate browning, and starch gelation), both of which just come from the high humidity environment. In that sense, the "water layer" described in the question still can happen by simply being in a sealed container that keeps humidity relatively high. It should be noted that most recipes for dutch oven baking state that the lid should be removed for the last portion of baking. This removes the moisture (as when a steam oven is vented during bread baking), which allows better and more consistent crust coloration as the Maillard reactions can proceed faster in a low humidity environment. Crust will still form with the lid on, but it may become somewhat thicker before it browns as much as is desired. (A lot of this depends on temperature, time of bake, hydration level, etc.) In my own experience, keeping the lid on too long can delay escape of internal moisture from the dough as well, which can sometimes give the crumb a more "gummy" texture even when fully baked. By the way, do we really need to bake at that high temperature? What would happen if we could bake at 100º C (212º F) to get the oven spring and only after work on the crust color? No, you do NOT have to bake at a super high temperature. In fact, some people bake successful loaves of bread starting with a cold dutch oven. See, for example, this blog post from King Arthur flour for some tips. They ultimately concluded that one should use an enclosed container with a smaller base if starting from a cold temperature. Although they don't explain why, my guess is that the long time it takes for the temperature to rise allowed a bit too much gas to escape before the bread solidified internally, leading to a slight collapse and a final loaf volume that was a bit smaller. That said, I'd say that effect is somewhat recipe and dough dependent, as well as dependent on how long it takes for the dutch oven to heat up. It's certainly possible that in some situations a bake started with a cold dutch oven could give an equal or even superior oven spring to a loaf started in a hot oven. You're balancing two things: (1) crust formation can't happen too quickly, or the oven spring halts before the rise is complete, but (2) structure needs to set quick enough before gases migrate out of the dough, and the gluten isn't sufficient to continue to hold up the expanded dough (without the set internal structure). Starting in with a cold dutch oven avoids the first, but could cause problems with the second. If the timing is right, though, one could maximize oven spring and still get good crust formation and color at the end. However, at some point, one does need to finish with a rather hot oven to get the browning and "crackling" element of the outermost layer of crust in a lean dough. I think things are clearer in my head now. Sorry for the delay, but now I am reading a new book and it says that actually the steam does NOT play a role in oven spring, this is just a myth. I am very confused right now. But your answer makes perfect sense. I am convinced that a humid environment delays crust formation, so we can get a bread with a thinner curst. But if that makes a diference in the oven spring I really cant tell. @guistoll: Well, I've seen multiple baking books that have shown photos of bread baked with and without steam (in professional ovens), which shows a clear difference in loaf volume. So, I'm very curious about a book that claims it's a "myth" and if they have data demonstrating that. Can I ask what book it is? It's the "Modernist Bread". They did an impressive number of experiments. But this is not the first time that I hear that the steam is not important for oven spring. @guistoll: thanks. I have yet to have a look at that book. I remember having a decidedly mixed reaction to "Modernist Cuisine" when I went through large portions of it years ago. There was a lot of good science, but it was mixed in with what I'd definitely call "kitchen lore" at times. I believe you when you say they did experiments here, so I'll have to have a look. I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong if there's good science.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.266219	2020-09-14T15:36:31	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110687", "authors": [ "Athanasius", "Chris H", "FuzzyChef", "Peter Duniho", "guistoll", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87644", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
129880	How can I make frozen yoghurt in a Cuisinart 2-quart freezer bowl-style machine if the mixture is too thick for it to churn? My mother and I attempted making frozen yoghurt in a freezer bowl that you would put into a freezer and let it freeze for a day or so,but when we put in the yoghurt, which was a Tillamook brand of vanilla yoghurt, it somehow got way too thick, and the machine was unable to churn it at all. I don't know if it was a Greek yoghurt or not, but I knew that Greek yoghurt is generally thicker than non-Greek yoghurt, so I don't know if that could've been the problem. I just checked on-line and it did say it was a creamy yoghurt, so I'm not sure. How do companies like Menchies or Pink Spoon make these? I know they may use commercial-style machines that might be able to churn more efectively because they have more power, but I'm not sure. I'd appreciate any help from anyone who has had experience with this, as I always found the process of freezing and churning ice cream/frozen yoghurt to be really fascinating! Did you add straight yogurt to the bowl? Or what's your recipe? Was it already turning when you did that, or did you put it in, take some time to get organized, and then try to churn after it had sat still for 10 seconds or more? Pending answers to questions in comments: It sounds a lot like you put just yogurt into the freezer bowl, which alone will have not nearly enough sugar for reasonable frozen churned dessert. It will freeze way too hard. If you did not have the machine already churning when you put the yogurt in, it likely froze the layer of yogurt against the sides and bottom of the bowl solid before you attempted to churn it. That frozen layer would prevent the scraper/agitator from being able to turn.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.267174	2024-12-29T00:29:18	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129880", "authors": [ "Ecnerwal", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115397	Baking a Pie in a Stainless Steel My ceramic pie dish broke recently and I only have stainless steel as well as cast irons in the approximate size of my desired pie. Can I bake my pie in these or will something go terribly wrong? And what precautions ought I take (baking at a lower temp, etc.) using pans to cook a pie Of course you can. I have often baked pies and tarts in metal dishes: one can even buy metal dishes with removable bottoms specifically for baking tarts. In order of heat capacity, stainless steel has the least heat capacity, then cast iron, then ceramic. The metal pans are more conductive (and darker) so you will find your crust cooks slightly more quickly. I would bear this in mind particularly if you are blind-baking a pie or tart crust. I suggest you do not vary the temperature, since this just introduces an extra variable, and will affect how the filling cooks as well as the crust.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.267578	2021-04-24T20:19:43	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115397", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113946	If pickling destroys Vitamin C, how is Sauerkraut rich in Vitamin C? My understanding is that pickling destroys Vitamin C. However, apparently Sauerkraut is very rich in Vitamin C and is used by the German Navy to offset scurvy. What am I missing here? Because early sailors suffered from scurvy and I must assume they brought preserved fruits and vegetables with them but that wasn't enough (or maybe they didn't? But if they did not I do not know why unless Europeans did not know about pickling but that seems unlikely). What is it about Sauerkraut that is different? EDIT: Question has been extended to Why weren't pickled fruits and vegetables part of (European) rations during the Age of Sail? Fruits don't last very long, and preserved fruits often lose a lot of their C, depending on the method of preservation. After saurkraut, the other method used for C for sailors was lime juice stored in tanks, and mixed with rum to make grog (hence "limey" for British sailors). Which leads to a story of how the folks on one of the polar expeditions got scurvy ... Vitamin C is destroyed by heat and light. If you use a preservation method that relies on heating the sauerkraut at any stage (hot pickling liquid, water bath or pressure canning the jars) then some vitamin C is destroyed. Exactly how much depends on the process: not all vitamin C is lost immediately so different processes will have different amounts of vitamin C left. And if you use a preservation method that doesn't rely on heat like lacto-fermentation, no vitamin C is lost to heat (some may be lost to light, depending on how you store it). Are there multiple methods to make sauerkraut? Some of which need no heating? This article: https://www.makesauerkraut.com/nutrition-benefits-sauerkraut/ says Vitamin C can be much higher after pickling? @DKNguyen that article is not only badly written, it simply misreports and misunderstands its sources. Especially the claim for the 600 mg is blatantly wrong, you can click on the study they link and see that it is about equivalent antioxidant activity, not about vitamin C content. I would suggest that you simply disregard the article. @rumtscho Will do @DKNguyen Natural lacto-fermentation does not require heating. It's just cabbage+salt (+sometimes water) and time. @Johanna Huh. Then I truly wonder what the reason was that prevented sailors from bringing such foods with them early on. @DKNguyen - it simply was that they didn't know about the cause of scurvy (actually this had been discovered and forgotten several times over western history). Sauerkraut can also over-ferment if stored improperly, making it inedible. There's a credible answer about this over on the history stack exchange. @bob1 Yes I just read a big long article about how it was constantly cured then forgotten. But I guess what I am really wondering, which veers away from nutrition into history, whether or not they knew, why were pickled fruits and vegetables seemingly weren't brought along more often just as a matter of course. Too expensive? Not filling enough for the volume they took up? Maybe they were brought along but the various pickling methods often involved heating? I just read they did try and bring lemon or lime juice but the production process involved a boiling stage so no dice. @bob1 Because reading, they make it sound like every single long range ship suffered from scurvy. Maybe this was not the case as even if 30% of the ships suffered from it by picking the wrong foods to bring, it would be an epidemic. I can't find reports as to just how common it really was. This is veering into discussion - scurvy is only a significant problem after about a month with no fresh food. Ships often didn't sail that long before re-supply. Fresh vegetables won't keep all that long, and most of the vitamins are lost in approx 1 week, even when stored in a fridge. Instead long easily stored items like salt meat, flour etc were taken. Pickles are heavy, hard to seal properly in large volumes for the required fermentation, and I would guess not very efficient in terms of space. A fine article on Captain Cook and sauerkraut to prevent scurvy. https://modernfarmer.com/2014/04/magical-sour-cabbage-sauerkraut-helped-save-age-sail/ DKNguyen: it was VERY common. Consider that a trans-pacific sailing trip could take 6 months. That's a long time to be without fresh fruit, veggies, or meat. https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/the-age-of-scurvy "Scurvy killed more than 2 million sailors between 1492 and 1900" @FuzzyChef Then it just goes back to what was preventing so many crews from not having preserved vegetables or fruits by chance just as a matter of course when pickling methods were known. You don't have to understand Vitamin C and scurvy to want to bring along fruits or vegetables. Even if the vast majority of pickling methods used at the time involved heating (I haven't been able to find anything either way), from reading what rations often were, it was more the case that no pickled produce was brought along. What was it that was stopping them? DK: that would be a different question (Why didn't they bring preserved fruits along), which you could certainly post on SA.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.267691	2021-01-25T14:56:49	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113946", "authors": [ "DKNguyen", "FuzzyChef", "Willk", "bob1", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91020", "rumtscho", "user141592" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114199	How to season a carbon steel pan on an electric hob I have a de Buyer Mineral B Crepe Pan. It's unused, because I don't know how to season it using my electric hob. Most of the videos I can find reference gas hobs or using the main oven. Previous attempts to season other carbon steel pans on my hob result in uneven seasoning, because the diameter of the element is smaller than the diameter of the pan Whilst I have an oven, heating this pan (including the handle) is not possible due to the rubber "button" on the handle, which is not heat resistant for the long periods required by seasoning. De Buyer state that this pan can be heated in the oven at 400F (200C) for only 10 minutes. Does anybody have tips or techniques for seasoning these carbon steel pans using an electric hob? Welcome to SA! FWIW, I have a different brand of carbon steel crepe pan, and I never formally seasoned it. I just cooked a batch of crepes in it with lots of butter. Since then I've probably made 1000 crepes in those pans, and never had an issue with them. The seasoning looks a bit splotchy, but it works fine. To the question as asked: No, there are no more tricks. When you use the wrong tool for the job (in this case a too-small electric hob), then you can't expect the job to go well. Nevertheless, there is an easy solution for you: Use the oven. If you are that worried about your rubber button, remove it before putting the pan in the oven, and pop it back in afterwards. But I use my own Mineral B in the oven frequently enough (and don't always bother to remove the button), and have had no problems with it. I had never heard of the manufacturer's advise you cite, but if you absolutely want to stick to it (e.g. because of warranty issues) and are against the oven, you just have to live with a badly seasoned pan. Options: Move it around. I've often lived with kitchens that deprived me of gas in which I had to maintain woks etc on small/ highly centralised heat sources. I rolled the wok from side to side to heat the whole object, and kept wiping oil over the whole inner surface. Took time. You've got a flat pan, which should be easier. Just put it on max heat and move it steps around a circle, so you're effectively seasoning each small area sequentially rather than the whole thing at once. Don't worry. That is, if your hob only heats a certain portion of the pan, then that's where sticking is most likely to take place, and hence that's the area whose seasoning you should be most concerned about. If you haven't got a perfect, shining black patina extending evenly right to the rim it won't affect the production of your crepes, which will be cooking on the bottom, mostly in the middle. As rumtscho suggests, you could trying doing it in the oven. You could attempt this by either a) removing non-metal parts if there are screws or such allowing you to do so, and replacing them afterwards, or b) destroying unremovable non-metal parts (pare them off with a stout knife or a chisel, or whatever method seems appropriate) and then living without them, or binding on a comfily-shaped piece of wood if you've been left with only some kind of prong that doesn't feel very nice to grip. Yet another alternative is to use a towel/ cloth/ rag, as some chefs use all the time, which will also help you to keep everything clean as you go (doesn't almost everyone hate a slippery, oily pan-handle?), and reduce the risk of ever burning yourself. Pop over to visit a friend who is the proud master of a more comprehensively-fitted kitchen and ask to borrow their gas hob for a smoky hour. If you're absolutely fascist about taking care of your pan thereafter (no slow-cooking of tomato-based or other acidic sauces, always dry it and heat it a wipe it with a few drops of oil when you've finished using it), once should be enough. Bring a bottle or some cookies, enjoy owing a favour, and look forward to further fun times in kitchens with said friend.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.268099	2021-02-09T20:38:02	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114199", "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 }
114347	Does black interior of a cocotte/dutch oven such as Staub create problems with accidentally burning ingredients/fond? The Staub cocotte has a black interior (in contrast to the Le Creuset) as can be seen below. Does this black interior significantly increase the chances of accidentally burning the ingredients and especially the fond which forms at the bottom of the pan. The fond is dark brown in colour anyway so I am worried that it would be very difficult to discern if it's starting to get burnt and turn black against the black interior of the cocotte. Dutch ovens have been black since... forever. The color of the interior of a pan isn't going to effect how food cooks, but you are right that a dark pan does contrast differently from a light or metal pan. My own experience with pans of many types is that color doesn't make any difference in the end result, I can tell if onions are browning on a dark cast iron pan just as well as a light ceramic coated pan or steel pan. If you are concerned about it just look at the food on the spoon as you sauté, the spoon is the same color no matter the pan you use. Thats a good point about checking the browning of the food against the spoon and I also expect not to get too much problems there. It's actually telling the difference in colour of the fond which forms at the bottom of the pot which I am more concerned about. I wouldn't worry about that @sev, it's going to coat the whole bottom so you'll be able to tell its color. I avoid dark-colored pans when I want to watch the color of a transparent or translucent mixture, such as cooking down fond or making caramel. (Situations where I need to make a split-second decision on when to stop cooking.) But I agree with GdD -- other things, like onions, are easy to watch in any color of pan. I tried making caramel in a cast iron pan once. It burned, set off the fire alarm, and I accidentally stripped most of the seasoning while trying to clean it and had to redo it. 0/10 do not recommend. I love my Staub dutch oven. I don't feel that the black color of the enamel is a problem. You express this concern: I am worried that it would be very difficult to discern if it's starting to get burnt and turn black against the black interior of the cocotte. When I'm cooking, I'm not specifically making fond. The fond is a (desirable) side-effect of the cooking process. The color of the pot doesn't hinder me in any way to be able to correctly cook whatever ingredient(s) I'm cooking. I'm not judging the cooking process by the color or appearance of the fond in the first place, so while it's true that the black color can make the colors of the fond a bit less visible, that doesn't affect the cooking process. That addresses the question you asked. But that said, I will also share that the enamel surface of the Staub is somewhat more of a matte finish than what one finds in a Le Creuset, which does make cleanup a little harder. When the fond is deglazed fully, it's fine. But on occasion, something goes wrong in the kitchen, the food gets overcooked, and then the stuff that gets stuck to the pot can be harder to clean up than if the surface were more of a shiny glaze. There are pros and cons to both brands of enameled cast iron cookware (and others), but I don't feel that the quality of the fond is among those concerns. Either type of surface works equally well for that. YES, the dark interior is an issue for me, for now. I practically live for beautiful mailliard & fond, but am not an extremely accomplished cook. I went with Le Creuset pieces strictly because of the light interior. SIDEBAR: I need to work on heat control when searing in enameled cast iron so I don't burn fond. Instant Pot released an electric dutch oven with !adjustable braising temps! and its cast iron dutch oven has a dark interior. (I would love to braise during the summer without having to turn the oven on for hours.)	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.268452	2021-02-17T10:04:36	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114347", "authors": [ "GdD", "RonJohn", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91409", "sev", "user141592" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115794	How much oil is necessary to fry/cook eggs? Say I want to cook sunny-side up or scrambled eggs, I would ask help from my family, but I wanna try it on my own. I have a non-stick pan which as of now kinda sticks and it's what we usually use when cooking something, apart from our wok, which is less stickier. What I would want to do first is heating up the pan, adding the oil, then inserting the egg. Cook for a while then serve it on a plate. Under what circumstances should I use oil for cooking eggs, and how much? If I may add to the two excellent answers. The oil you fry anything in affects the flavor. I usually use olive oil, sometimes butter and on occasion bacon grease. So experiment and discover what oil/fat works best for your palate. @SteveChambers true. if there's some bacon grease left, might as well try it. Do you actually want to fry eggs like your title says, or do you just want to cook them as the question body suggests? @Kat either fry or cook without oil, can be any. basta, cooking eggs. I edited the question to solve your question. If you're new to cooking, you may not know, but if your non-stick pan has scratches in it, you should toss it out and get a new one. Scratches are the non-stick coating coming off, which may be why you feel the pan is "more sticky". Also, never use a metal utensil or spatula in a non-stick pan, since it will scratch the coating and lead to the above. Welcome to cooking, I think you'll enjoy yourself! @SnakeDoc I hope I will, not like other sites I'm in. Consider replacing your non-stick pan if it’s worn. I wouldn’t want to eat Teflon (or the underlying aluminium). @Michael that really depends on my father though. See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40270/whats-the-best-approach-to-get-runny-yolk-sunny-side-up-fried-eggs/40272#40272 @Jolenealaska - wow, that's a seriously long list of things I would never do to a fried egg ;) Just shows how so much of cooking is cultural/regional :) @Tetsujin yeah, cooking, or cuisine in general, sometimes defines the cultural aspect of a region. that's what I think. yeah, it's pretty long, might as well make a recipe book with those procedures. @DerrickWilliams The book is in the works Never and none. Not even bacon grease is better than butter. I'd say not more than a table spoon (around 15ml), maybe a little more if you feel your eggs are sticking; you need to experiment, but I think you should use as little as possible. Use oil (or other fat) to help crisp up the egg. Butter will work better for scrambled eggs (IMO). Butter shouldn't be added at the start, no? Otherwise it might burn... @xuq01 No. Butter needs to be added at the start since it's being used instead of oil. You just don't cook with high heat when using butter. In fact, for perfect scrambled eggs and omelettes you need to take the pan away from heat from time to time to control temperature (I learned this from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dGBRGtyzX0) Yes, the later is necessary. I also see some people folding in cream from time to time to cool the pan down. There's always a second stick of butter in my fridge reserved for the purpose of painting pans. I use high heat from start to finish; it's just a timed exercise. But that's because 'perfect' is caramelized over easy. I'd say this answer is misleading since the amount of lubricant needed is heavily influenced by the pan used to fry the eggs. The "stickiness" of the pan is what influences the amount of oil needed the most. I have an old non-rust (I don't know the proper English translation) pan that is really really sticky and you need to add a lot of oil. I also have a new pan with ceramic coating where only a very small amount of oil (or even none at all) is needed to make bull's eyes (sunny side fried eggs). Technically, an egg is not "fried" unless there is at least some oil involved. So even though you could cook an egg in a very well-seasoned cast iron pan with no oil, it wouldn't technically be a fried egg. The primary reason you use oil, though, is to keep the eggs from sticking. So in a pan like yours -- a worn-out nonstick pan that's not really nonstick -- you're going to need oil, and probably a fair amount. The exact amount is going to vary according to three factors: How large your pan is How many eggs you are making How "sticky" the pan is So if that nonstick pan is only 6"/15cm, just a tiny bit scratched, and you're making two eggs, you can use just 2 tsp of oil. But if you're cooking 8-10 eggs in a 14"/35cm nonstick pan that's completely scratched up, then you'd need more like 4oz/100ml of oil. Which brings us to the other reason to use oil: flavor and texture. Some ways of making fried eggs use even more oil. For example, the standard Thai fried egg is cooked in a pool of oil 1/2"/1cm deep or more, in order to get lacy, crispy whites. "The primary reason you use oil, though, is to keep the eggs from sticking." Unless you're making deep-fried eggs, in which case the oil is the primary cooking medium. Isn't the seasoning on an iron cast pan oil anyway? @bunyaCloven - no, it used to be oil, now it's a polymerised coating. are the pan measurements the diameter of the pan? Yes, the official diameter measurements, which are often slightly different from the actual size. Try measuring across the bottom if you don't know what you have. I disagree with the first sentence. From M-W, for example: "Fry (v): to cook in a pan or on a griddle over heat especially with the use of fat" (emphasis mine). There is no meaningful difference between an egg cooked in a small amount of fat, and no fat, other than a slight difference in color; it's the same cooking process, i.e., frying. The amount of oil required is dependant on the result you want. At minimum, you can fry an egg in a teaspoon of oil, but if you want the top basted you will need sufficient that you can splash some over the top to finish it. Otherwise you either have to fry it for longer, or risk the white still being runny. Alternatively, abandon the sunny-side-up idea & flip it. Butter will burn unless you keep the heat down, but it's a viable alternative if you have the patience. It's not what I would consider a 'true' fried egg, though. Hot oil, fast cook is my ideal. Slight crisping around the edges. As mentioned in comments - if you have bacon fat, that's the best. Catering fried eggs are a different thing altogether - to save having to carefully monitor each egg's progress, they're cooked in maybe an inch of oil, so they float. I wouldn't suggest this as a particularly delicious method for home cooking, they come out rather pale & insipid. Sometimes they'll grill them to finish. Just to cover all bases - some caterers will fry eggs on a griddle/hotplate surface. This is similar to the pan method, but you can't baste. Scrambled eggs are a whole different thing - though you would traditionally start with a butter coating on the pan, for flavour, the result is not 'fried', it's merely 'heated & stirred until it mostly solidifies'. If you have a really good non-stick pan, you can make scrambled with no oil/fat. Fried, on the other hand, really can't properly be called fried unless it's in oil/fat. That's the very definition of flrying. Under what circumstances should I use oil for cooking eggs I will turn that around: the circumstance where you will not use oil is when you have a working non-stick pan (so not the worn-out one you described) and you prefer eggs made without oil. If any of these conditions is not true, you should use oil. and how much The range is huge. Upwards, it is basically unlimited - I haven't had deep-fried eggs, but I don't doubt that somebody is making them. What is more interesting is the lower limit. You have to have a layer of oil that is sufficiently thick for the egg to be able to slide on it without touching the pan, no matter how many milliliters it takes This is quite thin, less than a millimeter of depth is sufficient, although you might not be able to get a continuous layer that thin on a failing nonstick pan. Make sure you are not using less oil than that. If you have a normal pan and use too little oil, the eggs will stick. If you have a nonstick pan, the oil will polymerize and gum the pan up. "I haven't had deep-fried eggs, but I don't doubt that somebody is making them." Except deep-fried *hard boiled" eggs are really popular :) I get 'deep fried' eggs every day when I'm working on location - that's how the caterers make them, an inch of oil. They're not great, but sometimes their alternative of scrambled is even worse. This is usually not high-grade catering, but you have to stoke up on the calories for the day ahead ;) @AnastasiaZendaya For me, they are the opposite of "really popular", I have never ever had them, or heard of them. Which is one of countless examples of why food culture is extremely varied, and many of the "absolute truths" people tend to learn are in fact arbitrary and highly local. @rumtscho Good point. In case you're wondering though, they're called scotch eggs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_egg Although the accepted answer suggested around 15 ml, I would do around 5 ml (a teaspoon) for a single egg. Just make sure you don't unnecessarily coat the whole pan, and you should be good with a teaspoon. For me, pans are remarkably non-stick right after they have been used (still hot), meaning I can fry an egg with the super thin layer of oil left on the pan. The heat matters as much, if not more, than the oil, unless you're basically shallow frying (like, enough oil to not cover the egg, but still get halfway up it or so). Get the heat right, and only a bare touch of oil will be enough (or maybe, none at all). Get it wrong, and even a fair amount will still see you sticking. What's really important is that it's hot enough before putting the egg in. Oil will help you here, because it will transfer the heat a bit better than the pan itself will. Make sure that the pan is preheated (meaning, as hot as you want to cook the egg on), and that the oil is also preheated (so, on the pan for at least 15 or so seconds before the egg is). Also make sure you're using the right level of heat; if you have a laser thermometer or an electric griddle/induction range, this is easiest. Aim for something like 325°F/165°C. Much higher and your oil might burn, much lower and you'll end up sticking. Ultimately I use just a tiny bit of oil - a faint spray from an oil mister - and don't usually stick when I cook my eggs, on a non-teflon nonstick pan (so, a pan that isn't quite as non-stick as the teflon ones). One other note: you can season non-stick pans just like you season cast iron! Put a thin coat of oil on them, then heat them up until the oil is quite hot (some smoking is okay, but it will discolor the pan if it's not a dark color pan). If you're using Teflon pans (PTFE), be careful not to heat the pan beyond the safe temperature your manufacturer recommends, but the hotter the better for this up to that point. Let it go for a while, at least a minute or so. Then turn it off, and let it cool completely. Finally, wipe it out with a towel (but no soap/water). This page for example goes over this. You can do this to an older pan and regain much of the nonstick ability, as long as not too much has actually flaked off! The 're-seasoning' will never be as non-stick as the original coating, though. It's something i periodically have to remove from non-stick pans… either that or throw them out - see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114569/removing-long-term-residue-from-teflon At least for me, it’s worked very well - the seasoning is better than the original. It’s explicitly asked to be done by the manufacturer in the instructions at the start. Are you talking about ceramic non-stick? Because heating teflon pans to the point where oil will polymerize might create poisonous fumes. @Joe Probably depends on the oil you use - don't use something with a high smoke point for Teflon! Some oils have smoke points in that 325 range, though. I do use ceramic, so i'll make an edit to make that clear.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.268805	2021-05-24T23:07:58	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115794", "authors": [ "Anastasia Zendaya", "Derrick Williams", "FuzzyChef", "Joe", "Joe M", "Jolenealaska", "Kat", "Mazura", "Michael", "SnakeDoc", "Steve Chambers", "Tetsujin", "bunyaCloven", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51716", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88031", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94053", "mishan", "nick012000", "rumtscho", "slebetman", "xuq01" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116319	How to clean food that may have been contaminated by a cockroach? I have seen a post on how to keep roaches, etc., away, but let's say I did see a cockroach on my kitchen counter, and it did crawl on surfaces and food (let's say, some avocadoes that were out, ripening, as well as some Nespresso capsules). What might be a good way of cleaning food like avocadoes that may have been contaminated by the cockroach, but that we would still like to consume safely, if possible? How about Nespresso capsules? In both of these cases, we don't actually need to consume the surface (of the avocado, of the capsule ..) touched by the cockroach, but wouldn't like to spray any kind of toxic substance on them nevertheless. I found, in this healthline article According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cockroaches carry bacteria that, if deposited on food, can cause salmonella, staphylococcus, and streptococcus. and According to the World Health organization (WHO), cockroaches have been known to play a role as carriers of intestinal diseases, such as dysentery, diarrhea, cholera, and typhoid fever. You mean other than just run it under the tap, same as any other fruit or veg you buy? The chances the roach was the only insect to ever walk over your fresh food are almost zero. See Can I safely clean/eat harvested foods that have aphids on them? Roaches, while unpleasant, are not crawling merchants of death. A rinse with water is all you need. Haha, "crawling merchants of death".. I was thinking of the bacteria they may contain and spread. I'll edit the post and add some info on that. Fruits and vegetables are obviously natural products that are exposed to the elements, and a variety of insects and other wildlife during growing, harvesting, storing, packaging, and distribution. Whether the roach crawled across your avocado (for example) on your counter, or (potentially) the store room of your local market, matters little. For produce that has an edible exterior, I rinse well. Sometimes (depending on the product) submerge in a few changes of water (fresh greens, for example), and spin dry. For products with an exterior that doesn't get eaten, a quick rinse and wipe is probably all that is necessary.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.269847	2021-07-05T09:49:47	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116319", "authors": [ "GdD", "Tetsujin", "auspicious99", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94496" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116501	Bread maker paddle cylinder bored round; inner flat side gone I have a Zojirushi BB-PAC20 two-paddle bread maker. It had been working fine for years, but recently it stopped mixing right, leaving huge chunks of unmixed flour. I found that the problem was one of the paddles; it rotated freely all the way around the post it mounts on, so when bread ingredients were there holding it in place, the post would have rotated freely within the cylinder, without rotating the paddle. Originally the cylinder had a flat side, matching the flat side of the post it mounts on and which rotates the paddle. The paddle's cylinder had been bored completely smooth and round; no vestige of the flat side. The other paddle had only a tiny nub remaining from the flat side; it would have failed in the same way soon. My question is, what happened to the metal that had constituted the inner flat side of the cylinder? I'm pretty sure we didn't eat bits of metal, and I never saw bits of metal when cleaning out the pan and paddles between loaves. Where did that metal go? UPDATE: Tetsujin asked for pictures. Here's the paddle: This shows the posts at the bottom of the pan that the paddles mount on: This shows the paddles mounted on the posts: It depends which way up the 'plug' & 'cup/socket' are. If the 'cup' faces down, you ate it. if it faces up, you probably washed it down the sink when you cleaned it. Pictures would help. @Tetsujin I've added some pictures. It's possible the metal simply deformed rather than wore, it's hard to say as you have pictures of the originals rather than how they look now. @GdD I think you nailed it. I'll put more in an answer. After comparing the old paddles to new replacement paddles, all of them original OEM pieces from Zojirushi made specifically for the BB-PAC20, I believe the flat parts of the paddle cylinders deformed, spread around the inside until it was smooth and nearly round. When I placed the new paddles on the posts, I found that they were a little looser than the old ones. Again these paddles should be exactly the same. It wasn't a big difference but it was unmistakable as I tried both old and new back and forth. Looking again inside the cylinders of the old ones, I think I see evidence that the flat part was spread around inside until it was smooth and nearly round. I've had the old paddles around three years, averaging a loaf a day. The change in fit tightness must have been very gradual as I didn't notice it. I think it makes sense that the paddles would be made from a softer metal than the posts, so that the paddles sacrifice themselves to avoid damaging the posts. I see no wear to the posts. It would take a lot more work to replace the posts than replacing the paddles. If both parts were steel, that interface would outlive the motor and probably the owner's grandchildren. But the shape of the paddle means it would be rather expensive to make from steel - aluminium, being softer and easier to cast, is far cheaper for a part like that. Mine is a moulinex, and the drive shaft seems to be steel; the paddle feels like aluminium from the weight but the flat in the bore, which is uncoated, looks like it's a steel insert. ... The oxidised aluminium worn from the paddle can still abrade the shaft, causing the loose fit with the new paddle. As they sell spares, replacing the shaft would probably mean replacing the pan From my comment It depends which way up the 'plug' & 'cup/socket' are. If the 'cup' faces down, you ate it. if it faces up, you probably washed it down the sink when you cleaned it. Pictures would help. After pictures added… You ate it. It's very unlikely to do you any harm. For us never to have noticed chomping down on a bit of metal, would it have come off as very finely ground bits, like powder? Very probably. Though I've known people break a tooth & swallow it. There's still a good chance a lot got washed away. The void formed as it wears will fill with dough and the metal particles will stick, but that dough is likely to stay in there when the loaf bakes. &Chris H Yes, the dough that gets down in there stays there when I remove the baked bread from the pan; it doesn't come out with the loaf.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.270069	2021-07-21T16:19:56	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116501", "authors": [ "Chris H", "GdD", "Greg Lovern", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94810" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116683	What is the net (absorbable) carb content of Psyllium Husk? I want to make ketogenic bread with Psyllium Husk. I am confused from looking online at the nutritional value of psyllium husk. Some websites reports in the nutritional values that it has only 1.7g of carbohydrates per 100g of product. Other sites state that 100g of product have 80g of carbs. This is really confusing. My questions are: Are there different psyllium husks processing methods that produce different carbs values? are there brands that report 80g of carbs just because they include the total carbs of psyllium husk including fiber (which is a carbohydrate), but since fiber is indigestible those carbs are not going to be digested? (Hence why some brands reports only 1/2g of carbs on their label). Is there any absorbable carbs difference between psyllium husk and psyllium husk powder? Welcome to SA! However, requests for nutritional advice are off-topic for this board. See: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic @FuzzyChef this is not a question about nutritional advice though, it's a question about nutritional facts. It actually falls under the category of 'food selection and use' under a specific diet. I am not asking 'how healthy Psyllium Husk is' but factual information about this product for whether it can be selected under a diet, which is not an opinion on health, but a fact. It's potentially a fact, but that doesn't make it on-topic for a board about cooking, any more than asking about the real vitamin content of various brands of multivitamin would be. You really want an SE about health. And ... you are, in fact, asking about how healthful Psyllium Husk is in this question. @FuzzyChef no, i am not. there is not even the word health in my question. I am asking about factual information for selecting food to cook a recipe (bread). Provide a valid argument, or please accept the fact that you are wrong. ... I think the question is fine, but the title is misleading. You're actually just asking about the carb/net carb content of psyllium Husk. The keto-ness or not isn't really relevant. @kitukwfyer thank you for the feedback i changed the question title and tags	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.270425	2021-08-03T14:01:55	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116683", "authors": [ "Fed", "FuzzyChef", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94989", "kitukwfyer" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116945	Is there aroma transfer in wood fired ovens? I love making pizza. And I've been reading this book "The Neapolitan Pizza", which is supposed to be, as they describe it in the subtitle, "a scientific guide about the artisanal process". I was fascinated by the amount of technical information available in there. Though, I was in shock when I read the following, the authors were talking about wood fired ovens: "The concept of wood giving a particular aroma is false: there's no transfer of aromas from the wood to the pizza". I remember getting some bread from a place called (now ironically) "Firehouse", great bakery. And I remember feeling this fantastic taste of a smoked delicacy in their loafs. Have I been fooled by my brain? I'd really expect that at least tiny particles of burnt wood and other chemicals from the smoke to somehow land on the baked good and give that a taste, why that doesn't happen? Or is the smoked flavour something different from the wood flavour? The book is correct, for two reasons: Wood-fired pizza ovens are not smokey, instead having very good draft in order to allow maximum hot fire burning. A pizza is in a Neapolitan pizza oven for 60-100 seconds, which is not enough time for something to absorb smoke flavors, even if the oven were smokey. The reason to use a wood-burning oven for your pizza is the intense heat of 450C or more, which is required for many Italian pizza types. That heat is harder to achieve in electric or gas ovens. If you get any flavor of wood at all, it would be only from any ash stuck to the oven floor. However, where you noticed the smoke flavor was from bread, which cooks for up to an hour, in a much lower heat. Given that amount of time, a bit of smoke getting into the crust is a lot more possible. +1 The other major reason is that the wood is burned down to nearly coals before the pizza goes in - most of the wood aroma comes out as the wood breaks down and releases oils, etc, which burn and evaporate. Heating up a pizza oven takes an hour or more, and once that whole fire-building and shuffling ritual is over what's left is a big pile of wood that is largely reduced to charcoal with very little wood aroma left. If fresh wood was added just before the pizza went in then it would pick up some of the wood/smoke aromas, but all of that is spent in a properly prepared pizza oven. @J... depends on the model of oven. The Ooni Karu, for example, is heated by a continuous feed of new wood, rather than coals, mostly because it's not brick and as such has little heat retention. Even in that case, though, the pizza doesn't get "smoked". I'm talking about a real pizza oven, of course. I'm very sceptical that the Ooni would not impart wood aroma if it's fired by fresh wood. It doesn't. There's been complaints about it on the Ooni forum from people who expected it to. Maybe if they're using charcoal - that I could believe. 90 seconds is not a long time to spend in the heat, but with fresh wood I'd eat my hat if there wasn't some wood flavour in there. It's probably mild and most people just don't notice it. There won't be any smoke if it's burning cleanly, so that's probably what people are looking for, but hardwoods also have aromas that are distinct from simply smoke (hickory, cherry, and oak all smell differently, for example) and I'm sure those flavours will end up in the pie. You're speaking theoretically; the Ooni owners are speaking from direct experience. I'm speaking from years of experience cooking, and from years of experience of being disappointed in the sensory awareness of most other people. I don't doubt that those people did not notice the flavour of the wood. Probably that means that lots of other people wouldn't either. That doesn't mean those flavours aren't there. "The wood flavors are there, but only I can taste them" isn't much of an argument. Let us continue this discussion in chat. The link that you claim shows a good draft actually talks about the ability to stop the drafting and shows swirls (of air currents?) as one or their features. The 'other guys' (inferior) ovens appear draft more readily. In other words, your source seems to contradict what you claim it proves. @JimmyJames not sure where you're getting that? "Like the traditional ventilation design, the vent creates a strong draw, helping pull hot air out of the oven." @JimmyJames That section is talking about retained heat baking. This is when you heat the oven with a wood fire but then let the fire go out and bake with simply the retained heat in the oven. If the door to the oven leaves the chimney connected to the oven space then the retained heat will vent out of the chimney and the oven will cool down much more quickly. This is only a consideration if you intend to use the oven for retained heat baking and not simply for cooking pizzas with a live fire going at the time. I'm not a pizza chef and I don't have a pizza oven but I grill a lot with indirect heat and vented away from the food. There's a lot, a whole lot, of aroma of charcoal in food I cook that way. Anyone with a working nose can taste it. The idea that fresh air coming in isn't mixing with the combustion products just doesn't pass the smell test. (See what I did there?) I can't even stand near the thing without getting the odor on me. @JimmyJames, I'm in the same boat. If I get a pizza at like Papa Murphy's, it tastes far better (like smoky) in my charcoal grill than it does in the oven. There has to be something that gives it the extra flavor. If it's not coming off the charcoal, IDK what it would be. Keep in mind that one of the things that flavors a meal besides the taste of the food is the smell of cooking. Hard to get that delivered in a box. True, bread stays in the oven longer, however, that is with residual heat (after removing the fire). So also there would be no source for wood or smoke flavour. The smokey flavor comes from fat dripping onto the wood. They Youtuber MatPat runs a channel named Food Theory, and in one of his videos, he discusses an experiment he performed that involved grilling burgers and hotdogs on both a charcoal and propane grill for taste-testers to take blind samples of, and while the taste-testers were able to correctly identify the type of grill used for both hot dogs and meat burger patties, they were reduced to change for guessing whether or not a vegetarian burger patty was grilled on the propane or charcoal grill. He elaborates that based on his research, it seems that the reason for this may have been because the smoky flavor that charcoal grills create is actually caused by the meat dripping onto the wood, and the particles of the burnt drippings becoming aersolized and returning to the meat. As a result, you'd expect that other non-meat dishes like bread would also lack the smoky flavor; while a pizza might contain meat and cheese, it's unlikely that much of the fat from them would be able to drip onto the fire and burn away like it would for a bare piece of meat cooked directly on the grill. You might be able to get a degree of smoky flavor if you apply melted butter or vegetable oil to the bottom of the pizza's base, however. But then smoking would not add flavour at all and be completely senseless. When I smoke burger they taste completely different and even look differently. And then no fat is dripping on anything burning. I also grill with a tray that catches fat so it doesnt drip on charcoal. I love matpat but I think this theory is flawed Unless pizza has holes on the base none of the ingredients will ever be falling down. The border is thicker too @usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ If it's a super-greasy pizza, it's possible that some of the oil might drip down after suffusing through the bread base. It also occurs to me that you could deliberately apply butter or oil to the base of the pizza in order to facilitate that. This post confuses smoking and grilling. For sure, grilled items get flavor from drippings falling on to hot coals. The Modernist Cuisine folks (among others) established that. However, I would not necessarily consider the flavor "smokiness". Further, @FuzzyChef has the correct explanation for Neapolitan pizza. The problem with this explanation is that in a pizza oven, the pizzas are placed on the floor of the oven next to the burning wood, not on a grill above the burning wood. As a result, even a fatty pizza would not result in drips of fat onto the wood/coals. @MatthieuM. There are pizza recipes that involve placing the pizza onto the grill above the pizza. For instance, Adam Ragusea's recipe for cooking a pizza directly on an oven grate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbj6Z-JL8U @nick012000: Sure... but that's not at all what the question is talking about, is it? The OP mentions wood fired ovens in the "artisanal process" of Neapolitan Pizza, unless otherwise specified I'd expect this to be the traditional pizza oven... The video you've linked presents a nice experiment, but it doesn't really support the claim you've made. The experiment determined that a typical taster is not able to tell whether a veggie pattie has been char- or gas-grilled, but why is not established. The Food Theorist thinks that it's because drippings are what really causes the wood taste, but that hypothesis would need to be tested in a separate experiment, eliminating other variables. ... ... What the experiment did also show though is that coal gives significantly better results for veggie patties, so it's clearly not the case that drippings are the only thing that makes coal different. Perhaps the actual reason the tasters couldn't tell apart coal from gas was just that they weren't used to veggie grilling and thus were thrown off by flavourings of the pattie itself? In fact, perhaps the patties already had artificial smoke built in, which is why the gas patties were classified as woody? You have a typo in the first word The pizza under discussion is placed on a flat stone bottom, not on a grate suspended over the fire.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.270648	2021-08-23T20:07:16	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116945", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "J...", "JDługosz", "JimmyJames", "Kris Van Bael", "Matthieu M.", "bibleblade", "candied_orange", "computercarguy", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100938", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84887", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94539", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95278", "leftaroundabout", "moscafj", "nick012000", "usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
120317	I accidentally put my canned tuna in the fridge I accidentally put my unopened canned yellow fish tuna into the fridge for about a day. I took it out and put it in the pantry. Is it safe to eat? As long as you didn’t freeze it … @Michael What hazard does freezing cause? @Michael that might ruin the taste (but of canned tuna??? really?) but no health hazard @MonkeyZeus: I imagine the expansion of freezing water could break the container. Maybe less of an issue with a metal container, but certainly a problem if it were e.g. glass. It is perfectly safe. You've got a pasteurized product that is shelf stable while the can remains sealed. All you did was make it colder for a few hours. This is not a safety issue at all. I wonder if there's any food that becomes less safe by cooling it down in a fridge. I'm not sure the fact that it's sealed or pasteurized makes any difference @Aequitas one possibility: Once unwashed eggs have been refrigerated, must they remain so? (currently unanswered). There, natural sealing is part of the question @Aequitas I was essentially trying to point out that it was completely safe to begin with. If the can was previously opened, without information on the conditions of that scenario (how long, under what temperature), one could not make the claim of safe practice. So, the sealed can is an important factor. We have lots of questions on this site about how (or if) refrigeration extends shelf life. I was intentionally trying to be clear. So, it is not that cooled food becomes less safe, but that it is sometimes assumed that cooling food extends shelf life, which is not always the case. @Aequitas: Well, some foods become less safe by freezing. Specifically, canned food (seal may be broken due to expansion) and shelled eggs (egg may break, dripping egg all over other foods). @Aequitas It's possible an open can of tuna (or anything else) might be made less safe in a fridge, due mainly to the moisture causing the can to rust. (A closed can may also rust in a moist fridge, but if the rust is only on the outside, you're generally okay. And one day is certainly not long enough for that to be an issue.) @DarrelHoffman both the temperature and absolute humidity inside a fridge are typically lower than the surrounding environment. Thus I would expect it would still be safer against corrosion in the fridge than out. @DarrelHoffman Why would rust be unsafe? Aren't we eating iron oxide pretty much all the time in all sorts of foods? @JohnEye Pure Iron Oxide would not be a problem, but cans are coated with all sorts of things we should not be eating... @Rick The moisture doesn't need to come just from the air in the fridge. Most canned goods contain water in addition to whatever food is in them. (If nothing else, there is water content in the food itself.) When this water is exposed to air and in contact with the metal can, that can cause the metal to oxidize. @Aequitas Some soft fruit, like bananas, go black if you refrigerate them. @JohnnyJP that makes them less pleasant, but not less safe There are only a rather small handful of cases where refrigerating some type of food is potentially problematic. They generally fall into one of four categories: Certain lipids congeal or solidify when they get down to typical refridgerator temperatures. This can cause them to separate out if they are part of a soup or sauce (often forming a scum-like layer on top of the other liquids if stored in bulk), or to solidify and cause things to stick together. Usually this can be solved by reheating and mixing, but in some cases it can completely ruin a sauce or gravy. Similarly, how much salt and other solids you can dissolve in a liquid is dependent on temperature, and chilling the liquid can cause such solids to crystalize or precipitate out out of the solution. This is more often an issue when putting things in the freezer, and can almost always be solved by reheating and mixing, but is a serious pain when it happens. A major component of perception of flavor has to do with olfactory perception of volatile (in the proper scientific sense of the term) compounds in the food. These compounds evaporate and disperse less readily at cold temperatures, so chilling certain foods can have a very significant impact on their perceived flavor. Famous examples of this include various varieties of wine and sake, which often taste noticeably different when served chilled compared to being served room temperature. In general, just warming the food up again will resolve this. Starch recrystallization, the primary process which causes bread and similar foods to go stale, happens more rapidly at typical refrigerator temperatures (as compared to room temperature, it actually happens even more rapidly at colder temperatures, up until you get to the freezing point of water, where it stops completely). This means that things like bread stored in a refrigerator go stale faster than they do if stored at room temperature (but, on the flip side, they generally don’t become moldy). Unlike the others, this process cannot be completely reversed. None of these are really safety issues. All three except the last one might affect canned tuna, but I would think it’s unlikely to be a significant issue given that canning it in the first place already has a pretty big impact on the taste. Chocolate in the fridge is a famous example. Fat and Oil separate from sugar which crystalizes, showing white patches. this happens over time anyway, and the only backdraw is in taste. Lower temperatures result in less chemical reactivity and therefore less spoilage. In addition, the refrigerator, in principle, makes the space dry. All of these help improve the storage of food. Yes: generally speaking, cooler temperatures are always safe (though freezing may degrade consistency). However, the bit about “dry” is rather dubious: it's true that water condenses at the cooled back wall and thus makes the air drier, but because there is no active air circulation this isn't really effective at “making the space dry”. In fact, what happens in practice is rather that every time the fridge is opened, there's a brief circulation of warm, wet air, and that humidity condenses on all the cold stuff in the fridge, so putting stuff in the fridge to keep t dry is not a great idea. This answer doesn't really address the question about canned food. @leftaroundabout most household fridges are self defrosting. They work by using active air circulation to bring the air to the evaporating coils where the water will freeze/condense outside the fridge, and then drip off and evaporate into the surrounding environment while the compressor isn't running. @Rick at least in Europe, “active air circulation” is not common at all in household fridges, unless you mean something different than I think. Fridges are just nearly-hermetic boxes with a cold back wall. They do have a hole at the bottom which I suppose allows condensed water to evaporate again, but it's certainly not actively removed from the fridge. Perhaps air circulation fans are common in the US, I don't know. (On this side of the pond we have the stereotype of huge and absurdly energy-hungry American fridges...) @leftaroundabout in the parts of Europe I’m familiar with, refrigerators with active air circulation aren’t all that unusual, including in non-US-style refrigerators. This isn’t new either, I’ve had one for twenty years. @leftaroundabout I probably mean something different than you think, but also it sounds like your fridge might not have the circulation I'm talking about. My fridge just has some convoluted venting between refrigerator section and freezer section that allows/causes very slow exchange of air. Then it's the freezer that's cooled with the venting that goes to the evaporator. I'm not sure if that airflow is also just driven by thermal/density differences or a fan. If you don't have to defrost your freezer, then it probably has a similar system, but it seems like your refrigerator does not. I don't believe that tin is used in the canning process these days, but I have heard this question before, and think that it may arise because of the use of tin in the past. Tin and tin-coated steel has been used in the past in the canning process. Tin has several different crystaline structures that are stable at different temperatures. The atoms in the allotrope of Tin that is formed at 13.2C (56F) are packed less efficiently that normal tin, and thus the tin can crumble and corrode. This can cause damage to the tin can that could lead to food spoilage. This process is known as Tin Pest. Tin itself is not very toxic, so any direct tin contamination would probably not be a concern. So in your case, even if your tuna can was made with tin, you'd be OK, and the short amount of time invloved means that spoilage would also not be a concern.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.271530	2022-04-12T19:26:33	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120317", "authors": [ "Aequitas", "Brian", "Carl Witthoft", "Chris H", "Darrel Hoffman", "Eph", "Gyro Gearloose", "Johannes_B", "JohnEye", "JohnnyJP", "Michael", "MonkeyZeus", "Mr47", "Stephen Kitt", "Tristan", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43541", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45986", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97828", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98753", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98763", "leftaroundabout", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
117919	Can you start a recipe on low and finish on high in a slow cooker? Thanks to a sick toddler I wasn't able start my country style boneless beef ribs early this morning. The recipe calls for 8-12 on low or 4-6 on high. I've always been taught ribs should be low and slow never on high even in the crockpot. Can I cook them on low for 5 hours or so and turn it to high for the last bit? My crockpot does cook hotter and faster when on high then most with it cooking a normal recipe that is for 4-5 on high in about 3. i would do high first so that any toughness will be worked out by the slow cooking.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.272343	2021-11-19T16:52:42	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117919", "authors": [ "dandavis", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
118061	Frozen dinners extremely dry after reheating Frozen dinners become extremely dry after reheating them, so much so that I choke on them while eating. Why could this possibly happen, and how can I avoid it? I store them in the freezer (newish Samsung fridge/freezer combo), which is set to 0F, and they spend at most 1 week in the freezer. No signs of freezer burn. I've tried: Multiple brands, same results. Dishes I've tried (exact same ones): this or this Microwave and oven heating per instructions on the box, same results. My oven is convection and my microwave is a regular 800W microwave (not inverter), which can be adjusted down to 600W. Reducing power and increasing time in the microwave, same results. Example: 400g rice+chicken meal, box says 6 min at 750W, I do 6:25 at 700W. I've not tried: Reheating in the microwave with a glass of water inside. I'm concerned about 1) superheated water and 2) food becoming unsafe to eat due to most of the energy going to the water rather than the food. Adding fresh water to the frozen meal before reheating it. Same concern as 2) above. Won't energy be spent in heating the extra water rather than the food itself, thereby making it unsafe? What's your microwave's rated power, and what power are the instructions written for? Please see edits: (...) My oven is convection and my microwave is a regular 800W microwave (not inverter), which can be adjusted down to 600W. (...) Example: 400g rice+chicken meal, box says 6 min at 750W, I do 6:25 at 700W. Seems odd. Also: what sort of foods - stuff like curry should be fine though the rice compartment may get a little dry @ChrisH chicken and rice, or chicken and potatoes. chicken in sauce, or just a bare piece of chicken? An overcooked chicken breast could end up quite dry, for example @ChrisH Please see this pic I realise this is a slightly patronising question, but just to rule it out: have you had these frozen meals on other occasions and found them better? It could be that you just find frozen meals bad and there's nothing worse about the ones you're cooking. To me it sounds like the chicken is overcooked, but that's just a guess. Safety is a non issue long as you eventually get it up to the right temperature, though you might just need a little more time than it says on the package. But really the issue is probably that microwaveable meals are generally garbage, particularly "healthy" ones. @dbmag9 they've always been the same for me. But these are regular store-bought frozen dinners, if they were so dry to the point of making people choke, nobody would buy them. So either there's something wrong with my cooking methods, my coking equipment, or me. This is going to sound odd, but there was a recommendation on TikTok recently about putting an ice cube in your food to be reheated, and then remove it once it’s hot. This gives you just a little bit of steam to keep your food from drying out, without adversely affecting the time in the microwave by heating up a bunch of water. America’s Test Kitchen had an explanation of it in which they said the surface moisture on the ice evaporates, but the frozen ice doesn’t actually get heated by the microwaves. (Which also explains why want to thaw frozen foods before trying to heat them in a microwave) And of course, you want to cover your food to hold the steam in near the food, especially if you have a larger microwave. There are a few companies that make plastic covers that are slightly vented that can be put over plates or bowls. (I have one with magnets, that sticks to the top of my microwave when not in use) An interesting idea, and certainly ice isn't as good at absorbing microwaves as liquid water, but the explanation you cite doesn't fully hold either - microwave defrosting is quite successful (thankfully, as I want soup for lunch and forget to take it out of the freezer last night) @ChrisH It might be that the other stuff that isn’t ice still heats up, slowly melting the ice, but trying to heat a frozen food item on full power from a high wattage microwave is likely to either leave a frozen center or a dry exterior. (Liquids or foods frozen in sauce being a possible exception). For solid hunks of food, low power for longer is better, and for stuff that’s in multiple pieces, bursts of heat and stirring occasionally… or even just periods of rest to let the heat distribute in between bursts of heat full power defrosting unless you frequently break up the food, demonstrates nicely that microwaves don't penetrate very far, but do penetrate a bit. I tend to set 10 mins at quite low power and walk away. I think the ice cube trick works because the food it's next to absorbs most of the energy (apart from anything else the ice cube is a small fraction of the mass), while the ice cube provides a slow steady amount of moisture from the surface. It takes a fair bit of energy just to bring the ice up to 0°C even before it starts to melt so there's a sort of thermal reserve Ready meals with rice, here, have two compartments, and you're supposed to add a little water to the rice. But I don't think it's that sort of dryness TBH. If the chicken gets as bad as the OP suggests (in the middle), the rice would be little bullets	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.272437	2021-11-30T14:32:05	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118061", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Joe", "dbmag9", "endimper", "eps", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96682" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
50042	How to stop sushi nori tasting too strong? Vegetarian here (who doesn't eat fish), I love sushi and I've made it a few times at home and the technique is relatively pain free but the taste is just... off. From a shop, usually Yo-Sushi or recently Wasabi (which is an amazing oriental place I might add.) - it's delicious. The sea/fishy flavour of the nori is perfectly balanced but when I make it at home all it tastes of is seaweed. It feels like I'm licking an eel it's so damn strong. How do I make the nori have less flavour? It completely over powers everything and by the time I'm finished I feel sick from the strong taste. It's not so bad the next day after it's been in the fridge but there must be something I'm doing wrong? The nori I buy is from the supermarket and I believe it's Kikoman branded, I have some more authentic imported stuff sitting in the cupboard which I haven't used yet. Could it simply be that the stuff from the shop isn't fresh? Having said that I've had to wait for my sushi to be made and it was still delicious, so perhaps the nori I bought was just different? Are you sure the nori is less flavorful as opposed to your other fillings being too bland, making it stand out too much? Try tearing off a bit of the nori you like and tasting it alone, then comparing with your brand. Maybe you could try a different brand? Are you toasting your nori? I find that makes it taste more nutty and less fishy (and the nutty flavor kind of gets lost in the rice). It does sound more like a balance of flavours issue... Are you adding rice vinegar, sugar and salt to your rice once it is cooked? If not your rice will be less flavoured and therefore the nori would taste stronger in comparison. I know that you can toast nori, but I suspect that it would result it more flavor, not less. You could try making larger rolls, so the proportion of nori to rice and filling is less, or make an ‘inside out’ roll, which was specifically intended to limit the eater’s exposure to nori (for American palettes) Or you could make other shapes of sushi that don’t require nori— nigiri, chirashi, oshi, etc.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.272881	2014-11-24T16:51:58	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50042", "authors": [ "Angel Banana", "Bridgette Parks", "Britt Wilcox", "FuzzyChef", "Lawrence Ashe", "SourDoh", "Yamikuronue", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119567", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119568", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126277", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180" ], "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 }
120250	salt added to fat acts as a binding agent? I made maseca dumplings. Maseca is the flour obtained by soaking corn in lime. Maseca needs to be mixed with water to make a dough. The dumplings are added to gently boiling water. When I used only water and maseca to make the dumplings they held together. If I used water and fat (oil or lard) then the dumplings fell apart. If I used water, fat and salt they held together. The quantity of salt matters, too little and they fall apart quickly. Furthermore: Salt added to the water retarded the decay of a dumpling w/o salt. Adding a dumpling w/o salt to salted water lengthened survival time. Apparently it is the agitation of the bubbles in boiling water that causes them to fall apart, as they stay together at a simmer up to 195-200 but as the bubbling starts to increase they start to fall apart; at a full boil they fall apart quicker. Those without lard could withstand a rolling boil. Can anyone explain this phenomenon? I'm asking why salt acts as a binder but I don't if that is actually what is occurring. Thanks	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.273093	2022-04-06T00:01:41	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120250", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119286	If 2 cups of Himalayan salt is used in making 60 gallons of soup, how much sodium does this contribute to a 24 oz. soup serving? We have a local soup kitchen that provides 24 ounce containers of soup. There is no nutritional profile posted on the containers, and I'm curious as to how much of the standard (American Heart Association) daily sodium limits 1500 milligram=0.05291094 ounces (for high-blood pressure people] and (FDA?) 2300 milligram = 0.08113011 ounces (for people in general) is provided. I've been told that 2 cups of Himalayan salt are used for each 60 gallons of soup. Even though Himalayan salt and table salt are both about 98% sodium chloride--perhaps Himalayan is less densely packed--I have before me a Trader Joe's bottle of Pink Salt Crystals (which I'll assume qualifies as Himalayan). The label says that one teaspoon provides 4 x 470 = 1880 milligram, while the web says a teaspoon of table salt has 2,325 milligrams (as indicated closely above, i. e., 2,300). How is the salt ground up? Crystal shape and size affects how densely it packs, so how much sodium is a cup of salt Even with the same kinda salt - most famously between different brands of kosher salt, the 'saltiness' and 'packing' are different. You can't really tell at all without actually weighing it, which I suspect is what is done when you need to do up nutritional information. This is one part math problem, and one part cooking. First the math In a 60 gallon batch, there are 320 24-oz servings. 2 cups is 96 teaspoons...divided into 320 servings is 0.3 teaspoons of salt per 24oz serving. Now, one teaspoon of table salt has about 2,325 milligrams (mg) of sodium (though, this will vary a bit depending on your salt source, grind size, etc--coarser grinds will have more air between the grains of salt for the same volume). Your salt sample is 1880 mg/teaspoon, so we can consider that a lower bound. 0.3 teaspoons salt will be about 560-700mg of sodium. Therefore, each 24oz serving of soup would have roughly 560-700mg of added sodium... And now the cooking part Salt isn't the only source of sodium in a dish. Particularly when other ingredients might be prepared separately. In a soup, there may be ingredients like broth, bullion, beans, seasoning mixes, canned tomato, bacon/ham/sausage, etc which can all contribute sodium. The added sodium would be around 560-700mg per 24 ounces of soup, but the total sodium may be higher. Some stats that support this answer: Average Sodium: 394,717.96mg/kg Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7603209/table/foods-09-01490-t002/?report=objectonly Weight: approx. 250g/cup Source: https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/food-volume-to-weight/substance/himalayan-blank-pink-blank-salt-blank-coarse-coma-and-blank-upc-column--blank-024600011952 Therefore, 616.75mg/portion Well, a gallon is 128 ounces. So, 60 gallons is 7,680 ounces. There are 16 (fluid) ounces in two cups. So, each ounce of soup contains 16/7680 =1/480 = 0.00208333 ounces of Himalayan salt. Multiplying this by 24 gives us one-twentieth (1/20) ounces of this salt in each 24 ounce container. This is equivalent to 1417.48 milligrams of Himalayan salt. Let's multiply this 1417.48 by the ratio of 1,880 to 2,325 (see question), giving us 1146.18 milligrams of sodium in each container. Am I wrong?--I hadn't seen the answer of AMtwo when I posted mine? Hopefully, Amtwo is right--it'll make me feel better. You're jumping from 1/20 (0.05) fluid ounces to grams. This works for water, where 1ml=1g. However, for different substances with different densities, that volume to weight conversion isn't correct. This is why in my math I went from 16 ounces to 320 teaspoons, and used the mg/tsp to get sodium content Great, AMtwo--much appreciated!	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.273241	2021-12-23T18:43:03	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119286", "authors": [ "AMtwo", "Joe", "Journeyman Geek", "Mr Shane", "Paul B. Slater", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97025" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119378	Russian Pie Recipe breaks into little pieces? I am trying to make Russian Pies, I tried following the recipe in this video. I put 3 1/2 Cups of All Purpose Flour in a bowl. And then I put 2 tbl spoons of baking powder and a small table spoon of table salt. 3/4 of a cup of canola oil. 1 cup of milk. Mixed them together, divided the dough into 4 equal pi on an electric stove, let them rest for 2 minutes. Start putting them in a pan with oil to cook one layer of the Russian Pie and spray the pan with oil and put it on the medium heat and leave it in the pan for 2 minutes, and at the end it turns brown and breaks into little pieces, not like what is in the video. And it has a bitter taste. What did I do wrong? Are you sure that shouldn't be 2 teaspoons of baking powder. It's almost certainly an error in the recipe, and why it tastes terrible. Also that seems like a lot of oil. Oil in baked goods acts like shortening, and can interfere with gluten development making baked goods liable to fall apart. This I think might be one of those cases where a recipe on the internet just doesn't work. It has happened to me before, and I simply don't trust them any more. There are lots of these online unfortunately. Better perhaps to get a recipe book, or find a reputable website or youtuber who tests the recipes to make sure they work. I found this one here - much less baking powder. @billy Kerr Even two teaspoons of baking powder is a lot for the volume of flour given! But I agree, this is almost certainly the cause of the unpleasant taste. @Rdd Yeah, 1 tsp would probably be enough. If the bread is breaking up and turning brown, I think the heat is too high and/or there isn't enough oil in the pan (possibly both). Try a lower heat and slightly more oil (making sure to let the oil heat up before adding the bread). Electric stoves can be unpredictable! The bitter taste might be from the burnt elements, but I think it's more likely that you're adding too much baking powder, which tastes unpleasant if it hasn't fully reacted (and could also be contributing to breaking the dough up). Try one teaspoon instead of two tablespoons (drastically too much for the amount of flour you're using). I'm not sure from you description, but are you cooking one side before joining it to the other? That won't work - you won't be able to press them together, as one will be a cooked bread rather than a dough. Form the whole bread before putting it in the pan. I'm afraid I don't speak the language in the video you've linked, but I think I recognise what you're trying to make - a filled khachapuri (a Georgian rather than Russian dish). I'd just like to +1 for the recommendation to use less baking powder. Two tablespoons seems like an insane amount. Baking powder can also increase browning. @kitukwfyer I missed that it was two table spoons - that's way, way too much, and almost certainly the main thing going wrong here.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.273533	2021-12-31T16:18:02	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119378", "authors": [ "Billy Kerr", "Rdd", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93981", "kitukwfyer" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119514	Clear vs tinted glass bakeware There has been at least one question regarding baking differences between light and dark metal baking pans, and metal vs glass. Is the difference between clear and tinted glass bakeware the same as light vs dark metal? The difference between light and dark metals (and shiny and matte) has to do with emissivity (their ability to radiate their heat back out). Darker metals are more emissive, so stuff you bake in them or on them will brown more quickly. Glass has a low degree of conductivity, so it will heat up much more slowly than metal, but once it is hot it will retain its heat very well. Glass also has a very high emissivity (about the same as a dark, matte pan and much higher than a shiny silver pan). To answer your question about tinted glass, the tinting will have little or no effect on conductivity. It may raise the emissivity a bit, but a relatively small amount. And keep in mind that glass already has a very high emissivity. To quantify this, glass may have an emissivity in the range of 0.84-0.92 (1 being a perfect "black body" radiator). Tinted glass may be more like 0.85-0.95. For metal pans, it has to do with both color and matte. If the pan is dark, matte metal, it might be around 0.90, but if it's shiny it's probably more around 0.50. A shiny aluminum pan is much lower, probably around 0.10.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.273770	2022-01-14T17:27:30	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119514", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
120218	cooking with a round based clay pot on an electric stove I have a clay cooking pot, similar to this one here and was wondering does anybody know of a heat diffuser I could use to cook with it over an electric Stove, Its meant for a naked flame such as gas but you know, Russia decide to invade Ukraine, so gas is becoming quite expensive. How hot are you trying to get it? And is the pot you’re using glazed? Because if you’re stewing and it’s glazed so won’t absorb too much water, you might get away with putting it in a pot of water to diffuse,,, but if you had a pot, you could use that directly if it’s just a matter of saving fuel Welcome to SA! Just to be clear ... the pot you have has a round bottom like that one? I wouldn't recommend it. You're going to be generating a large heat differential between top & bottom, even if you manage to find a heat 'spreader' capable of properly heating the entire lower half. Heat differential & ceramics = cracking/or explosive shattering. Some pottery vessels are designed for stovetop use. @FuzzyChef - they would not be globe-shaped, for fairly obvious reasons. Testing Pyrex on a stove-top [by accident] would be enough to put you off for life. My mother did it once, my partner did it once. You find shards of 'glass' for months in odd corners of the house ;) Also, the pot in the photo is absolutely beautiful, reminds me of some I got in Japan 25 years ago. I'd hate to test its expansion coefficient empirically. Of course, stone-age man cooked in clay pots over an open fire for millennia, so it's not impossible. I just wouldn't like to test it on something expensive. No particular reason to believe that it's expensive; OP said "like this one". Pyrex isn't designed for stovetop use. However, there are specific clay vessels that are, either made with earthenware or flameware. So no, you can't put any random pot on the stove, but you can put a specific cooking pot on the stove if that's what it's designed for.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.273895	2022-04-02T17:51:44	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120218", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "Joe", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "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 }
120939	Can you steam eggs with other food? Is this healthy? I cooked eggs on top of potatoes and I was wondering if this was a wrong thing to do. Edit: it isn't duplicate, it is about steaming not boiling. If you're asking about food safety, then yes, it is perfectly safe to do so. If you're asking any other "health" question, we don't answer those here. As Ester implicitly asked, is your question about food safety, or something else (i.e. nutrition)? It is about salmonella, so it is about food safety afaik. Hi demonoga, the concept that is important here is called "cross-contamination". As soon as you have your eggs and other food in the same pot, the same food safety rules will apply. It doesn't matter if you steam or boil or do something else. That's why, when you want to know about the food safety aspect, the two questions are duplicates - you have created the same situation, from the perspective of food safety. The taste of the final product might be different, but that's not important in this case. Thanks, it makes sense for others if steaming and boiling are very similar in that sense to combine threads as this being duplicate. It is just that I have seen the duplicate question before and was sure it was different.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.274320	2022-06-29T17:23:07	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120939", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Esther", "demonoga", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99758", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121085	What is this number (275) on the bottom of stainless steel pans? I recently bought a set of stainless steel pans from Amazon (I live in the UK). The information on the product page says the material is 18/8 stainless steel. I believe this refers to a (common) type of 304 stainless steel, comprised of 18% chromium and 8% nickel. But when the pans arrive, on the bottom of them, there is a number 275 (see image below). That is on all of them, so it shouldn't indicate the diameter. Therefore, could anyone suggest what this number means? In particular, does this indicate the grade/type of the stainless steel? And if so, what is this type of material, and is there any indication/research on its implication to health as a cooking ware (sauce pan)? I know some stainless steel products have a mark (e.g., on the bottom) stating the grade/type of the material. But I did not find 275 as a grade for stainless steel. The closest thing I found was S275 steel – not in the stainless category (if there is such a thing). To be complete, there are 5 pieces in this set: 3 are stainless steel, 2 are stainless steel with non-stick coating. The package says pans were made in India (not sure if it's useful or not). Pictures: Welcome to the site. Can you post a picture of the pan from the side? Is there any reason to believe that the number isn't simply the pan model, used by the mfr? @GdD I added more pictures (pixelated/smeared a little bit) It could be @FuzzyChef, usually a set is a collection of models each with their own model number, I've never seen a set with the same model number on each pan, but that doesn't mean it can't be. I notice your pans have a separate bottom, often this means that another metal is sandwiched in there to help conductivity, but I wouldn't expect that to be S275 steel. @FuzzyChef I don't have definite answers, but there are some circumstantial evidence: 1) this set is called K0C1; 2) every pan has this number on the bottom, so it won't be for an individual piece but for the set (which already has a name); 3) as found on the product comment reviews, one earlier buyer of a different product model / set (K028) also has 275 on the bottom (and that's the only bottom picture I found). @GdD Yeah, thanks for the comments. I thought about the other layer thing as well (because 304 alone should not work on induction hob, yet this set claims to work). But I did not find any article saying if S275 is magnetic or not. And if it's not stainless, then it will be another problem for the product to sell... Things to rule out: there is no way it's S275, that's mild steel and would rust. Also, just checked and India uses the same steel formulation IDs that the US does, so it's not an Indian number either. You could always reach out to Kaufmann directly and enquire. They may or may not tell you, but it might be your best bet on a definitive answer. If you do ask the manufacturer please come back and post an answer. @bob1 Thanks. Yes, I went to contact the seller yesterday, and they did reply (see answer below). But just to be clear: it's the seller on Amazon; the brand's website redirects me to talk to Amazon (then the seller?) rather than to them directly. @Luciano I did :) I have reached to the seller. It was third-party on Amazon, but it was directly linked from the brand's website, so I presume that is the reply from the manufacturer (or at least with a close contact with them). They say the number 275 is the batch number, telling them when they were manufactured. And they say they can confirm that the pans are 18/8 stainless steel. Although there is still a little uncertain, I'll take their word.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.274571	2022-07-18T14:03:19	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121085", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "Luciano", "bob1", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100033", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "renyuneyun" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121222	How to use a carbon steel pot (not pan) I found a very old pot in my very old house. I suspect it to be carbon steel, for the following reasons: It's rusty It's magnetic It looks a lot like the carbon steel pans that were stored with it, except it's the shape of a pot I would like to use it for the same purposes one usually uses a pot: cooking rice, boiling water etc. I am wondering how that works though: If I follow the same processes as with a carbon steel pan, I would always have a thin layer of oil on the walls and bottom. Can one cook rice or pasta in such a pot, with boiling water? If I season but I don't add a thin layer of oil everytime, I am afraid the pot will rust very quickly Does anybody know how to use such a pot? Side note on why: I am well aware that using another pot would be simpler. The reasons why I am asking this question are the following: The goal is to use the pot over a wood fire. The aforementioned pot used to be used in such a setting, thus wouldn't be dirtied by doing so. Conversely I don't have other pots whose cleanliness I would be willing to sacrifice The goal is also to give a new life to this pot, which is probably a century old, and use it the same way the previous inhabitants of this house did More generally, I am interested to know how cumbersome it would be to use it Thanks in advance for the help Sounds like a ton of work to end up with a worse end result. You can use that pot for almost anything except high-acid foods, if it's properly prepared. First, remove all of the rust and clean it thoroughly. Next, you'll want to season it the same way you'd season a cast iron dutch oven. Because you're planning to boil wet things in it, you'll want to apply at least seven layers of seasoning. You need to be really exacting about getting each layer of seasoning on well; any "sticky" patches of seasoning will detach when boiling. You'll also want to apply a restorative layer of seasoning after each use. One tip is to heat it low & slow to make sure the walls of the pot heat as well as the bottom. (Other commenters are correct in that this probably isn't worth the trouble; this is why you don't see carbon steel pots around anymore.) Thanks a lot for the answer! So if I apply a restorative layer of seasoning after using it, do you think I should also add a layer of oil after it, or the added layer of seasoning would be enough to protect from the rust? You'll want oil on the outside as well, to protect from rust. Is that what you're asking? no, I was wondering about the inside. Should I also add a layer of oil after a layer a seasoning after each use? No, you shouldn't. That extra oil will just become rancid. It will be somewhat of a pain to maintain, but yes, certainly rice or pasta can be cooked in it. What you'll want to be more careful of is the many things which prefer a non-reactive pot due to the food reacting with the metal of the pot. A bare steel pot is the opposite of non-reactive. Tomato sauce, jams/jellies, pretty much any acidic food... Unless you have no other pot and no way to get another pot (such as a secondhand store if cash is tight) I would suggest not bothering, but folks cooked in cast iron kettles before our time, so you certainly can cook in plain steel. Some foods may discolor, and you'll need to promptly clean, dry and oil the pot after every use in the battle against rust. Thanks a lot for your answer! Just to be very clear: I should season the pot, and after every use I should clean it, dry it and oil it, and thus at the next use the pot would keep an oil layer on all surfaces, while water is boiling inside. Did I get it right? Practically speaking, no, the oil layer won't really stay in place while boiling water. It just keeps the pot from starting to rust between uses. Otherwise the "clean/dry/re-oil" steps would not be so critical. I reiterate the suggestion to get a different pot if at all possible. Ok thanks. Regarding the alternative of using another pot, I have added explanations on my motivations to the question	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.274886	2022-08-02T18:10:42	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121222", "authors": [ "Ecnerwal", "FuzzyChef", "Vic Seedoubleyew", "eps", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100262", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121312	I accidentally sprayed bleach on some apples. Is this dangerous? When I was bleaching towels, I accidentally sprayed some on apples nearby. The next day, to be safe, I washed these apples for about 15 seconds. Are these apples safe to eat Could someone get sick? Please answer for my peace of mind. At least in the US, as of 2017 (last reference I found), commercially packed apples are washed in a bleach solution, then thoroughly rinsed before being sold. We, of course, have no way of knowing the concentration of your bleach spray, but I would think that if you washed these apples they are safe for consumption. I just rinsed them under the tap. Is that good enough? Hard to be definitive, again, not knowing the concentration, how much got on your apples, how you washed them...etc. It is doubtful that any bleach got beyond the barrier of the skin. I would be comfortable with them, but if anyone can point to a risk here, I would be happy to amend. This is the safety sheet of the bleach. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0580/1056/6835/files/C9955_Astonish_Mould_Mildew_Blaster_750ml_SDS_NEW_PACK_deca4c0e-01e3-4083-82f2-1bad12475ee6.pdf?v=1645634776 I would peel the apples before use. If you had washed them immediately, I don't think there would be a concern, but depending on the concentration and type of of the bleach etc, it may have damaged the skin cellulose. To be on the safe side, I would definitely peel them, and remove any damaged/discoloured flesh. for sure if you wash it off right away and it doesn't smell like bleach, then it's fine. I worked at a pool where regular bleach was used for chlorinating the water; consuming a tiny amount (can't smell it) isn't harmful.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.275203	2022-08-10T16:12:59	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121312", "authors": [ "Esther", "Greybeard", "abc123.b", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100387", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "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 }
121381	When do foods with a use-by date really go bad? UPDATE: All the standard recommendations say you can only store refrigerated raw chicken for 1-2 days, but that seems really conservative, since it's designed for immunocompromised people. Therefore, I'm left wondering, what is the practical limit where a reasonable adult with no health issues should actually throw food away (while it still has no obvious signs of spoilage like mold or smell)? Perhaps more like 1 week in the example of chicken? ORIGINAL QUESTION: I have a pack of raw chicken breasts that has been in the refrigerator about 1 month (28 days) past its "use by" date. It is the type on a foam tray with a plastic wrapper, still sealed in the original packaging. Upon opening it, it smells fine, and there are no off-colors. Is this still safe? Welcome! We get many questions like yours and you need to realize that there’s a difference between „safe“ and „spioiled“. One is a statistical value indicating a low enough probability of spoilage, the other is about the individual item at hand and (bar obvious indicators like color, mold or smell) can only be determined in a lab for the specific sample. We deal only with food safety here (see the previous sentence) and your pack certainly isn’t safe a month past the use by date, which is in itself about food safety (unlike a best before, which is about quality). This one https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/12953/100451 answers my question better than the duplicate link.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.275365	2022-08-16T03:36:33	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121381", "authors": [ "Stephie", "brobers", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100451", "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 }
121488	How long can I store raw red meat at -16 celcius? So I have a small freezing section in my fridge that reaches -16 celcius (according to my food thermometer). Recommended storage durations are always for -18, but I want to know how long I can store things at -16. Can I safely store raw red meat at this temperature, and if so, for how long? It seems that the situation is not discussed much in English-speaking sources. But in Europe, freezers with differently-graded compartments are available. So I was able to find a German-speaking source, https://www.gefriertruhen.org/bedeutung-der-gefrierfach-sterne/. no stars, or 3 to -4 C: 1-2 days 1 star, or -6 to -12 C: 1-3 days 2 stars, or -12 to -18 C: 3-14 days 3 stars, or -18 C: 2-6 months 4 stars, or below -18 C: 6-12 months I suspect that this chart assumes already-frozen food, since by food safety standards, non-freezer-requiring food can be kept at 0-4 C for 3-5 days, with a few exceptions like ground meat. Your freezer falls into the 2 stars category, so by these rules, the food is safe for up to 14 days. Also, you said that this is a freezing compartment in a fridge. In this case, there is a single compressor, regulated by the dial in the fridge. If you value longer storage times over energy usage, and can accept a colder main compartment, you might be able to regulate it to lower temperatures and make it -18 and below. You'll have to experiment if it really would go that far, and also it may have side effects, such as finding frozen food items in the main compartment. Usually a few months; make sure the meat is properly wrap, vacuum packed will give the best result for longer term freezing. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/cold-food-storage-charts If you thought this were a question for storing in a "standard" *** freezer, you should have voted to close as a duplicate to the canonical storage question, and not answered it. In this case, your answer is simply incorrect, because the link you gave disregards the point of the question, which is about a freezer warmer than -18 C.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.275501	2022-08-29T10:31:30	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121488", "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 }
122310	Why consume DRIED apricots within 21 days? I bought a large bag of dried apricots at Costco. I was planning to enjoy them slowly over the next few months (the Best Before date is in mid 2023) but the label says: "Reseal and refrigerate after opening and consume within 21 days." I find that weird. Dried fruits usually keep for months and months. The only clue I've got is the ingredient list mentions 2% water. Any idea? Safe to consume after 21 days? 3 month? 6 months? Thank you so much! Split into smaller bags and freeze, perhaps. And buy different product next time... I believe the short answer is, that product is not dried fruit. I would be cautious but not overly so The risks are low First of all, dried fruit are not a breeding ground for pathogenic bacteria due to the low water content. They might spoil but, according to this USDA Q&A, you will notice if your fruits go bad and even if you accidentally eat one you will most likely be fine. So be cautious but unless you have a special health condition you shouldn't be putting yourself too much at risk. Note that I found conflicting information but it seems that once they spoil they might start growing pathogenic bacteria. So just to be safe, still throw away spoiled dried fruits. The take away is that (in almost all cases) as long as you store you dried fruits in a reasonable way (don't have them in water, very hot places, next to other raw food, etc...) they will spoil way before becoming unsafe to eat. And you can tell when something is spoiled. So you can trust your senses to know if they are good. This comes with a few disclaimers I listed at the end of the post. "Best before" is not a food safety indication in the US Then it is worth noting that, in the USA: [...] dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by Federal law This is an abstract from the official Food Safety and Inspection Service website where they explain that food dating is mostly to let you know when the manufacturer deems the food is of best quality, not when it's safe to eat (except for infant formula). I know in your case this is a storage guideline and formulated a little bit differently to what is on the FSIS website. I'm not sure why this is the case but to my understanding that doesn't change the fact that is a quality and not safety indication. 2% Water should not matter Looking on the internet, most sources agree that dried fruits still have a moisture content of 15-20%. But if you don't trust the internet (which is probably smart) I found a peer reviewed publication in the field of food science that does state: Dried, [...] foods are those that generally do not contain more than 25% moisture. This means that 2% extra moisture in your fruits is a negligible amount and they should conserve very similar to any other type of dried fruits you've already had. Then why the instruction It would seem that the instructions they give are actually very standard instructions when it comes to storing dried fruits. Here I couldn't find any scientific article but cross referenced 4-5 food blogs and website and all seem to agree. I found a guide that seems to summarize most of the information about storing dried food. The issue once you have opened your hermetic bag of fruit is that your product becomes exposed to air moisture (also heat and light) which makes them more likely to spoil within 2-3 weeks (in the worst conditions from what I understood). This is probably why the instruction is written as is. Sealing the bag helps protect from air moisture and storing them in the fridge protects from the heat. And they finally give, in my opinion, a very conservative "best-before" date. At this point it is worth remembering that it is in the food company's interest to have you throw away your food sooner rather than later and have you buy the product again. I'm not saying that it is all there is to it but it should be kept in mind as a factor. What to do No one can tell you when your fruits will spoil, because it depends on a lot of factors. However, from what I've researched, you can expect your fruits to last longer than the packet instruction if you follow the storage recommendation. However, there are simple steps you can take to help preserve them and try to avoid food waste as much as possible. Since this is a big pack, I would suggest that upon opening it you portion it and store it in smaller air-tight(ish) containers (old jam jars would do the trick) and eat them one by one. Store those in a dark, if possible cool place. This will protect your fruits from all the elements we have mentioned: air-tight lid does not allow the air moisture to enter the jar, a dark place prevents the light and somewhere cool prevents heat (yeah pretty straight forward, I know): At this point if you want to give yourself best chances you could also sterilize your containers before putting your fruits in. This will help although I'm not sure how much. This is an easy process and I would definitely do it if I were to plan on storing the fruits for over 2-3 months. Test, try and adapt And finally there is no magic formula, you have to try. Circling back to the first advice: trust your nose, eyes and taste buds; they will tell you when your fruits spoil. And if they spoil too early (which we never know, it might happen) adapt your conservation method. Keeping them in the fridge or freezing them in small batches (important: defrost them in the fridge and eat them shortly after defrosting) are both simple options you could explore. Disclaimer I : dry fruits are not pathogen proof Note that this is true for dried fruits. As stated in the intro of this publication: [The low level of water activity] prevents growth of many pathogens and lends to the microbiological safety of the [low moisture foods] Meaning that bacteria that cause food poisoning can hardly grow on dried fruit (note that although they won't grow, they however can survive on the fruits if they were contaminated, for example at the factory or in your fridge if you stored your fruits next to raw chicken...). This also mean that if you get enough water in the fruit they might grow those bacteria. So storing them well is still important Disclaimer II: All I wrote is only valid for dried fruits This approach of "spoil before being unsafe" does not work for all food categories. Milk, for example, will be different, as discussed in this post. As far as food safety goes, you should listen to the package. These are not just dried fruit. They are "partially rehydrated dried apricots". Once you begin to rehydrate (or if you don't fully dehydrated) fruit, you lose the full preservative effect of drying. If you want to keep dried fruit outside of refrigeration for an extended period of time, get fruit that is fully dried, and not partially rehydrated. The label tells us there is 2% added water to the already-dehydrated fruit. We don't know the residual water after drying. What we do know is that "someone" dehydrated the apricots until they were "dry enough," then this manufacturer added back water equal to 2% of the apricots. If there's 1 kilo of apricots, then 20g (20ml) of water has been rehydrated into the fruit. Without more info, food safety rules tell us that have to assume that the added water brings it back to the threshold of being perishable, and demanding those labeling instructions. It's entirely possible that these instructions are intended for quality control and not food safety. However, this is an agricultural product without preservatives where the label indicates refrigeration is required--so food safety rules would treat it as perishable as if it were fresh. Whether you can still eat it and not get sick might be a different answer; however that question is off topic. This site limits food safety Q&A to government food safety regulations, not anecdotal experience. The problem is that might not even be a safety instruction, but you have to assume it is. When combined with a best before date (rather than use by) it could also be about quality. I don't recall similar instructions on equivalent products here, but while I've got plenty of dried fruit in my cupboards none of it is partially rehydrated at the moment @AMtwo you seem to have a lot of knowledge of the topic, however, it seems that there are also a lot of opinions at play in this discussion (me first as I loath food wast). If you want to discuss more in depth I suggest we switch to a chat room. I'll be happy to amend or rescind my answers and comments should more facts be stated Dear all, there was quite a long comment thread. I left the first and last comment of the discussion; for details, please go to the linked chat room. I just got the following response from the manufacturer. Makes sense and aligns with the other answers! Refrigeration is not necessary for standard dried apricots. However, our Apricots have a higher moisture content than standard. Moisture content for standard apricots is below 25%. However, ours has 32-36% moisture content which may make it sensitive against spoilage microorganism. For that reason, you should keep it in refrigerator after opening in order to avoid any white mold occurrence on the surface of the product. you should accept your answer then! (mark it with the green tick)	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.275690	2022-11-11T02:48:56	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122310", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Ecnerwal", "Fattie", "LNiederha", "Luciano", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101623", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
122325	What fruits/veggies/other to keep at "partial freezing" (−3°C/27°F)? My fridge has a "partial freezing" compartment where the temperature is kept at around −3°C (27°F). It is promoted as a feature for storing meat and fish, but... I don't eat any animal products. Any ideas on vegan-friendly uses for such a compartment? Are there any fruits or veggies which will benefit from this storage temperature? Nuts? Seeds? Tofu? Anything else? Freezing tofu breaks down some of the cell structure and gives a texture many people prefer after cooking. As long as its really below 0C your compartment will work. I'd allow 12 hours to freeze a standard 1lb / 454g block, or more if you don't first remove it from the packaging and drain it. Of course it will be faster if you first cut the block into smaller pieces. Many vegetables do not freeze well, for the same reason that the expansion of water into ice on freezing destroys the cell structure. For instance try freezing a carrot: you'll find it turns into mush. Exceptions include peas and broccoli and (arguably) spinach, where the frozen product is far denser than the fresh and good for use as an ingredient, e.g. in spinach pies. Is there any reason to prefer to freeze tofu at -3c instead of something like -18c that you'd expect in the main freezer compartment? That's an interesting question. Generally freezing food more quickly creates smaller ice crystals, and does less cell damage. Since here the aim is to create cell damage, it might even be that the -3C compartment is an improvement on a main freezer compartment. Maybe someone with both freezing devices could do an experiment. "try freezing a carrot: you'll find it turns into mush." So I buy packets of already frozen vegetable - a mixture of broccoli, cauliflower and carrots - the carrots are not mushy... @DavidPostill: commercially frozen stuff is done in blast freezers which get much colder than home freezers and minimize ice crystal size and resulting damage. Some newer ones even use ultrasonic vibrations to break up crystals as they form. Home freezers do much more damage to cell walls, which you can minimize for really small things (blueberries, peas) by chilling then spreading them out on a sheet pan that’s already been frozen, but it’s really two different things, like comparing a coal fired pizza oven to a toaster oven I'd add to Joe's comment that, while commercially frozen carrots aren't 'mush', they are noticeably mushier than fresh carrots. Try putting a frozen carrot (maybe from one of the cheaper brands) on a low heat for a few minutes and then pressing it hard with a fork: you'll find water oozes out everywhere. @MarkWildon I generally use my frozen veg in stews/casserole or steam them so the water doesn't bother me. TL;DR To find uses for the compartment, do the following: every time you find yourself on the way to the freezer for a purpose other than long-term storage, ask yourself "will my logistics be easier if this food isn't frozen as hard" on every occasion calling for a bucket/bed of ice for chilling something, use the compartment instead. You can find some uses, but they will be edge cases. The best way to look at it is not as a variant of a fridge compartment, but as a variant of a freezer compartment. It will work pretty much as a freezer, but with a higher temperature. So, as a first rule, don't store there anything that won't go in the freezer. Fruit or vegetables that are intended to be consumed fresh, for example, are a no-go, also emulsified products such as dairy substitutes. As a second rule, your real freezer will be better at storing food than your special compartment. At its high temperatures, the storage time is only marginally longer than the fridge. So you can't use it to hamster food there. You can still find reasons to use this compartment instead of a freezer though. A non-exhaustive list includes: safe long thawing of food from the freezer (e.g. when you are not sure if you will come around to cooking it tomorrow or the day after) serving sorbets at the optimal temperature (give them an overnight stay in that compartment to come up to temperature) chilling a base for sorbet without the fear that it will freeze on you too quickly freezing fruit for smoothies (the harder fruit from the freezer will cause more wear on your blender blades) precooking for the week - cook at once and store portions in the compartment. The fridge is too warm for 5+ days, while storing it in the *** freezer means long thawing times, and also there is usually no freezer space free when you need it short-term. chilling drinks for serving them very cold. It will be optimal for hard alcohol even with very long storage, and for anything else (beer, soda), it will chill down quicker than in the fridge, but won't run the danger of freezing. You will probably come up with more uses over time. Just ask yourself, every time you use the freezer, if something would fit better with your logistics if it isn't frozen as hard.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.276380	2022-11-12T09:35:30	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122325", "authors": [ "DavidPostill", "Joe", "Mark Wildon", "bdsl", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51123", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
122539	Why did my macarons deflate in the last 4 minutes of baking? I've been learning how to make macarons using the Bravetart/Stella Parks recipe (archived on Wayback Machine). Here's what happened in my most recent attempt: When piped out on the sheet, the batter stayed somewhat mounded up (so I don't think they are overmixed, or at least, not as much the last time I did it!). When in the oven in the early stages of baking, they had some nice height to them, though no feet at any stage, as shown in this image (around 5-7 minutes in): However, after taking them out of the oven, they were totally flat---only about 4mm thick. (I did bake for a few extra minutes since they had already deflated and seemed very squishy still). The surface is rough, and looks like it is full of small holes, as shown in this image of them still on the tray: The same thing happened for every tray I baked, so for the second tray I watched the whole time & saw that they "deflated" with about 3.5 minutes left on the timer (so, after they had been in the oven about 14.5 minutes). Other possibly relevant details: I have an oven thermometer, so I know the oven was indeed actually at 300 degrees I have a stand mixer, so I was able to follow the timing & speed directions of the recipe exactly when making the meringue. I indeed ended up with a very stiff & dry meringue. I do not have a food processor, but I used pre-ground King Arthur almond flour, and used a blender for 30 seconds in batches to grind it a little finer with the powdered sugar. Not sure if this was necessary, but my sifter/sieve is very fine, and even with the extra grinding takes a little effort to get the mixture through. I knocked each tray a couple times on each side to pop bubbles. My last tray I let sit for 30 minutes after knocking, and I noticed more bubbles had developed, so I of course knocked it again to pop them (but, it turned out the same as the rest). Caveat: I'm not much of a baker and I'm going off my memory of my/my wife's attempts to make them quite a few years ago, which almost all ended up like yours... I would say that the steam which causes them to rise has managed to escape - there are a few ways this can happen and most of them are caused by bubbles in the mixture. Don't gently knock from the side, give that tray a firm sharp tap down flat on a bench/table to get rid of the bubbles. Don't pipe them too big - too big and they aren't strong enough to support the dome themselves and collapse. 1.5-2 inches (3.75-5 cm) is about as big as you want to go. A template will help with this. The top after piping should form a smooth dome (not an irregular mound = too dry) shortly after being piped and not spread outside the template (=not stiff/dry enough). On the plus side; flat ones are still super tasty and deliciously chewy, so have fun and don't worry too much about failures when trying to master this.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.276874	2022-12-04T17:51:38	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122539", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
122681	Will cross-contamination not happen when deep frying breaded chicken and battered fish in the same oil? Two restaurants I know fry battered fish and breaded chicken in the same oil. I asked one of them how they prevent cross-contamination in that case and I received the following reply: Our fish is hand battered which helps lock in the flavours and juices and we have not seen any leaching of flavour from the fish into other products. Foods are typically fried between 300 and 400 degrees (depending on product and stage of cooking) which is a very harsh environment for flavours or contaminants to survive. Even celiacs are generally fine eating products from a fryer that had other flour based products fried in the oil. They essentially said that the heat will kill contaminants and hence cross-contamination won't happen. Is this correct? Please comment on the above claim. EDIT: By cross-contamination, I mean one food simply affecting or mixing with another (e.g. should someone with a fish allergy be concerned about chicken fried in the same oil?) 'Cross-contamination' can mean contamination by pathogens or something else harmful, but it can also refer to one food simply affecting or mixing with another (e.g. the remark about flavour, or concerns for someone with a fish allergy or religious food prohibition). The current answer refers to the former sense but if you're also interested in the latter sense you should say so @dbmag9 Thank you for the suggestion. I shall include it in my question. I'm not sure I buy their explanation. People with a food allergy can have a reaction after eating food cooked in the same oil as the allergen. Pasteurization is usually done between 63-90 °C, (145 - 194 °F) steam sterilization at 120-130 °C (248 - 266 °F). So you can consider long frying oil at 150-200 °C (245 - 392 °F) safely to be free from any microbes. For flavours it depends, some will vanish even at temperatures far below the boiling point, some will change and some will reman stable even at high temperatures. Also many flavours are very well soluble in fats, so there is a possibility of carrying over the flavour of one food to another. And while you probably don´t want to prapare donuts in an oil that was used for fish and onions it remains a question of personal taste if this is neccessarily is a bad thing. Gluten needs a temperature of at least 300 °C (572 °F) to denaturate, which is beyond the temperature used for frying. Also note that as long as the dough also contains some water it will not surpass the boiling point. Parvalbumin the proteine which is the main reason for fish allergy seems to be relatively stable against high temperatures, so it might be an issue. If you have a reason to fear it as a serious hazard for your health it probably is safer to avoid it. But for advice on personal health threats and how to deal with an allergy you better should consult a doctor or another professional with an deeper insight into your specific situation and its reguirements than this community can provide. Thank you for the response. I still am not sure if I should be worried about cross-contamination if I am frying battered fish and breaded chicken in the same oil. I can confirm that gluten is a problem. I was at a bar with someone who was sensitive, and she got so bloated after eating food that had been fried in the same oil that that her stomach or intestines swelled up until she looked pregnant. @Joe That is scary. I hope she is okay now. Additionally, can grease and fat from chicken stick to the fish that is fried in the same oil? @a_sid you may safely assume that the transfer works in both ways and would also for other foods/meats. @Stephie Some restaurants claim they filter the oil to remove the remains. How effective is that for preventing intermixing of food remains?	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.277155	2022-12-17T19:32:04	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122681", "authors": [ "Joe", "Stephie", "a_sid", "dbmag9", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102159", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
122703	Chicken fat mixing with oil and attaching to fish when frying chicken and fish in the same oil This question follows from this question. The answer there does not satisfactorily answer this question. Fish and chicken are not the same. It is possible that fat from chicken does not mix with oil, right? When battered fish and breaded chicken are being fried in the same fryer, will fat from the chicken get mixed with the oil and attach to the fish? Will the remains of chicken still stick to the fish in the fryer, even though both the fish and chicken are battered and breaded, respectively? Isn't this really the same question you linked to, except worded a bit differently? @moscafj It is largely the same but here I focus on the specific case of chicken contaminating the fish @moscafj It does not answer it entirely. Fish and chicken are not the same. It is possible that fat from chicken does not mix with oil, right? define "contaminate". Is someone allergic to fish, chicken, ingredients in the batter, ingredients in the breading? Is someone a vegetarian who will eat fish but doesn't want chicken fat in their fish? @KateGregory Is someone a vegetarian who will eat fish but doesn't want chicken fat in their fish? This. Then it doesn't matter if the chicken fat might reach the fish ... it is enough if it reaches the batter, which the vegetarian will be eating. While the chicken fat may not dissolve into the frying oil, if any fat leaves the chicken, it could reach the fish batter. Imagine putting an apple in cold water and then pouring in a little oil. The oil and water won't mix, but the apple is likely to get oily nonetheless. @KateGregory Ok so cross-contamination is happening? Another point of view is that the high temperature of the oil will denature/kill any remains of the meats. your vegetarians may vary. Mine would consider fragments of denatured animal protein to still count as animal material. My family members who don't eat pork prefer we not cook their chicken in a pan that has had pork cooked in it, no matter how clean that pan has become since then. People make their choices and have their preferences. @KateGregory People make their choices and have their preferences. I understand people have their preferences but I am concerned about a very specific case: Does fat/any chicken remains get denatured after being released in the deep frying oil? I don't know because I don't care. A denatured chicken protein is still an animal product, so I haven't looked into this at all. Let us continue this discussion in chat.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.277473	2022-12-19T03:39:38	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122703", "authors": [ "Kate Gregory", "a_sid", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102159", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
123816	Can a handheld milk frother be used to make a bechamel sauce instead of a whisk? Has anyone tried this and did it work? I'm curious if it would give a similar, or maybe even better result compared to hand whisking. Edit: I don't have a milk frother right now, and was thinking of buying one for this. How much bechamel are you making? Are we talking about these tiny battery-operated thingies with a wire coil at the end? Or something bigger and stronger like an immersion blender? I've never thought that bechamel needed that much whisking, I just make it with a spoon. 2 cups, in a saucepan. When you said "handheld milk frother" I thought of a molinillo. There seems to be an assumption that you mean an electrical gadget. I've never used anything other than a spatula for any 'roux'-type sauce. I'd think any hand-held milk frother would either be far too delicate or simply under-powered. The first round of milk addition to a roux/béchamel mix is almost a solid. It never gets down to milk thickness even when fully finished. I really think it would kill something as low-powered as a milk frother. It would grind to a halt [battery] or burn out [mains]. I wouldn't even dream of using a full-powered stick blender on a roux. Interesting. I've never used a milk frother before, I'd have assumed it would be overpowered and need a lower setting, if anything. I would very much doubt it. If all it has to do is put some bubbles in milk, it's not going to be tougher than that - you can blend soup or froth milk with a big stick blender, but you would get nowhere the other way round ;)) Most frothers I've seen use, like, two AA batteries. They don't have much power. I have no idea if using a spatula is the same process as using a whisk, as I’ve never used a whisk. Here’s the process for spatulas: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/4421/67 To add to @FuzzyChefs comment: Very cheap milk frothers don't even start if fully immersed in milk. You have to start near the surface and gradually lower it. So those will be completely useless in liquids with any amount of thickening agent. Answering for some additional information: Technically, you could use a milk frother for making bechamel, in the same sense that you could also use a pair of chopsticks or a large fork (I've done both, while travelling). The question is whether it would be a good tool for making it. And the answer is no. In addition to the underpowering issues that Tetsujin mentions, there are the issues that most frothers: Aren't shaped well for scraping the butter & flour on the bottom of the pot; Have small delicate wires that wouldn't be great for moving much milk around (they're more designed for frothing like 200ml of milk); Have short shafts (like 8cm) that wouldn't allow you to use a deep pot; Have bare metal wires that would scratch a nonstick pot; Spin too fast. Lemme explain the last, because it's why you don't really want a powered appliance for making bechamel at all. Generally, you whisk bechamel relatively slowly (you do the same with polenta, custard, etc.). You don't want to whip air into it. Most powered mixers of any kind (frothers, handheld mixers, stick blenders) are designed so that their lowest speed is still way too fast, and will result in incorporating air into the bechamel, which you don't want. It might even prevent the bechamel from thickening properly. One thing worth noting is that such frothers (at least from my experiments) struggle with thicker liquids. I have one, and have enjoyed frothing milk up. Then I thought: well surely it's going to be perfect for whipping cream. But it's not (at least not in my tests). I'm guessing it's either too localized or weak to allow much air to be incorporated in a thicker liquid. It would always froth the cream up a bit, but then start to diminish in effectiveness, quickly getting slowing down (despite full batteries), and never really reaching the mass whipping cream gets when you use a mixer, and it seems even inferior to regular hand-whisking it. I see the base recipe for béchamel only may call for milk... so that aspect may be ok unless opting for a richer sauce base. But still, by being thickened, I really wonder if it might not have the power to perform well. In thinner liquids, a frother's quick vibrations in a small space allow enough turbulence to even incorporate air, but I think with thicker liquids, its small scale or weak strength quickly would limit its usability. Good insight on the use of frothers. Just a note: if the recipe only call for milk, it is actually added last, you start with butter and flour, which as Tetsujin states in their answer, looks like a dough. Then you dilute it with milk. So if frothers are not enough for cream, they clearly will be not enough for béchamel (an I mean any bechamel, I've made "poor man recipes" with water and olive oil, it works, but it's always solid at the start)	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.277682	2023-04-04T13:19:29	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123816", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "Joe", "Kaddath", "RocketHog55", "Stephie", "Tetsujin", "Wastrel", "arne", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102341", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102640", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91650", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
122833	What is the packet of stuff inside a package of ground turkey? When I buy ground turkey from Publix, under the ground turkey in the package there is a packet of something pinkish colored than isn't mentioned on the label, what is it? Is it maybe something from the turkey used for flavoring a broth or something? Is there anything written on the "packet of stuff", such as Do not eat? Welcome! Can you please include a photo? It’s almost certainly something that belongs to the packaging, but to be sure we need more information. I've seen those and they are placed under most meats and, i believe are there to absorb the liquid in the meat. If you look closely at this item is is not much more than some sort of sponge. Where I live most prepackaged meats come with a kind of fluids sponge or mat. Those can be part of the packaging, can be clearly recognizable mats between the meat and the packaging, or it can be a bag shaped package which looks like it could contain something edible. As it is something made to contain the liquids drained out of the meat and hold it, I do not think you should use it or anything coming out of it, as you can not know what they put in to hold the liquids. (Although it should be food safe as it is in contact with the meat.) I see that @Tetsujin in a comment calls it a meat diaper, which seems to fit the bag and mat types. Quite likely it's an oxygen absorber. or 'meat diaper'.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.278121	2022-12-29T06:15:46	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122833", "authors": [ "Stephie", "Steve Chambers", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52611", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651", "njuffa" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
123174	Do Recipes Typically Account for Starters/Preferments when Reporting Dough Hydration? I know there have been a couple of questions here before about what "counts" toward computing dough hydration % (honey, milk, etc.) but I always thought it was a no-brainer that starters and preferments (poolish, etc.) would be taken into account in published recipes, yet I still see some not do this, especially with sourdough starters. For example if I see a recipe that calls for 1kg flour, 700g water, and 200g of 100% hydration starter, the recipe will often label itself a "70% hydration dough". But the reality is the final composition of the dough will be 800g water and 1100g flour, or 72.7% hydration. Now I understand for baker's math, everything is always listed by reference to the dry flour, but I thought this was just for purpose of measuring and scaling. Is it the case that the 2.7% difference (in my example) is just not considered significant? In my experience a couple of %s can make a significant difference in dough feel and end product, and thus if I read X% hydration in a recipe I would expect they've accounted for all water and flour in the final dough. Is that not a sound assumption? Is there really no consensus on this as the comment below suggests? This question is sounding more like a rant than a question anyone can answer. What verifiable information are you looking for? I'm asking if a recipe labelled as X% hydration should be counting the starter or preferment in that calculation? It's not a rant, it's a question. Some recipes do and some don't. Whether or not they "should" is a matter of opinion. This is about recipe comprehension which is an expressly valid topic - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tour. I thought that was obvious before but have attempted to clarify again. Revisions work. Answering below. Some recipes do, some don't. If you read recipes that are written for "dough fiends" who are very scientific and experimental about what they cook, you'll find that the total hydration is carefully calculated. The Ooni pizza dough recipe is a good example (billed as 70% hydration, comes out to 69.5%); pizzaheads tend to be really fussy about hydration levels. Author Jim Lahey is similarly exacting. Most bread recipe authors, however, are not that precise. They are assuming that you're going to adjust according to local conditions. And they're actually right, because you have to; flour in Florida has significantly more water already in it than flour in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The exact protein content of the flour also affects absorbtion. They're assuming that you are going to vary either the amount of flour or the amount of water you add. Some dough recipes even instruct you to add water a little at a time until it reaches a specific consistency rather than adding a specific amount of water. Further compounding this, many sourdough recipes are non-sourdough recipes that were roughly adjusted for the addition of a starter, without really adjusting the hydration levels. And again, that's understandable because starter hydration levels vary. Even though the starter may be 100% hydration when you mix it, there's both evaporation and pouring off any excess water from the top before using. As a result, the actual starter by the time you add it to the dough is going to be between 70% and 90% hydration, not 100%. This means that, realistically, all recipe hydration levels are approximate. Nothing is going to replace you using your own judgement in mixing a dough. Those are all really good points. I guess I'm a dough fiend. :) I learned from YT channels like The Bread Code which do things like compare 70 to 72.5 to 75% in one video. If I ever bake in Florida or Santa Fe I'll keep this in mind. Thanks for the thoughtful answer. While what you write is mathematically true, in my experience, it doesn't really matter all that much. A sourdough formula has to be thought of as a guide. The ingredients one uses, the local environment in one's kitchen, and even the weather can easily impact hydration and how one's product behaves. That 2.7% is only a couple of tablespoons (51 grams). So, while your observation is true, I don't think it is practically significant. What is more important is getting a feel for your dough and how it behaves in your environment so that you can make minor adjustments as you go. Yeah I agree that whether 3% is significant is somewhat subjective. I know when I was starting out 3% could have meant the difference between success and failure. Now that I've made dozens of successful loaves I know I would have no problem adapting to that kind of difference. I guess I'm more curious if there's some practical reason or custom in the industry NOT to count it other than just not believing it's an important detail.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.278293	2023-01-28T18:19:21	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123174", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "Peter Moore", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609", "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 }
123486	Help Trying to Achieve a Specific Baguette Scoring Pattern I freely admit this belongs in the category of obsession, but there is a specific look I always want to achieve for my baguettes and sometimes I get it, but I have a hard time reproducing it. Here is an example of what I'm looking to achieve: Here's the scoring before baking: Here's an example of somewhat disappointing results: and the scoring pattern before baking: These batches were the same weight each and same recipe. Comparing them, I can't see much difference in the scoring pattern before baking, but the resulting looks are quite different - in the top ones the "burst" open portion takes up most of the top surface of the baguettes, while in the bottom ones the pattern is mainly isolated to the middle portion of the top surface and not as pronounced. One difference I do see is that the top ones are smaller before baking, possibly because I didn't proof them as long (unfortunately I didn't record the proofing time for these; this is always a variable because of room temperature, etc.). But I have tried shorter proofing times in general and find them to only result in smaller baguettes overall. Any specific suggestions or tips for how to achieve the pattern in the top batch after baking? Edit - New batch Sunday testing my theory that less proofing time could lead to better bursting: I messed up the first score on the bottom one but I think this is the right track as proofing time is really the only variable in all three batches. I could also tell as soon as I scored that the seams started to open up on its own which I take as a good sign. Next time I will proof for even less time. I know the guidance is to wait until an indentation springs back slowly but just thinking logically here, as long as the baking environment is nice and steamy I'm speculating that to achieve the best "burst" a high amount of gas pressure before scoring and baking is more important than maximizing the pre-bake rise. Any further tips/comments appreciated! Your scoring and results look pretty impressive already! I hope you achieve the perfection you're looking for. This is not a matter of scoring, but a matter of crust management. The difference between your two pictures is that the dough in the first (desirable) batch has managed to spread more before the crust hardened. For consistent results, you will have to be more consistent in everything that contributes to a crust. This is annoyingly difficult, because it involves pretty much everything about bread baking - proofing stage when it goes into the oven, actual oven temperature during the first minutes of baking (which is not the number shown on the dial), humidity inside the oven, and surface tension of the raw loaf are the most important variables that come to mind. The good news is that you have the capability to achieve the right combination, you just have to be even more obsessive about finding out what you did, and repeating it :) We have older, well-voted questions with some additional detail, especially How to achieve great baguette crusts, and Bread doesn't split at the score. There is also What effect do different slash patterns have on bread oven spring?, although not as relevant as the first two. Thanks those are helpful! I definitely agree oven spring is the key, but I might not have made clear that they always reach roughly the same overall size, which suggests to me that they're maxing out their potential rise just fine prior to hardening. What I'm wondering is if it's the proportion of rise that occurs in the oven vs. outside the oven that matters most here. In other words to maximize the "burst" should I proof them less (which it appears I did in the top batch) but perhaps bulk ferment longer, so there's more gas pressure built up prior to hitting the heat? @PeterMoore I wish I knew the answer to this specific part, but I admit I don't :( hopefully somebody else will contribute it in their own answer. No worries @rumtscho! Like you say, experimentation is the key. Edited above with results from yesterday. I think I'm on the right track. Cheers. Figured I would quickly follow up on this - rumtscho's answer is definitely great, but in my specific case, the key factor turned out to be proofing time. More proofing (90+ minutes) still resulted in nice large loaves but without the extremely pronounced pattern. Less proofing (<60 minutes at 68F) resulted in the split I was looking for. Indentations sprang back within a few seconds. It's a delicate balance though! I need enough gas to build up in the proofing loaves to cause nice expansion, but not so much that the loaves have already expanded too close to their maximum potential. Marching ever onward toward unattainable perfection. :)	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.278694	2023-02-25T13:31:15	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123486", "authors": [ "Luciano", "Peter Moore", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
126617	Food temperature "danger zone" - is it really binary? It's very widely reported (including here) that the food temperature "danger zone" is between around 40°F (4.4°C) and 140°F (60°C) and that if perishable food is at this temperature for longer than 4 hours it should be discarded. In fact this is literally the FDA's recommendation. On the other hand, under 40°F (4.4°C) seems to be considered safe for most foods for a few days or more and I've read that food kept over 140°F (60°C) (such as in smokers, slow cookers, etc.) is safe effectively indefinitely. Common sense tells us these boundaries can't literally be as hard as they are sometimes made out to be. It can't be the case that 39°F (3.9°C) and 141°F (60.6°C) are safe for days or even indefinitely, but 40-140°F (4.4-60°C) is only safe for 4 hours. Or that 3:59 hours at 75°F (23.9°C) is perfectly safe but 4:01 hours at 41°F (5°C) isn't. Can it? So are there more granular guidelines or data out there that can guide us on food safety objectively (e.g., bacteria growth rate or similar) as a function of both temperature and time? I'm thinking of something along the lines of the salmonella pasteurization guidelines which, if you follow them, allow you to cook chicken at much lower than 165°F (73.9°C), for example, provided you maintain that temperature for sufficient time. For refrigeration temperature unfortunately I have not been able to find anything other than the typical binary guidelines. If I'm wrong and the issue is in fact binary, I'd love to better understand why. when you're issuing this sort of guidance, you have to draw the line somewhere, and typically this line is drawn conservatively, in the sense that you'd rather throw out something that's still good vs eating something that's gone bad (this is a type I / II error tradeoff). In reality people routinely eat things that have been in the danger zone far longer than it should have been all the time (food at parties, cookouts, and potlucks etc), and are perfectly fine. Undercooked beef also raises your risk, yet people do it all the time, and so on. Not a big deal, but because it's about safety, I feel compelled to correct the record. The FDA guidance for foods that require refrigeration being out at room temp is only 2 hours. Four hours refers to foods in a fridge during a power outage. You are absolutely right, it's not binary at all. Bacterial growth doesn't magically accelerate at 40°F, the difference in growth rate between 39.9°F and 40.1°F is extremely small. I'm going to switch to C now as that's the metric system and it's going to get science-y. 40°F is 4.5°C. This is the e-coli bacteria growth curve by temperature. Source: Effect of salt and temperature on the growth of Escherichia coli PSII I couldn't find a less complex image that was public domain, just ignore all the dots as the curve is the point. You can see that at 4°C the growth rate is extremely slow, and at 10°C it's somewhat faster but still pretty slow, but then as the temperature rises the growth rate goes up significantly until it tops out at about 38°C before swiftly falling as it gets above 40°C. Say your house is 20°C, and you leave food out at that temperature for 2 hours. Is it safe? Maybe, but it depends on a lot of factors, like the bacterial load in the food before it was warmed to that temperature. Remember, foods aren't always starting from zero. If you have a bit of e-coli in the food already then you could end up with a substantial amount, maybe enough to make someone sick. Listeria, botulism, staph and all those other wonderful little organisms which people get sick from have their own curves which are roughly similar in that they all have a happy zone, die at high temperatures and replicate very slowly below 5°C. Can you use a scientific approach and these curves to know when food is safe? No, unless you have a laboratory and know the microbial starting point of these foods, as well as calculate the effects of salt, sugar and other ingredients that can increase or decrease growth rates, for each foodborne illness microbe. Even then all you have is a replication rate, you'd then have to factor human resistance to foodborne pathogens, which varies significantly from person to person, and that an individual's ability to tolerate a pathogen varies significantly depending on the state of their immune system. You can use the data to make risk based decisions, i.e. leaving food out at 10°C is much less likely to make you sick than leaving it out at 30°C, but there's still no guarantees. The FDA's recommendation is so cut and dried in order to keep it simple. Not everyone has the education, inclination or the time to figure this out. When you consider that the difference between 20 and 25°C nearly doubles the growth rate of e-coli the risks of making the wrong calculations can lead to serious consequences, and that there are at least another 12 foodborne illnesses to factor into your calculations it makes much more sense. +1. See also: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-12/Appendix-A.pdf Could you reference the source of the graph? @User65535 Seems to be from https://akjournals.com/view/journals/066/50/2/article-p180.xml Superb answer and great find on that graph. One thing I'm wondering - salmonella and e. coli are neutralized at the right temperature, and I presume the other microbes you mention can be too. However my understanding is that in the "danger zone" damage is done to the food which cannot be reversed through reheating. Assuming that's right, I wonder how that would be quantified. Or is it the case that low-levels of dead bacteria can be safe to consume, but after some threshold even dead ones can harm you? @PeterMoore I think it's not so much the dead bacteria that harm, but rather the waste products they left behind after consuming the food. (+1) I love the sentence "The curve is the point"!! I remember a cookbook I had talked about food safety in a sense of risk management. Basically, if you're cooking for yourself, and you're a fit and healthy individual, the risks are relatively low, you can stretch some of the FDA (or equivalent regulatory agency for your country) guidelines somewhat (just don't be stupid and eat food that's been left out for days!). But if you're cooking for others, or you work in a restaurant, you should be much more conservative and follow the guidelines as closely as possible. @PeterMoore, damage done to the food is done by a variety of microbes that cause spoilage, many of those are harmless to you but their byproducts are unpleasant and remain after the food goes above a certain temperature. Most microbes that cause foodborne illness just die and you won't notice a quality difference. @PeterMoore It's not just byproducts that are produced. Many species of bacteria produce toxins, some of which are heat stable so heating to kill the bacteria works, but the toxin is unaffected and still causes illness. A common example of this is Staphyloccocal enterotoxin B, which is heat stable at 100 C and a common cause of food poisoning. @PeterMoore The Bacteria don't die (100%) at the right temperature (at the recommended cooking temperature). When making the guidelines USDA and all regulatory agencies have similar curves (Only on y axis it is the percentage of bacteria killed). Bacteria are resistant you can't kill 100% and you actually don't want to (you would destroy the food much earlier). Below 4 C there is still non zero replication rate that is deemed okayish (safe) same for cooking temperature. But it is different to kill the same percentage of a much larger population. At some point it is no longer safe enough. Neither is it binary, nor is there a formula. is there a more scientific guideline out there that somehow measures safety objectively No, there isn't, and there isn't anything that could be objectively measured, much less calculated with a formula. The most relevant thing that can be determined in numbers (and by observation rather than by formula) are bacterial growth rates under well-defined conditions. So, let's say that you know the growth rate of an average strain of E. Coli in medium, dependent on temperature. You look up the rate at 4 C and 4.1 C and ... what? This information is woefully insufficient for anything, certainly not for calculating the number of Salmonella in a piece of meat sitting in your refrigerator when you get it out and eat it. And not even this is the number you'd want - I suppose you were imagining more something like a numerical value for the probability that you get sick. Which is in no way attainable. And even if you were imagining the "probability that I get sick" number, so what? Safety, in its idealized form, isn't a probability, it's the assertion that the probability of a negative event is lower than an acceptable threshold. Where do you get such a threshold? If you knew, "If my meat was kept at 4 C, my chance of food poisoning is 0.00245%, and if it was kept at 4.1 C, it's 0.00319%", how do you decide which if 0.00319% is still OK? Yes, you could just say "anything under 1% is fine with me", but that would be again an absolutely arbitrary boundary. And for a regulatory agency, it wouldn't be sufficient to have a formula telling them that "if food is kept at X degrees, the number of people getting sick will be within Y percent point of a predefined threshold". Rather, they'd have to take into account (if they wanted numerical precision) that, once they issue that rule, not everybody will follow it. Fridges set at 4 C vary around 4 C, but don't stay at that temperature all the time. Some even vary around 4.1 C or even 5 C, if their thermostat is really bad. And then people will sometimes just not follow the rules - and whether they follow them will also depend on how they're stated. For all these reasons, setting the food safety rules is a legal process. The agency takes the available information into account. It will hopefully have scientists create complex predictive models for a few different scenarios. These models will not be "a formula", but huge calculations ran on supercomputers, just like weather forecast models or the covid forecast models you might have encountered during the pandemic. All of them will give different results for the risk, and maybe for other variables like projected healthcare costs, or lost economic utility from missed workdays. Then there will be all kind of stakeholder wishes and practical problems to consider. Imagine that tomorrow, an updated model projects that the healthcare costs would be 30% less if the rule was changed to 3.8 C. Can you imagine the outcry from the restaurant lobby who'd have to replace all their fridges? So, what they do is to make a reasonable decision, but not based on precise numbers. The resulting rule doesn't measure safety (as explained above, there isn't any natural number that would be measureable anyway), it defines safety. It's a state act, much like drawing a border defines where France ends and Germany begins, rather than somehow objectively finding out where in nature, France ends and Germany begins. Mostly because safety, especially in the meaning used by food agencies, is a concept from the legal sphere and at best the social sphere, not from the sphere of the natural sciences. This is not to say that you can't find quantitative information on the risk of food poisoning. There are all kinds of objective information, including numerical information, about bacterial growth, risk and incidence of food poisoning, and so on. What doesn't exist is a way to transform this sea of information into the knowledge of "if I eat meat that was held at 4.1 C instead of 4, I know what will happen differently." I'm describing how a government would act nowadays. I don't know if this is what was done historically when the FDA came up with the 4 C, since this kind of mathematical modelling wasn't feasible for most of the 20th century. Not to mention that people like easy round numbers and that the decimal on the measurement is not within the tolerances that most fridges work to. Sure, the display might show it, but unless you are paying a hell of a lot of money, there are very few fridges that will maintain temperature at less than +/- 0.5 C from set point, and that opening a door on one will change the temp much more than that anyway, so the point is somewhat moot. Thanks for all this. I don't disagree with anything here and it's very useful info. That said you're really answering the question "why do we use guidelines XYZ" which is a little different than what I'm asking. But still a very good and thorough analysis. "The resulting rule doesn't measure safety, it defines safety." -- Perhaps in a legalistic sense, but that implies a dogmatic definition of "safety" that is at odds with common usage of the term: "This procedure is safe." "But thousands of people have died because of it!" "Nonetheless, it follows all the current bureaucratic rules so it is - by definition - safe." @R.M. yes, I know. I had written an earlier version which went into different senses of "safety" but scrapped it because it was too long. There is a point I'm still trying to make here. All other definitions of "safe" are not measurable, nor do they adhere to anything more objective than the FDA rules. @rumtscho is absolutely right. It's like setting a speed limit or a maxmimum blood alcohol content. When developing any guideline or regulation you have to pick a number. Plenty of people can drive perfectlly safely at 80 MPH and plenty of people are a menace at 30 MPH. You can't measure safety by MPH, only correlate it statistically and then make a rule you hope will maximize your objective. So no I see no problem with a regulatory body defining guidelines like this. For my part I'm just seeking to understand better the underlying science that leads to those guidelines. My assumption is that the guidelines are set based on outcomes, as opposed to growth vs temperature for any given bacteria, fungus, or other agent. e.g., "When we set the guideline at X, how many people get sick, and is that an acceptable rate?" This has the effect of just removing any dependency upon food or agent. This makes sense. Trying to to better just makes things too complicated. To determine if my chicken salad is going to make me sick, I don't want to be thinking about stuff like what percentage of my chicken salad is mayonnaise, moisture content of my salami, and what particular strains of bacteria are likely to be present. People would just get this wrong all the time. Of course you're right. But it goes the other way too. Would I eat chicken salad that had been left out in the sun for 3 hours and 45 minutes? Hellz no. Would I throw out a gallon of milk that smelled and tasted fine because my fridge was at 41F for a day? Of course not. Hard guidelines are important but common sense has to factor in too.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.279224	2024-02-07T16:39:58	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126617", "authors": [ "Crazymoomin", "GdD", "George Ntoulos", "JoL", "Joachim Isaksson", "Peter Moore", "R.M.", "Scott Seidman", "User65535", "Xi'an ні війні", "bob1", "eps", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108172", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108228", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52501", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66254", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79818", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169", "moscafj", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
18456	What's the best method for preparing a smoked cod roe breakfast? I have some good smoked cod roe that I want to create a breakfast dish with. I have no idea what to do with the cod roe though - I've never used it before. Do I slice it? Fry it? Spread it? Ideally it would be toast, fried eggs and the cod roe plus whatever else would go well to make a breakfast treat for my girlfriend (who's a chef so it has to be good :)) Try using it as you would smoked Salmon and thinly slice or spread it over a bagel with cream cheese or slice it and stir it with scrambled eggs right before they are done or serving it with hollandaise egg	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.280419	2011-10-19T10:05:00	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18456", "authors": [ "Brenda Flournoy", "Paula K. Hewitt", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39940", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39941", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39967", "user39941" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
18516	How do you prevent oatmeal from overflowing? Whenever I cook oatmeal (whether steel cut oats in a rice cooker or pan, or rolled oats in the microwave), it always overflows. How do you prevent this? Do you just use a bigger container? Do you just take the pan off the heat or bowl off the microwave when it's about to overflow? I've also heard that if you put dried fruit or something like that along with the oatmeal while cooking, that helps prevent it from overflowing -- is this true? Right now, the question has 15 visible answers with more-or-less different suggestions, and 13 deleted ones which are mostly one-liners duplicating something that's already been said. If you want to post an answer, please read through the existing answers and only post if you have a new, different suggestion. If this request sounds absurd (too much work!) then please don't post anything, rather than making it even worse for everybody else by adding yet another post. A bigger container is definitely the 'instant' solution. I've never hear of fruit preventing overflow. I'd guess the theory there is that it has something to do with the fruit interfering with the bubble to prevent them from forming...but I'd doubt it without A LOT of fruit. Generally I've done two methods: Reduce the power and increase the cooking time. Cut the power by 30% or so and increase the cooking time, this seems to prevent as much of a rapid boil and alleviates the problem. Determine the time right before it starts to boil over, cut power off, cover it tightly and just let coast the rest of the way. This is particularly effective if you're cooking in a vessel with good thermal retention. I have a cheap digital thermometer that I put into liquids. When it reaches 95ºC it'll beep. I have no idea at what temp the oat will overflow. @BaffledCook good call! After not making oatmeal in the microwave for a considerable time — and after upgrading to a new higher-wattage microwave — I tried making some the way I always had previously: half power, cook twice-as-long, stir halfway; but the results were disastrous. Tried again in a steep-walled covered container…same mess. Although I was skeptical, after seeing the same advice over at Cook's Illustrated, simply switching from a 6- to a 9-inch diameter bowl worked perfectly (using the half-power technique). Simply add a handful of raisins and it will not boil over. Have no idea why but it works. And here I had been putting the raisins in afterwards... not only did this work for me, but I was able to cook at 100% power in half the time and didn't have to buy a larger bowl! Most likely, the raisins break the surface tension created by the water+starch. but then you have raisins in your oatmeal Adequate room for expansion is important. For oatmeal I don't bother to do anything special, just know how long I can set the microwave for without getting a volcano in the bowl, and set it there, or watch it carefully (and shut it off) if going longer - it's only a couple of minutes. Portion size needs to be consistent so that time is consistent, or you need to know what time is "safe" for each portion size. What I don't see in the current answers to this rather old question: Steel cut oats were a trial for me via traditional direct heat methods - wanting stirring, prone to boilover, takes a long time that I don't want to spend stirring and pot-watching. They do expand a lot, so you need to measure quantity and allow for that in bowl size, and provide adequate water. But no stirring, no boilovers, no fuss and no problem if left on longer than needed (so long as the pot does not boil dry) when I steam them (in a bowl over boiling water in a lidded pot) rather than trying to direct-heat cook them in a pot or microwaving a bowl. Just get the pot simmering and come back in 15-20 minutes to cooked oats. If you tend to cook oatmeal (rolled oats) a lot longer than I do, the steaming method might be worthwhile for that as well. I only bother with it for steel cut, since I don't cook rolled oats very long anyway. Since you didn't mention how you cook your oatmeal, I'll use the ways I've cooked mine as a reference for how to answer your question. I usually cook old fashioned oats (lacking those I use quick oats) with brown sugar in milk, on the stovetop (but I used to do it in the microwave). I've done it in water before, but not enough to where I want to say much about it. I add a fair amount of milk, but I cook it until most of it's absorbed on the stovetop (I made it soupier when I cooked in the microwave). In my observations, oatmeal will overflow if you cook it on high heat for too long. For the stovetop, if you use a lower heat and cook it longer, or turn it down before too long, you shouldn't have particular problems (and you'll be less likely to burn your milk that way on the stovetop). On our stovetop, on one of the two larger burners (in a glass or stainless steel pot), it doesn't overflow if the heat is set on 4 (with the options being, from lowest to highest, these: low, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, high; 5 is medium heat). For microwave cooking, there's a sweet spot you just have to learn to find, and I don't remember what point that was. Stop cooking it before it overflows, and expect it to overflow if you cook it too long. (I didn't deal with temperature settings or anything; so, there are other microwave solutions, I'm sure). FYI, I'm not recommending using a microwave for oatmeal (although it can taste pretty great). I personally think it's healthier to cook oats and other grains longer than the microwave allows palatably. I have found that some substances can change the consistency of things like milk porridge. I'm not sure that fruit prevents boiling over, but it's possible. I know food grade diatomaceous earth seems to reduce curdling (like if you boil some jam in your oatmeal, the jam might cause it to curdle into acid cheese), anyway. Edit: An even better option than the stovetop can be to bake your oatmeal. It just rises a bit, but it doesn't flow over or anything. The milk doesn't burn this way, either, and you don't have to stick around while it cooks. I'm not sure the ideal length of time to bake, but I cook it in a small glass or ceramic casserole-type pan on 450° F. in a toaster oven on the bake setting for less time than I expected. Keep a watch on it the first few times to get an idea of how long to cook it. Bowl size is important. With milk or starchy products go for a wider bowl to stop overflowing Generally ceramic or glass bowls work better than plastic, as they seem to absorb heat from the rising bubbles as slow them down Add sugar after cooking, sugar will make for more sticky bubbles that will keep rising I never have an issue with oatmeal boiling over when I put cinnamon in the oatmeal before cooking it (in the microwave). I use extra thick rolled oats. I set the microwave at 60% power for 4:30 minutes, but even so, if I forget the cinnamon it will boil over. What liquid are you cooking your oatmeal in? I ask this because when i first started eating oatmeal i was using milk and the microwave and i was having the same exact problem. Recently, i started just cooking the oatmeal in water and haven't had that problem since. I use a flavored oatmeal (i recommend the Maple and Brown Sugar weight control from Hy-Vee!!!) and it tastes just as good to me whether i cook it with milk or water. rfusca is right about the larger container being an instant solution. I also have a theory about the type of container you use. I'll spare the details but at first, i was using a plastic bowl, overflow like clockwork, i switched to a porcelain bowl since, no overflow. It seems to cook better in the porcelain also. Haven't tried glass yet. I see four factors at work here: Vessel size: Choose a pot or bowl with plenty of room for foam to expand without overflowing. Heat control: If you can keep the heat just below a full boil, it's much less likely to boil over. This is much easier to do on a stovetop than in a microwave. Ingredients: Boil overs happen when starch (from oats, pasta, etc.) or protein (from milk, eggs, etc.) get into the water and create a mixture capable of foaming. Minimizing these ingredients can help, but you don't want to reduce the oats in your oatmeal. Instead, you can add other ingredients that interrupt the foaming action. Some other answers suggest using dried fruit or cinnamon for this, but my favorite is a bit of fat such as olive oil or butter. Mechanics: Try laying a wooden spoon or a few wooden skewers across the top of the pan. This helps when boiling potatoes or pasta, so it should help with oatmeal, too. Out of these four things, the first two (vessel size and heat control) are going to make the biggest difference. The other two can help, but don't guarantee success. Try heating your water to a boiling without the oats. Place the amount of oats you want to eat in a microwave safe bowl, then pour the water on the oats until all oats are in the water and cover them for about 3 to 5 minutes. You not only will have an easier time washing the pot and you won't have it bubble over. When using a rice cooker to cook steel cut oats, simply leave the lid open while cooking. I use the brown rice setting on my rice cooker. And never stir until it’s done. It’s perfect every time! Just add some flaxseed. If you add a teaspoon to a tablespoon of flaxseed it has a nice nutty flavor plus more protein and it keeps your oatmeal from boiling over. You'll be pleasantly surprised Since I don't want to use a big bowl to cook a single portion of oatmeal, I find that I have to watch the oatmeal and stop the microwave and stir it every minute. I know that is a pain, since I want to put it in the microwave and then forget about it until my shower is over, but it is the only thing I've found that works. I have read about slow cooker oats. You get the regular steel cut oats and let them slow cook overnight. I haven't tried it (because it also seems like a lot of work) but that could be a solution if the whole family eats oatmeal in the morning. The key is the amount of liquid. If you have a real preference for mushy oatmeal then cinnamon and power reductions (although the latter not alone I've found) can help, but only adding a little over 1/2 liquid works perfectly. For me it makes a perfect consistency for adding some milk after and never overflows. I have it almost daily. I run a cube of margarine or butter around the inside edge of the bowl before cooking. Not enough to add calories. Also have set 1 paper towel on the turntable to catch any boil over if I don't want to do the butter thing. Has anyone tried laying a wooden spoon over the bowl as you do for stovetop pasta, soup etc. I am wondering if in some cases anyway, it's not something with the microwave. I say this because I have been making oatmeal in a bowl for years, the same way, and only for the past few months has it started to overflow, even at 80 percent power. I plan to start by giving the interior a thorough cleaning. Our machine is over ten years old, and the lights on the board have really faded anyway, so at the very least it might be a sign to shop for a new one.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.280539	2011-10-22T19:09:36	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18516", "authors": [ "BaffledCook", "Gaius Gracchus", "Holly Allen", "Jane Bassett", "Joe M", "Michael", "Rosa Delorme", "enhancement22", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123934", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156575", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156576", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156838", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40087", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40088", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40101", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45850", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80126", "martineau", "mic.sca", "njzk2", "rfusca", "rumtscho", "user2734055", "user40101" ], "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 }
18643	How to sweeten pickled ginger to be served with sushi? I bought a jar of pickled ginger from the local asian food market to go along with the sushi I have been preparing at home. This texture of this ginger is harder, and the taste much bitter. This is not the gari I am used to tasting from the sushi bar. The ingredients of the jar read "Ginger, water, vinegar, sugar, salt, FD&C red no 40. as colour, saccharin as sweetener, sodium benzoate and sodium metabisulfite as preservatives." Do sushi restaurants do anything special to sweeten their gari? There are two common varieties of pickled ginger in Japan (and a bunch of less common ones). The "gari" is "amazu-shouga" (甘酢生姜 or 甘酢しょうが) it's usually thinly sliced and often, though not always, left uncolored, or just colored enough to leave it slightly pink instead of yellowish-white. Due to generous use of sugar or other sweeteners, it's usually somewhat sweet, and that's right there in the name, which roughly translates as "sweet vinegar ginger". It's generally made with a young ginger that has a pretty thin, moist skin. Another variety, which typically comes in the shape of thick matchsticks, is a bit saltier and, because of the thickness, a bit firmer. It's called "kizami-shouga" or (きざみ生姜 or きざみしょうが). Kizami refers to the shape, not the flavor. Occasionally this will be labeled "beni-shouga" (紅ショウガ), which means red ginger. I believe that more mature ginger is used for kizami-shouga than is used for amazu-shouga. It's generally used to garnish and season things like yakisoba or okonomiyaki, but is not typically served with most types of sushi. The amazu shouga is more common for most sushi. So it's possible that you've picked up kizami-shouga instead of amazu-shouga. While there's nothing stopping you from adding sugar or other sweeteners from the brine, that probably won't help that much. If you do have amazu-shouga, it's also possible you've just found one that doesn't taste that good. The quality of packaged Japanese pickles I've found in the US isn't all that great, though I've occasionally found decent umeboshi. You might try a different brand, or consider pickling your own ginger. The basic process for pickling the ginger is a hybrid between salt pickles and vinegar pickles: You peel and thinly slice the ginger, and rub it with salt, leaving it for at least an hour or overnight to sweat. You'll then add a solution of sugar and rice vinegar, occasionally with a little bit of ume-zu, which is the salty brine extracted from umeboshi-making, or beet juice, if you want to guarantee a pink color.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.281706	2011-10-29T18:14:11	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18643", "authors": [ "Mélissa", "SME", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40386", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41151" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
123028	Kitchen utensil identification - double-ended shaker? Recently, we were cleaning out my grandparents house and found a couple of tools in the kitchen that were odd. One is this narrow metal tube with a star pattern of holes on the end. The cap on the other end has the same pattern. It is 1 inch in diameter and 6-5/8 inches long. My first thought was that it was a shaker for some sort of baking ingredient, but the puzzling part is that the holes are on both ends, which doesn't seem very practical. Does anyone know what this would have been used for? What size is it? I can imagine some kind of "holds whole spices during cooking soup or tea" depending at the size... How long is it? And it's hollow inside from end to end with nothing of note within? You get steel rolling pins that look a bit like that, but they seem to generally have closed ends and are often solid metal, not hollow. I've found some cigar holders that are suspiciously similar, but no holes though. https://sirjacks.com/products/vintage-sterling-double-cigar-holder I've added some dimensions to the post. @Allerleirauh, I had thought of that but it would be a very awkward and inefficient shape for steeping spices. @StuartF, much too small to be a rolling pin. Completely hollow inside and walls are relatively thin, not a very solid construction. @DuarteFarrajotaRamos, you're right that the size is suspiciously similar. I can guarantee that my grandparents never had any need to store a cigar, though, so I'm not sure how one would have ended up in a kitchen drawer. @lehasb depends of the spices. If you want to add a whole cinnamon role, maybe it suits. Second could be a storage for vanilla, but I would assume the holes make it useless for this That is almost certainly a cigar case, e.g. https://www.humidordiscount.com/adorini-individual-cigar-case-cedar . Can you add photos showing each end of the tube? Based on what DuarteFarrajotaRamos and XanderHenderson have linked, this seems to almost certainly be a cigar case. I could accept an answer of that if someone wants to post it, but since it's not a kitchen item I'm wondering if I should just delete the question? Not about cooking. Closed by moderator for author. The two ends of the tube look different, that on the left has a raised ring and presumably the separate removable cap fits there. I assume the other end is non-removable and is shown the right hand image in the second photo. In that case I'm thinking of a function like letting flavour, moisture or an aroma in or out. For example put vanilla beans in then bury it in a jar of sugar to make vanilla sugar or fill with herbs to use as a Bouquet Garni for soup, stock, stews or perhaps for flavouring a punch so the spices can be kept separate from the liquid. A non-culinary use might be something like fill with lavender flowers to keep in the linen drawer and perfume the sheets. There’s plenty of things one could use it for, but do you have evidence that that was its intended use?	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.282069	2023-01-14T20:22:01	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123028", "authors": [ "Allerleirauh", "Duarte Farrajota Ramos", "Jolenealaska", "Sneftel", "Stuart F", "Xander Henderson", "beausmith", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102616", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89269", "lehasb" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
30253	Is there evidence that adding salt to water prior to boiling can damage a stainless steel pan? In the context of boiling water for pasta or other purposes, all over the Internet the advise is oft-repeated that salt should not be added to the water when it is cold in order to prevent damage to the pot such as pitting over long term use. The reasoning is that the salt stays on the bottom of the pot for longer without dissolving, and has a chance to interact with the surface metal. Is there any objective evidence--preferably scientifically based--that this phenomenon actually occurs in practical kitchen-type conditions, or is this another piece of common wisdom that is often shared but not backed by evidence, much like now debunked common wisdom that it is necessary to use very large volumes of water to cook pasta? One benefit of adding the salt after the water has come to a boil, is that it will come to a boil quicker. That's because energy (heat) is used to "break up" the salt, cooling the water. I think that is a trivial (as in almost un-measurable) effect at the concentrations used culinary applications. Even if dissolving salt is endothermic, how much energy could it take to dissolve a tablespoon or two? Still, not relevant to the pitting issue in any case. You're absolutely right, it's negligible. Another effect is the raised boiling temp, but that is also negligible according to this "...at the approximate concentration of salt in water for cooking (10 g of salt per 1 kg of water, or 1 teaspoon per quart), the ebullioscopic increase is approximately 0.17 °C (0.31 °F), which will arguably make no practical difference for cooking." There is empirical support for the effect of temperature on pitting corrosion, although from what little I'm able to understand of the very complicated metallurgy, the common explanation given is far too simplistic and the actual behaviour is not nearly as clear-cut as "colder = more salt crystals = more pitting", but rather due to something called transpassive dissolution (searching for this will give you lots of scholarly results on stainless steel corrosion). I'll get straight to the point by referencing this chapter on pitting corrosion from the Metals Handbook (textbook) which has the following convenient graph: More pitting happens at lower temperatures. As the link explains: At low temperatures, extremely high breakdown potentials are observed, corresponding to transpassive dissolution, not localized corrosion. Just above the critical pitting temperature (CPT), pitting corrosion occurs at a potential that is far below the transpassive breakdown potential. But you can see from the graph that that's not the whole story, either. Excluding what happens at very high temperatures (above the CPT), the impact of temperature looks to be maybe 20-30%, but there are much more significant variations based on other factors, the most notable kitchen-applicable examples being the material (described as the PREN - Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number), surface condition (grit), and inhibitor elements in the solution (traces of which may or may not be found in tap water). While this does certainly support the conclusion, it's also obvious, if you read the explanation of pitting or look at the lovely reaction diagram on page 2 of the textbook link, that it has literally nothing to do with undissolved salt. In fact, pitting is caused by the Cl- ions specifically, and so can only happen after it is dissolved in the water. If you just poured salt on a dry pan in a dry environment, it shouldn't corrode. Moreover, pitting is a stochastic process - it's quite literally random even when you know all the other parameters, so while one can certainly average it out over many experiments and thus quantify the correlation with temperature, that ends up having little meaning in a kitchen setting because you are cooking with one pan/pot and the random variation seems to be a lot more profound than the effect of the temperature variable. Anyway, in case anyone was thinking that it sounds pretty simple so far - it's not. The experiment that produced the graph above was performed under one set of conditions - using just salt, water, and stainless steel. While that's certainly comparable to cooking, it's interesting to see what another source (Inﬂuence of the electrolyte composition and temperature on the transpassive dissolution of austenitic stainless steels in simulated bleaching solutions - PDF warning) says about oxalic acid: The addition of oxalic acid has accordingly a much bigger impact on the transpassive corrosion rate at 70° C than at room temperature [...] In the solutions containing organic additives at 70° C, transpassive oxidation starts at significantly lower potentials than at room temperature. In case you're not familiar with oxalic acid - or wondering why you should care - it's the primary ingredient in Bar Keeper's Friend, which many "premium" stainless steel cookware brands such as All Clad recommend using to clean your cookware - and nearly every cleaning guide recommends warm, but not hot, water. Admittedly, I just looked at the label and BKF doesn't specify a temperature, so the warm-water recommendation is entirely anecdotal - but looking at the above, it makes sense; you want to use warm water in order for it to be more effective, but using hot water (or even warm water for more than a minute or so) increases the risk of corrosion, especially if what you're trying to clean is caked-on salt or charred food. The effect of pH is more generally supported by various studies, where neutral is better (i.e. less corrosion), not to mention that strong acids cause the other type of corrosion (called intergranular), and yes, vinegar counts, although the effect is very slow, but still appreciable over time if you like to deglaze with boiling vinegar, for example. Even of the type of salt makes a big difference, if you scroll further down on that same previous link. Ammonium chloride is, for example, often found in sea salt, and it would appear to cause pitting corrosion much faster than the sodium chloride in table salt or kosher salt. Here's what really does matter in a practical sense: Pitting is a reduction reaction, it's caused by a lack of oxygen available to the metal surface - unlike, for example, rust, which is caused by oxygen. Quoting the last link: If debris of any kind is allowed to accumulate on the surfaces of stainless steel equipment, it will reduce the accessibility of oxygen to the covered areas and pits may develop in such locations because of the reduced oxygen concentration. [...] ...carbon deposits from heated organic compounds are typical examples of this source of [pitting] corrosion of stainless steels. If you really want to protect your stainless steel cookware, just don't ever let it boil dry, and make sure to clean it properly if you start to see "stains" or "scum" on the bottom of your pan; those are dissolved salts and some organic compounds from the water and sometimes the food, and when they stick to the pan's surface, they do exactly what's described above - they block oxygen, and they do this for a much longer period - all day all every day as opposed to the 10-20 minutes you spent heating/boiling some water. That long, slow starvation of oxygen over hundreds or thousands of hours, as opposed to the minuscule amount of time it spends on the stove, is exactly what causes pitting. Short answer: Theoretically, yes, salt water at low temperature pits stainless steel faster than salt water at high temperature, although the popular explanation for the mechanism appears to be completely bogus. Practically, this factor is dwarfed by a dozen other factors and probably isn't worth worrying about at all. It typically takes thousands of hours for a pH-neutral, not-too-concentrated saline solution to cause any appreciable pitting corrosion at any temperature. What's more important is how clean the cookware is while it's stored, as that is the state in which it will spend the majority of its time, and as long as it's kept clean, salt-water temperature should not be a major concern. All very valid. Boiling dry stainless steel usually causes permanent pitting. I have observed many people either boil water in kettle, or take it from a hot water urn or "instant" hot water tap. So how many people actually put the salt in cold water anyway? Note: I'm going to review and possibly amend this answer tomorrow, when I'm less tired. I have a feeling I may be interpreting the data/graph incorrectly and that the higher points do not actually indicate more corrosion but rather a higher voltage required to cause corrosion, which would actually mean less corrosion at a constant (near-zero) potential in a heating/boiling pot - in which case the entire piece of conventional wisdom would be flat-out BS. If anyone else wants to double-check using the linked reference, please do. Round here there are plenty of hot and cold thermal pools, some plain salt, some with whatever comes out of the ground. All with stainless steel rails and ladders, and they seem to survive OK I read the textbook chapter and the graph... if I interpret it correctly, at low voltage conditions (as in a pot), repassivation events are common and pitting events are uncommon in the stochastic process. This would imply that the conditions in a pot of pasta water, even with salt on the bottom, coming to a boil actually give the conditions to repassivate (and thus essentially repair) microscopic pitting more than it does to create new pits. Am I reading this wrong? Materials science is far from my areas of expertise. @SAJ14SAJ: Bearing in mind I'm no materials scientist either, my understanding is that repassivation inhibits pitting corrosion but can't actually repair old pits; it happens at the same time as pitting, and needs a source of metal ions. See for example ...repassivation process in the inhibition of pitting corrosion... (abstract): "Pitting occurs when the processes of film growth and metal dissolution at the metal surface are kinetically related in such a way that complete repassivation does not occur." There are a lot of different stainless steels, and they vary widely in what they can or can not take - one of the sources mentioned refers to "austenitic" ones, these are on the very corrosion resistant side, but often nonmagnetic and hence might not always be used in a market that likes induction-compatible cookware; magnetic variations might differ in corrosion behaviour. Then there are the ferritic types (could be used, still good), the martensitic ones (knife steel, less corrosion proof. likely not used for pots and pans), and a few others.... My 40 year old Revere ware pots show no signs of corrosion, and I've been adding copious amount of NaCl tot the pre-boiling water over the entire time period. Perhaps I'll notice etching in 60 years. The story may be different if your water has a funny pH, or Iron salts in it. Her, it's usually 200 ppm CaCO3. Oh yes, I use a gas stove. You might get electroytic reactions if you use electric burners. That could be a game changer. Induction might also bring on trouble. This answer is missing a very significant TL:DR at the top. "Don't even give it a second thought. The factors involved are too small to worry about. Just cook." I haven't found that to be the case at all. I've had stainless steel pans for years, and none are pitted. They're in perfect condition. The chart data is for 1M NaCl, basically 59 grams salt per liter of water , so a concentration you are never going to use cooking . Second , about 99% of SS cookware is 18-8 ( 301,302, or 304) there is a small chance of 316 SS. A voltage is applied to the SS and predictions are made based on the amount of current that flows .The information is intended to predict corrosion over a long ( months +) time , not 20 minutes boiling pasta. ...Short of boiling salted water dry ( in particular the last several minutes when the salt is concentrated to sludge or paste) , salt will cause no significant corrosion of SS cookware. YES! Absolutely salt pits your stainless steel pans I thought it was BS and did it anyway, now my pan is pitted on the bottom. I tried using a stainless steel and steel wool scrubby it took out some but not all of it. Boil water 1st!!!!! I've discovered that some things which are sold as stainless are actually poorly plated to resemble stainless. Concentrated Sulfuric acid will destroy them, which will not happen to proper stainless cookware. You don't have to pay a ton for decent stainless, but if the price is too good to be true, it's probably not something you really want in your kitchen, or your chemistry lab.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.282365	2013-01-20T23:10:25	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30253", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "Andrew", "Jen", "N Rowe", "Niklas", "SAJ14SAJ", "TFD", "Tetsujin", "Theleman", "Wayfaring Stranger", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5081", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70611", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70612", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70613", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70635", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
34465	Why does holding ice cream mix improve flavor? Why does holding ice cream mix overnight prior to churning improve the flavor of ice cream when it is finally made? This is true, empirically in my experience, even for simple Philadelphia style ice creams with very simple flavorings such as vanilla and coffee. Main reason that comes to mind is, for the same reason compound butter's flavour improves over a couple of days: infusion. Fat can be infused with flavour, and holds flavour incredibly well, but it needs a little time (viscosity of fat vs water). Otherwise the fat in Serrano Ham would taste just like it would on day one. By holding your mix/custard overnight you are allowing the coffee or vanilla flavours get infused into the mix. You can somewhat accelerate this by letting the vanilla sit in hot ice-cream mix for 1hr as suggested by many pastry chefs (e.g. Simple French Desserts, Jill O'Conner). I suspect the acceleration is due to the lower viscosity of fat at higher temperatures. The taste does follow the physics here were the higher the viscosity the longer infusion (read equilibrium) takes. Serrano ham: two years. Hot deep fryer oil: seconds. By the way, when it comes to ice-cream, they also recommend aging your mix/custard for up to 48 hours. It may be worth the experiment to sous-vide your ice-cream batter/mix at say 55C for a couple of hours and compare taste with the over-night version. Although mouthfeel may play a role in this case, the 'flavour improves over time' effect is present even when crystallization is not happening. Mando, I was expecting you to swoop in with MC data! But no LN2 :-) the big MC is not a dessert book. The only two exceptions are the Nitro Ice Cream and a Pistachio Gelato. Just revisited, and they say use existing recipe, vacuum pack and infuse for 24Hrs. Seems like they're also thinking infusion. Side-bar: they also suggest sous-vide batter for safety. Apparently ice-cream tests amongst the highest in fecal bacteria! Ice Cream Science - Aging the mix was the best reference I could find, though I haven't had a chance to look at Modernist Cuisine and Food and Cooking yet. Basically, it improves mouthfeel, allows more air to be retained (this could be good or bad depending on your opinion of overflow), and helps slow melting. All of the cited reasons have more to do with mouthfeel and texture, rather than taste though. (i) Absorption of Emulsifiers Two important changes take place during the aging process. First, the emulsifiers (lecithin from the egg yolks) absorb to the surface of the fat droplets, creating a weaker membrane that is more susceptible to partial coalescence. When the mix is frozen in the ice cream machine, it undergoes partial coalescence, during which clumps of the fat globules form and build an internal fat network (Marshall et. al, 2003). These fat globule clumps are responsible for stabilsing the air cells and creating a semi-continuous network of fat throughout the product resulting in a smooth texture and resistance to meltdown (Tharp et al, 1998). (ii) Crystallisation of fat Second, the fat inside the droplets begins to crystallise. Nearly complete crystallisation is needed to promote coalescence of fat globules during freezing (Marshall et al., 2003). Cooling mix to 0-2°C increase the rate of crystallisation. Barfod et al., 1991, showed that crystallisation of fat in a mix containing 10% fat requires at least 4 hours. If you do not sufficiently age your mix, your ice cream can suffer from defects similar to those found in mixes with no added emulsifiers: less retention of shape and relatively fast meltdown (Marshall et al., 2003). It will also be difficult to stabilise air bubbles during the whipping stage, resulting in a hard chewy texture. Nice reference site. This was a tough choice, but I am accepting Mando's answer as it appears more likely to apply to philadelphia style ice cream without eggs. Still, great reference site and interesting information. No worries! His answer is more towards your question honeatly. That article deals mostly with texture and mouthfeel, whereas his was more about flavor which is what you originally asked about. Still, all signs point to aging! Definitely with the aging, empirically it definitely makes a difference. Mando's answer plays on popular conceptions of flavors infusing or "melding" over time, but in most cases this isn't a possibility. You may get some added infusion if a vanilla pod or herbs are left in the mix as it ages. This may or may not be good (just as tea that brews for a very long may not be good). And in cases where the flavoring ingredients have been removed, there is no process that directly effects flavor. But there are many processes that will effect texture, and these will have a strong indirect effect on our flavor perceptions. The most important is Matthew's #2 answer: the fat molecules need to crystalize in order to become whipable. His #1 answer is also significant. Any gel-forming compounds, like egg custard, gelatin, or other stabilizers, need time to form their molecular networks. And if there are other stabilizing ingredients, like gums, they can take hours to hydrate fully. It's not just industry that uses these ingredients; you'll find that most of the best pastry chefs use them as well. They improve the texture of any ice cream when used properly.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.283347	2013-06-02T22:39:51	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34465", "authors": [ "Austin Roof", "Bite Me", "Carlos", "Edith Macklin", "MandoMando", "Matthew", "P Foley", "SAJ14SAJ", "Siddhartha", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136328", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80307", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80308", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80309", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80310", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80315", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80317", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80321", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339", "mzmm56", "pimentoandprose" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
36699	In brewing coffee, do I need to use filtered water and what kind of filter should I use? In brewing coffee, is it important to use filtered water? If so, why? Is there a particular type of filter that is most effective for water to be used in brewing coffee? This is probably too generic to be an Answer, but - it's a matter of taste. What @charlotte says is probably right, but very subtle. OTOH, if you taste the difference when you don't filter your drinking water ... related: http://www.blossomcoffee.com/2012/06/the-effect-of-water-on-coffee/ Using filtered water is also doubly important when using espresso machines, as hard water causes calcification inside the machine. There is variable here. It depends on what water your filtering and what filter you're using. Depending on your location the mineral density of water will vary. Hard water being rich in mineral and soft water being poor. The harder the water the weaker your extraction will be. Extremely soft water like distilled or reverse osmosis water will leave you with a over extracted cup of coffee. In general it is good practice to use a carbon filter system which removes impurities but retains minerals. However if you believe your water is too hard and you're under-extracting, try using a home filtering system that removes (some) minerals. In addition to Charlotte's cook answer I'd note that heating / boiling water removes most of the common volatile compounds such as chlorine (not minerals) that may affect taste. So your boiled water would be more neutral in flavour than the same water straight from the tap. So depending on your water supply, there is often less need to filter for making coffee than cold beverages.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.283811	2013-09-10T23:09:39	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36699", "authors": [ "SourDoh", "alex-e-leon", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346", "hunter2" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
36701	My espresso shot is extracting too quick, what am I doing wrong? If my espresso shot appears to be extracting too quickly, what factors could be causing this? What should I change to try to get a better result? What type of grinder are you using? What espresso machine? Is this at home or in a commercial setting? Its a good clarification question, but this is a transferred sample question from the Area 51 Coffee proposal, so fortunately I have no details to provide. Without more details, it's hard to pinpoint, but here's a few suggestions: Start by checking the setting on your grinder. You may not have it set fine enough for espresso. NOTE: if the coffee is really stale, as in many months old, the shot will start blonding early. How much are you dosing? If it's too low you can get channeling and fast extraction (we tend to use 17-21 g depending on the beans). Also take into account the size of the portafilter basket. For example, if you try to put 17 grams of coffee into a triple basket, you will never get a good pour. I would suggest trying 18 g in a double basket and see if you notice an improvement. You should shoot for roughly a 25 second extraction. Double check how you are distributing the coffee in the portafilter. If you are tamping unevenly, the grinds will be more likely to cause channeling with an uneven shot (check out the WDT method to help ensure proper distribution). Otherwise, make sure you're fully engaging the portafilter into the grouphead and it is not loose when pulling the shot. Also make sure that you are tamping with enough pressure. David Schomer and many coffee professionals recommend about 30 lbs of pressure. This can be due to a few factors: Grind: the more coarse the grind the faster the water will flow through. Compaction: if you are not compacting the grounds sufficiently, the faster the water will flow through. The "formula" tends to be: ~20g coffee grounds + 24-27 sec of water == ~30mL (~30g) of coffee.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.283971	2013-09-10T23:15:31	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36701", "authors": [ "SAJ14SAJ", "alex-e-leon", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12689", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346", "jlunavtgrad" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
42489	How can you tell if a freezer rose above freezing? How can one tell, after a power failure, if the contents of a freezer warmed above freezing? Knowing this, and knowing the actual temperature in the freezer, will help decide whether food can be kept, or must be discarded. The University of Ohio extension publishes a clever tip: Place two or three ice cubes in a plastic freezer bag and seal. Keep this in the freezer at all times. In an upright freezer, you can have a test bag on each shelf. If there is a power outage you will know if the interior temperature was above 32°F if the cubes melt. If the cubes are melted, quickly determine the temperature of the water in the bag and you will know the temperature inside the freezer. Of course, they also recommend having a proper freezer thermometer. The thing is, the thermometer will only tell you the temperature now, but will not reveal whether power was out and the temperature rose previously. The change in any of the ice based solutions will warn you if it rose above freezing. All these rely on the same trick - freeze something in a configuration it cannot hold when melted. If you come back to it still in that configuration, it never melted. If you come back to it solid, but in a different configuration, it melted and refroze. My variant is a plastic water bottle half full of water. Freeze it lying on its side, then stand it up. The advantage of this is that a water bottle frozen in this way is a useful thing to own on a hot day - fill it up with water and you will have icy cold water to sip from on a hike, for example. If you wanted to get super smart you could mess around with freezing other solutions (salt water etc) so that you could tell (by which ones melted and reconfigured) just how warm or cool the freezer got to. Before I went away for a month recently, I half filled a small paper cup with water, froze it, then put a penny above the ice. I figured if the penny wasn't still on top when I got back the freezer had lost power for some time. In addition to using any of the number of frozen water-based indicators others have mentioned, you could buy what is called a hi-low memory thermometer, such as this one by Farmtek, and attach it inside the freezer. Most of these types of thermometers are made for outdoor use, so they are not likely to be highly accurate, but they should be sufficient for your purposes. Find a geek to build you a Raspberry Pi or Arduino device with a temperature sensor which automatically logs daily temperature readings every 10 minutes and emails you if it drops below a certain temperature. ...I'll show myself out.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.284156	2014-03-03T23:21:53	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42489", "authors": [ "Dibakash", "RB3", "Rapheal Films spam", "SAJ14SAJ", "Spammer", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99246", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99247", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99248", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99249", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99305", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99307", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99365", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99440", "ios_dev", "mattjw", "natto" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
36697	What's the chemical difference between normal coffee beans and Kopi Luwak? Is there any actual difference in the chemistry or components of a Kopi Luwak coffee bean, and a more traditional coffee bean? If so, what are those differences? Actually they recently came up with a reliable test for civet coffee. Apparently a great deal of supposedly authentic stuff never actually traveled through the bowels of a cat. According to the abstract, the levels of citric acid, malic acid, and the inositol/pyroglutamic acid are so much higher in kopi luwak that their ratios can be used to validate mixes with other beans where the proportion of kopi luwak is 50% or greater. I hope all that's actually coupled to some desirable flavor compounds as well, so it's not just... more sour coffee. @jerfromi It's supposed to taste better, but I've never tried it. There is another theory that the reason it tastes better has nothing to do with passing through the civet's digestion, but instead that the civet is a choosy eater, and eats higher quality beans than the pickers pick. I think that coffee from the Civet has lower levels of both nutritional chemicals and psychoactive (including caffeine) compared to normal coffee beans, because in the Civet most of it has been digested. Any sources for the claim that the civet digests the chemicals in the coffee? I also removed some of the editorializing. If you feel that it helped to answer the question, feel free to add it back...	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.284495	2013-09-10T23:06:16	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36697", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "JM1", "Satanicpuppy", "SourDoh", "chickensoup", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89192", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89198" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
42484	How much water does pasta absorb when it is cooked? How much water will dry semolina pasta absorb when it is properly cooked? For example, how much water would one pound of farfalle or spaghetti absorb? I am guessing the shape of the pasta doesn't matter, just the absolute weight. I am not looking for how much water is required to boil it, nor what temperature is required, just how much should be absorbed. I like my pasta cooked a minute or so past the box "al dente" stage. The application is single burner cooking (I only have one available). I can make the sauce, then add additional water and pasta to cook directly in the sauce, making for only one burner being required, and only a single pot to clean. I understand the actual amount will require due to the vagaries of how much evaporates, but I expect that to be a minor adjustment. Cool, I'm going to try that. Should give the pasta more flavor and even coating. To only use one pot, I just put the glass jar of pasta sauce directly on the gas burner, open the lid, gently put the lid over the top, and turn the burner on low. You need 1.1x as much water as pasta for al dente! I measured this myself, cooking penne rigate (in water, not sauce) - 200g of pasta weighed 420g after being cooked and thoroughly drained. The estimate below from the nutrition facts is 1.4x, which probably corresponds to typical American overcooked pasta - a surprisingly large difference from mine. I'm guessing you'll be somewhere between, maybe 1.25x. You can also ballpark it from nutrition facts. Cooked spaghetti has 31g carbs per 100g pasta, and dry spaghetti has 75g carbs per 100g pasta. So 100g dry pasta turns into 100g*75/31 = 242g of cooked pasta, meaning the added water was ~1.4x the weight of the pasta. So for a pound of pasta, that's 1.4 pounds or about 2 2/3 cups of water. Given people's tastes, this might be a little past al dente, so I would personally start with maybe 1.25 cups of water then add a little more if necessary. (I'll also try cooking pasta normally and weighing it if I get a chance.) Note: if you have a significantly different variety of pasta, it will obviously behave differently. This is for pasta that's 13% protein and 75% carbohydrates. For the standard 2oz/56g (dry) serving on the package, it'll say 7g protein and 41-42g carbohydrates. I checked Barilla, De Cecco, Ronzonni, Garofalo, Safeway store brand, Trader Joe's store brand, and those nutrition facts, and they all matched. If you're branching out to other styles like whole grains or egg noodles, things will obviously change, but things are very uniform in the US. @Jefromi If no new information surfaces, I think you have it. On my next trial, I will try adding 1.4 lbs of water for the pasta cooking stage. I don't expect perfection on this estimate, but its better than constantly adding water when it looks too thick, and I don't want it to burn.... @SAJ14SAJ The one caveat is that I didn't actually try this yet - it's quite possible that standard-cooked pasta is more American "well-cooked", past al dente. I'll edit the answer, and if I cook pasta before you do I'll weigh it and come back again. I would upvote again for the actual experimental data, but that isn't allowed. The ballpark has a caveat: pasta loses starch during the cooking process. @Raphael Mostly off the surface, though. If you cook pasta in minimal water it should be pretty easy to see it's not a large weight of starch. Half a pound of pasta might thicken the water on roughly the same scale as a tablespoon of flour? @Rich I'm not saying that good cooks overcook their pasta, but the US has a long tradition of overcooked food. And even just using the time printed on a package of pasta generally goes well past al dente. Using the old saw, "A pint's a pound the world around," you should use about 1.5 PINTS of water, not 1.5 cups.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.284655	2014-03-03T22:07:31	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42484", "authors": [ "Aarin Kalra", "Brian K1LI", "Cascabel", "Chloe", "Gina LG", "Johnny Petro", "MarlynneBakes", "Rangdrol", "Raphael", "SAJ14SAJ", "Shen", "Spammer", "Syjic666", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99236", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99237", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99238", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99250", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99256", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99257", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99258", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99317", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99679", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99680" ], "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 }
28705	Is there a standard and accesible "health" authority We would like to start selling a European legume (similar to chick peas - but much healthier) in the United States. The packager wants approval from an "official" body before letting us write that it is easily digested [and the many local doctors and specialists do not count]. I have gathered that the FDA is not accessible [we would like to start selling yesterday] and not even well trusted. Is there any organization that we can pay to research and approve the food (it should be easy) - an organization that will be respected by the consumer, and will make the packager happy that we have a document to back us up? You're asking about making health claims about a food, and health is off topic here (see the [faq]). (Of course, I don't really see why you can't just sell it without the health claims...) Where did you learn of these and their health benefits and other factors? That might be your starting point. @MargeGunderson - It's a rather accepted fact - you feel 'light' after eating a bowl instead of feeling bloated. I have seen a web-sites that make the claim about how this lentil is a wonder food; healthy, easily digestible, high in all the B's etc. But none quote a source. Sorry, we cannot give legal advice here, and the question of what you are allowed to write on a packaging is clearly a legal issue. I am closing this as off-topic. I googled usa food import safety consultants One of the results: http://www.ehagroup.com/food-safety/importers-exporters/ It doesn't sound like the OP is actually asking about safety, but rather "health" as in "healthiness" - he wants to say that the food is easily digested, whatever that means. Exactly. Most beans are relatively difficult to digest so this is important. And digestion is quantifiable: besides formal studies, you feel different after eating a meal of these than you would after eating "cholent" Basically, you're opening yourself to a can of worms if you make health claims in connection with your product. Direct health claims can and often will be investigated with skepticism by the FDA. And though FDA's teeth aren't that powerful when it comes to internal agricultural products or foods, they do have veto power over any food import, and they can cause delays by requiring inspections or other red tape that can result in ridiculous storage costs for you or your US-based import merchant. Companies that do include health claims on their packaging, even vague ones like "aids digestion", do so in one of three ways: 1) They rely on association of their product with certain allowed "qualified health claims", like "a low fat diet is proven to be blahblahblah", and nutrient content claims like "this is a low fat product." 2) They go through a lengthy process of providing the evidence that the FDA requires to make a novel health claim by filing a Qualified Health Claim Petition. or 3) They skirt the issue with innuendo and ambiguous claims, or customer testimonials, hoping that the FDA won't notice/care/intervene. When I imported food products, I bristled even at the rather mundane health claims that, for example, tea companies wanted to put on their labels, because many times these claims created more trouble (risk) for me, the importer and merchandiser of those products, than they helped from a marketing perspective. Obviously, for some companies the equation is different, and that's why there are so many sketchy "energy drinks" or "nutritional supplements" with questionable health claims on the market. You can find a fair number of publicly documented cease and desist letters from the FDA in these categories, and I encourage you to look some up to see what the consequences can be if you do this wrong. You can certainly fund scientific studies by working with a reputable lab or university department; that may give you enough legs to make an ambiguous health claim that will escape attention long enough for you to fund more research. But taking shortcuts here is of questionable ethics and borderline legality. You're better off promoting the food from some other angle unless you have really firm research to stand on. It's perfectly legitimate (and an interesting origin story) to have the packaging focus on whatever heirloom variety that you happen to be offering. Or you can stand on something that is easily demonstrable with a nutritional analysis that you'll need to have on the package if you sell more than $x of product per year, where x, if I remember correctly is about $50k); perhaps its high fiber content, or high protein content, or whatever. You can focus on subjective attributes, like texture or flavor. But if you're about to build a business based on the successful, reliable importation of the product to the US, it's generally not advisable to taunt the FDA, whatever you think of them.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.285004	2012-11-27T21:49:36	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28705", "authors": [ "Ben Sullivan", "Carolyn L MsChae916 Perkins", "Cascabel", "Daniel", "Heather", "MargeGunderson", "SamGoody", "Samuel HARFORD", "beactive", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14490", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66394", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66395", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66396", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66407", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66436", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66437", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66438", "rumtscho", "user6098" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29444	Substitute for Pastry Flour from Limited Traditional and Alternative Flours I have a recipe for sponge cake that calls for either all white pastry flour or an equal mix with whole wheat pastry flour. Unfortunately, the only pastry flour I have is whole wheat. The recipe specifically warns against All-Purpose, which it claims will dry the cake out. These are the flours I have...is there any hope? Whole Wheat Pastry Flour Unbleached White Whole Wheat Flour Unbleached White Flour Whole Wheat Flour Garbanzo Bean Flour Tapioca Flour Spelt Flour Buckwheat Flour I also have traditional powders like xantham gum, baking soda, cornstarch, etc. About.Com suggests "two tablespoons corn starch, combined with enough all-purpose flour to make a cup," but warns that the extra protein content will increase toughness. Thank you! You can sift the whole flour to make it white flour. Originally, millers used stones to grind the grains. The whole grain was completely ground, and all of its parts were mixed in the process. Wealthier people could sift the flour to discard the husks. Poor people ate whole flour bread. Nowadays, flour is gotten from roller mills, where first the husk is removed, then the germ, and then the endosperm is ground. When you get whole flour (unless the miller says it's stone milled), they've put together the outer part and the endosperm. You can sift it to separate them. So, in both cases, sifting the whole wheat pastry flour will make you get white pastry flour. I don't know why About.com warns that "additional protein will increase toughness" when the whole purpose of adding corn starch is to reduce the protein. All purpose flour should have around 10% protein and 90% starch. Pastry flour has 8% protein and 92% starch. Cornstarch has 0% protein. You only have to mix cornstarch and all-purpose flour in the mathematically correct ratio to get a mixture which behaves like pastry flour in terms of protein toughening. The numbers above are rounded, but then, different manufacturers will produce flours with different percentage of proteins, and some wheat proteins also get tougher than others depending on the cultivar, and recipes still work with that kind of tolerance. So I use them and mix 80 g AP flour and 20 g cornstarch for every 100 g pastry flour I need, which results in a flour mixture with roughly 8% protein content. I use it primarily for flaky crusts, and it works quite well there. Maybe about.com refers the extra protein of the A.P. flour? Probably about.com is assuming that you'll use the same weight of flour, plus corn starch, whereas what you're explaining above is weight-adjusted. This is why you need to take everything on a site like about.com with a grain of salt - they don't even think of something as obvious as adjusting the weight...	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.285393	2012-12-25T05:40:51	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29444", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "Brian Schack", "D. Jackson", "E smith", "HadAnIdea", "J.A.I.L.", "Luciano P Lux", "Vanessa Easley", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68451", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68452", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68453", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68461", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68468", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68493", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68495", "m0meni" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
28842	Why are my cookies SO sticky? So I've baked some apples just yesterday, and today they are extremely sticky. Not because of the glaze or anything, it's just that they're sticky to the touch. I didn't add a lot of sugar, so I wonder, why would it appear like this? It just seems very annoying, because if I pack it into a box or something, it will stick to it and is inconvenient to me. I only used 3/4 of a cup of brown sugar. Also, my glaze starts to melt, even though its freezing cold here. Your title says cookies and the question says apples. What, exactly, did you bake, and could you provide more details please? :-) Yeah, and what glaze exactly? Please include the recipes you used—its hard to troubleshoot without them. The question is internally inconsistent and so not answerable currently. It can get reopened if you edit it. If you really mean apples, and not cookies, which is what I'm assuming based off of your reference to glaze, the most likely culprit is the acidity in the apples. Adding an acidic substance to a sugar-based one (like brown sugar glaze) will cause the resulting mixture to be gummy and sticky. Without some more information about the type of apples and the process used in making them, I can't be more specific. And of course, if your question is really about cookies, than this isn't an answer at all.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.285639	2012-12-03T09:21:14	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28842", "authors": [ "Bells", "Blair Anderson", "GeekInDisguise", "Julie Walker", "Kristina Lopez", "Savannah Greene", "Sven", "derobert", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66793", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66794", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66795", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67211", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68080", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29055	Eggnog to Spirit ratio? I know, I know, I should be making my own eggnog, but when I'm in a pinch and I don't have the time to make my own eggnog, I have to rely on the store bought stuff. With that being said, can anyone tell me a standard ratio of eggnog to brandy/rum? Depends on how much you like your relatives... Many people would choose a ratio of zero to one. Why do people knock store-bought egg nog all the time? IMNSHO, it's the best stuff on Earth. There is no standard, it all depends on how happy you want to get, and whether you just want the flavor of the booze, or the actual effect of the alcohol. Also a factor is the kind of alcohol you want to add. Light rums, for example, have less flavor than dark rums, so you'd want to use dark rum if you want booze flavor over alcohol. As an estimate if you are going for flavor an ounce or two per liter (or quart, they're close enough for jazz) will do the trick, or up to 6 or 8 if you want very happy people. Don't forget to grate a bit of fresh nutmeg on top before serving! I used a store bought large carton (64 oz) and 8 oz light rum. It was good and not too strong. People could add additional rum individually to their glass if they wanted stronger We flavor our egg nog individually. About 1/2 to 1 oz per large coffee mug full. I like store bought egg nog. We have made it before. It's expensive and requires multiple ingredients. We add nutmeg on the top. Ground nutmeg from the can works just fine. I bought some really good eggnog today and mixed it with a ratio of one third cup brandy to two thirds cup eggnog. No one got crazy and it was delicious.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.285795	2012-12-10T02:23:20	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29055", "authors": [ "Adele- Nexus of Potlucks", "Angry customer", "ElmerCat", "Marilyn", "Marti", "Sprajtu", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67318", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67319", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67320", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67327", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210", "user67319" ], "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 }
29014	How to make a Hungarian Túró Rudi at home? I want to make some Túró Rudi for a Hungarian friend. Túró Rudi is a chocolate sweet available to buy in Hungary, and vast numbers are sold every year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAr%C3%B3_Rudi The outside is easy, it's just chocolate. The tricky part is the inside, which has the consistency of the inside of a Bounty (coconut) bar for those that know it. the centre is white firm and sweet, but in the Túró Rudi it is made with cottage cheese (Túró) and sugar, but how can I make a firm, sugary centre out of cottage cheese? I've had them in a restaurant so they can certainly be made in a kitchen. I've searched and searched for a recipe, but I cannot find one. I'm happy to experiment, and any help is welcome. The first problem is that while yes, túró is often translated as "cottage cheese", the two cheeses are actually not at all alike. I mean, not even remotely, not in texture, not in taste, not in any way that matters. A closer American equivalent (available on the east coast, but very hard to find on the west) is farmer cheese, but even that isn't quite right. Hi Marti, thank you so much for clarifying that. I Googled and it seems that it's called Quark Cheese in many places, including here in the UK. http://www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Golden-Acre-Virtually-Fat-Free-Quark/11504011?from=search&tags&param=quark&parentContainer=SEARCHquark_SHELFVIEW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_cheese Your search skills leave a lot to be desired, it would seem: http://m.mindmegette.hu/recept/4280. Google can translate it for you. Many thanks. Google Translate makes a mess of the translation (it suggests I need to add venison to the mixture :) ) but I can ask a friend to translate it. Feel free to post your comment as an answer, and I will select it. In reviewing whether this question should be closed as off topic, I consider it more like recreating a specific restaurant recipe, and less as a generic recipe request--so I think it can stay open. see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3409/doing-t%C3%BAr%C3%B3-at-home I'm a bit late, but I think the reason Google was stumbling on the mindmegette recipe was because the recipe calls for using a "venison rib mold", which is basically a ribbed baking dish. Also, the recipe as posted contains a few misspellings and other grammatical errors, leading to even more confusion on the poor machine translator's part. I spent quite a bit of time working on a variety of recipes for this. In all honesty, none are particularly close to the "real thing" but the results can taste pretty good and are reminiscent of the actual product. The main challenge is in buying authentic túró. After a lot of work, I've confirmed that there's no standard, easily available equivalent in the UK. British quark, an easily available curd, is very different to túró. British cottage cheese is really nothing like túró. So if you're in the UK and want to make anything with túró, you'll need to compromise on taste, or buy some túró from a Hungarian or Eastern/Central European provider. Alternatively you could make your own by acquiring the curd from soured milk. The recipe I used with the best results was simple. Mix the túró with a little sour cream and some fine sugar to sweeten it to your taste. Stir in some liquid (melted) gelatine. Pour the mixture into moulds (I used a small ice cube tray) and freeze it. When frozen hard, quickly dip each in chocolate and put them in the fridge. The texture is jelly-like, which is very different to a real túró rudi (which is firm and slightly crystalline), but it tastes pretty good. This site suggests that "cream cheese" (or Neufchatel perhaps) is a possibility. That does make sense. Since last posting I went to the Hungarian shop in Manor House in North London ("Paprika Store") and bought some real túró and I've also been to Hungary again and tasted it in a few dishes, and it does taste a lot more like soft cheese than cottage cheese or quark. To my tongue it tastes more like ricotta or Philadelphia soft cheese than cottage cheese or quark. I think our Hungarian friends have left a false trail by translating it as cottage cheese :-) I dunno, I don't think cream cheese tastes anything like túró (and of course the texture is completely different)... In the US you can use ricotta cheese. for a 32. oz. tub, put in 2 tbs sour cream, 1 tbs. melted butter, 1/2 tsp. fresh lemon zest (you can leave it out) 1 tbs sugar little unflavored gelatin to help stay in shape As Hungarian i can tell you, this is close enough :) Sweet Ricotta Cheese Balls (Hungarian Túrógombóc, Turogomboc) is an other hit for Hungarians, really easy to make them: http://allrecipes.com/personalrecipe/63603144/sweet-ricotta-cheese-balls-hungarian-turogomboc-turogomboc/detail.aspx It's easy to make the Hungarian style cheese at home. I use 3 litres of full cream milk, mix in 3 tblspoon of full cream sour cream and let it stand on the kitchen bench for 2 days. It will turn into a kefír/nature jughurt looking state (in Hungarian we call it "milk asleep"). It's a nice snack as it is when kept in the fridge, or can be flavoured with fruits, honey and/or used with cereals. If we want to turn it into cheese(túró), then we need to warm it up to 58-60 degree celsius at low heat. During this process curdes will form. When it reached the required tempreture, we need to poor it through a very fine sieve, cheese cloth or a store both ricotta basket. Let it drain and drio for a few hours, or as long as dry you want your cheese to be. Keep it covered in the fridge for up to 2 weeks. Enjoy! Ez inkább egy másik kérdésre a válasz: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3409/doing-t%C3%BAr%C3%B3-at-home (A jelen kérdés a Túró Rudiról szól, nem a túróról.) I am Hungarian, and the "close enough" evaluation of the recipe is a bit generous. The flavor is a bit off, and the texture is definitely off. Mine was too soft and crumbly even out of the fridge, definitely when defrosted. (I also need to work on my skills to cover it with chocolate, that part was a complete disaster :). But what I came here to write - I will try it next time with Queso Fresco instead of Ricotta. I make the Cheese Balls referenced above with it, and it turns out exactly like the ones at home. You have to make your own cheese 4 liter milk give you 500gr soft cheese Worm up the milk 7 min. Thermo meter is your index finger When hot finger cannot stand but not boil, Put a cup of vinegar in and stir until You see the cheese Filter through a cloth and have 500gr chemical free cheese 10 minits Perhaps a combination of cottage and cream cheese put into an ice tube mold and allowed time to set a bit.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.285982	2012-12-07T17:06:42	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29014", "authors": [ "DaveBensonPhillips", "Efrat", "ElendilTheTall", "Kirti Bakrania", "Marti", "Nuri Tasdemir", "Ollie C", "Pointy", "SAJ14SAJ", "Scott Webster", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14651", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67193", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67194", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67195", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70688", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81368", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29775	How can I reduce the fat in a white wine and parsley sauce? For Xmas I was given a steamer. This is good as I, as I expect a lot of people in the world have done, have resolved to lose some weight this year. Now I understand that steamers are good for cooking fish. One of my favourite accompaniments to make for fish is a white wine and parsley sauce, basically a thin Bechamel with white wine and parsley (occasionally with tarragon or dill depending on my fancy). What I'm wondering is how to achieve the same effect with fewer calories. A white herby, winey sauce that's lower in fat... What do you think? Have you done any research on lighter versions of sauce? What do those sources recommend? Thickening with starch or flour instead of roux can be quite acceptable if some other rich flavors are added. Here is where the calories can be traded in: Good low-fat broth for part of the liquid. celery root or coriander root are particularly good ing. for veggie broth Puree, in small amounts add body and flavor. soft cooked onion is particularly silky and surprisingly mild Flavorsome oils, few drops instead of copious butter. Macadamia punches above its weight. Sesame toasted (tiny amount) or if feeling adventurous, pricklyash from Asian market. lower-fat 'milks' can add luscious body instead of cream or 3% dairy milk. Unsweetened Almond or coconut doesn't overwhelm most sauces. Thanks, these suggestions are certainly food for thought, no pun intended :) You can't make a roux without fat (butter in this case) and you can't make béchamel without roux. Quite the quandary. You might try bringing some milk to near-boil, thickening it with flour. Once thickened, take it off the heat and thin with wine. Add herbs et al. I suspect, however, that you won't like it without the butter. Pardon my pontificating, but weight loss has almost nothing to do with WHAT you eat, but how much: the calories. If I were you, I'd make it like you usually do (maybe with less butter?) and just eat less of it. Or make a reward meal and binge on it once a month instead of having it once a week. Have a look at "en papillote" cooking. You'll love it with your new steamer. I see. I was contemplating using an egg yolk to thicken instead of flour and butter. Do you think that would work, or is it a recipe for disaster? I'm not sure, but it's cheap enough to try because you'll know before having to add the wine and herbs. See this answer (and comments). You'll need a lot of egg yolk (and time) to thicken a sauce. More importantly, egg yolk has about 54% fat content making it a poor substitute with regards to this question. @Chris - egg yolk also has other stuff (like proteins) that help thicken in a way that butter can't by itself. If combined with starch, it could add richness and a better texture without anywhere near the amount of fat calories as butter. @Athanasius I agree, and just for the record I wasn't advocating thickening with butter. To the extent my comment is correct, it is only so when egg is the only thickening agent. Assuming the information from the answer I linked to is correct, and 2 yolks thicken 1 cup of milk, lets say we want to thicken 1 liter of milk. A roux of 92g butter and 55g flour would thicken this (based on 27 béchamel recipes). That's 75g of fat (butter is ~82% fat). Calculating with eggs of 53g each, where each yolk is 35% of the egg's weight and is ~54% fat, we also end up with 75g of fat in the sauce. @Chris - yes, I agree. And I should clarify: I didn't mean to imply thickening with butter alone either. I just meant that eggs actually have significant thickening power (as well as fat), while butter alone has a lot less (while having a lot more fat). Therefore eggs + starch can thicken more than butter + starch. The thickening properties of roux are due to the starch, not the butter, so substituting egg for butter along with starch is a net gain in thickening power. That's what I meant to say. And, in that case, you would be reducing fat calories significantly. @Athanasius Absolutely, and my figures confirm what you say; you would break even using just yolks to thicken so any amount of starch used in combination will reduce fat.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.286582	2013-01-05T23:59:23	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29775", "authors": [ "Athanasius", "Beartech", "Chris Steinbach", "Henk de Vries", "Kristina Lopez", "Li1t", "Lisa", "NBF", "Simba Kevin Mandizha", "Thomas", "Zach Weg", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14719", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69292", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69293", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69294", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69301", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69303", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69339" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29233	Trick to making perfect egg ribbons? I'm looking for a time-proven method for getting perfect egg ribbons in egg drop or hot and sour soup. The result I'm looking for is a clear soup with the classic gossamer egg ribbons. I'm not really asking for soup recipes(although feel free to share along with your answer!). I'm asking for specifically how to add the eggs. I've read plenty of "beat eggs, pour into soup", and I haven't quite been able to nail the technique. I end up with some ribbons, but a cloudy soup. This question is meant to delve into specifics. I'd like to know explicit details of your ancient, family secret. How far to beat the eggs...light, or foamy? Drizzle in slowly, or fast? Drizzle the eggs into the soup using chopsticks...fork...whisk? Stir the soup while adding or not? Before or after adding cornstarch thickener...or do you use a different thickener(perhaps another previous egg addition?) Please provide as much detail on technique, tools, and process as possible. I don't mind spending some time practicing a new technique, as long as I end up with a good product and am able to repeat it. Thanks! Just a note, the soup taste just as good no matter if your ribbons are perfect or not I can't speak to your specific recipe, but I worked in a Chinese take-out restaurant for a few years, but that was a ways back....if I remember correctly, the process was extremely simple. Start with a broth of hot water, white vinegar, salt and a drop or two of yellow food coloring (ancient Chinese secret - food coloring) Get it nice and hot and add a small amount of cornstarch slurry, whisk and wait for it to thicken. Meanwhile, scramble some eggs, just like normal. Nothing special. We used a fork and scrambled the eggs in a take-out soup container. Pour the eggs into the broth at a steady rate while stirring the broth at a medium and consistent speed (roughly one rev/sec). And that was it. As far as specific technique? I can't recall anything that really stands out. Like I mentioned, we used a take-out soup container and a fork to scramble the eggs, and cut a hole in the top to pour them. I suppose if you want to get really specific, we used a box cutter to make a triangular hole, roughly 3/4 inch per side. The soup was cooked in a round-bottomed wok, and stirred with what Google is telling me is called a hand-spoon - imagine a one-cup ladle, except bend the cup so it's more or less parallel to the handle. Hope this helps. If you'd like any more information I'll try and see what I can drag out of the back of my dusty memory - it was about six-seven years ago, but I might be able to persuade my feeble old mind to provide some more details. thanks for the quick answer and depth of detail! quick followup-how fast do you think you poured the eggs? is the idea to have as thin a "stream" as possible when entering the soup(i.e. pour really really slowly), or am I off on that concept? Did the size of the hole help determine the rate of your pour or was that just to contain the mess? Plan on trying this soon. The hole helped with the mess and the rate. I would guess that it was slightly less than an egg/sec. When we made a batch, it was probably 10 eggs added over 7 or 8 seconds. I suspect the vinegar in the broth may have helped--that is the same trick used with poached eggs to help them hold their shape. Corn starch is the actual "ancient Chinese secret" here. It does interesting things when used with the techniques of Chinese cuisine. (See also "velveting".) @barneco Only crappy chinese restaurant use food colouring and no it's the chinese ancient secret Vinegar is a good part of recipe, however adding a little water to your scrambled egg is another trick. And after the broth with cornstarch and water has been whisked separately, then added to slow boil or simmer to your broth and simmered to marry well for 1-2 mins, turn off heat. Whisk your eggs in a pouring measuring glass with a fork. With same fork, start stirring a continuous swirling stir (right to left or left to right does not matter, but must be in same direction). Slowly and in a small stream, pour the egg into the broth while swirl stirring. I had trouble with this, my first attempts ended up with egg mist rather than proper ribbons. My trick to make the eggs solidify faster and therefore make bigger ribbons was based on two things: Don't stir the soup too soon, instead pour eggs as a stream along a circular path To speed up the process, I preheated the scrambled eggs to body temperature. This reduces the time they have to be in the hot soup to solidify and therefore the ribbons are bigger. I used microwave, but note it is easy to accidentally cook the eggs even on the lowest setting. As suggested in the comments, putting them in warm water before cracking them may be safer as you can't heat them too much. Specifically for hot and sour soup, I added eggs the last and turned off the heat a minute after adding them. The soup has enough heat in it to cook them and I don't want them too dry. An excellent suggestion for room temperature eggs. I’ll have to try it myself next time. You can also warm them up by putting the whole eggs in a bowl of warm water while you’re preparing the soup. (It’s a common tip for Americans making crepes, as many European countries don’t sell chilled eggs) Oh, the bowl of water sounds much better, no risk of accidentally heating them too much. I was just watching NHK’s Dining With the Chef, and Chef Saito stressed another thing that you mentioned: not stirring the soup. You have to give the egg time to firm up. And if you run out of space, wait a minute, use chopsticks to push the egg to the side, then pour some more. He also poured so it went down chopsticks. I don’t know if this decreases the splash or just helps you be more accurate in your pouring. The video will only be available for 3 years, though: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/2019342/ Here's a technique I found in a recipe for Hot and Sour Soup: Beat together egg with 1/2 teaspoon cornstarch. Bring soup to a boil, reduce to a bare simmer, and slowly pour the egg into the soup in a thin steady stream. Let egg set for 15 seconds, then stir gently to incorporate.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.286936	2012-12-17T13:55:55	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29233", "authors": [ "Adis", "Alex", "David Daley", "Huangism", "J Joy", "JamesJ", "Joe", "SAJ14SAJ", "Tomáš Zato", "User1000547", "What the Fudge", "barneco", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126430", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130464", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14783", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27078", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67809", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67810", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67811", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67812", "jscs" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29467	How long will a shooter's sandwich keep? A shooter's sandwich is intended to be eaten a long time after it is made. I understand that it originated, pre-refrigeration, as a meal that could be prepared the night before and taken on a hunt the next day. This recipe recommends keeping it in a cool place for at least 6 hours, or preferably overnight. I am wondering how safe it is. Could I prepare it late on Dec 30th, refrigerate it overnight, and then take on a camping trip for New Year's Eve, and still enjoy it (as a hangover cure) on New Year's Day, 36 hours after cooking it, without risking my stomach (as well as my liver)? Or is that just looking for trouble? Probably an absurdly good sandwich, but there's no reason to let it sit out unrefrigerated for six hours. I wouldn't eat it if you did. But if it sat under the weights in a fridge? I'm all over it. Wow. I got a Popular Question badge for this question's 1000 views, and a total of ZERO votes! See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info The shooter's sandwich you linked involves cooked mushrooms and fried steaks. In contemporary food safety practice, this is not shelf-stable at all. It can be held 3-5 days in the fridge, or up to 2 hours at room temperature. I can imagine that hunters did take it on longer trips historically. They lived in a time when mild food poisoning (symptoms limited to bloating and light diarrhoe) was commonplace, and the average person experienced it as often as the common cold, if not a bit more frequently. More serious types of foodborne illness were less frequent, but still appeared with some regularity in a given population. There are two reasons we don't eat this way today. First, our standard of living is higher. We have the possibility to drastically reduce our risk of food-borne illness by choosing nutritious shelf-stable food for situations we need it, and we have much higher expectations of our own quality of life, including the expectation that the chance of getting bloating from a sandwich should be close to zero, not close to 10%. Second, our meat today well may have much more pathogen contamination than in the past. If you slaughter one healthy animal in your small farm, the worst you get spread over the meat are some E. coli from inside its own guts, and normal E. coli don't cause too bad symptoms (mutations can be very dangerous, but they are also exceedingly rare). Today, animals are penned together by the thousands, exchanging exotic pathogens while still alive, and then are slaughtered and eviscerated in efficient conveyor-like manner, so that if one cow had some unpleasant bacteria from somewhere, they will probably cross-contaminate the steaks from hundreds of other cows slaughtered in the same shift. Bottom line: It is absolutely not safe. You are free to decide to take the risk and eat it, but by the usual standards in the food industry, this is an unacceptably high risk, and it is foolish to take it. Very interesting. Looks like I will not only be crossing it off my New Year's plans, but will no longer be following this recipe when preparing it. Thank you. The recipe looks delicious. Just refrigerate it at the step where it says "don't refrigerate" and you should be fine. You can even warm it up to room temperature by taking it out of the fridge about 30 minutes before you want to cut and serve it. Just don't leave it out all night. The sealing of the hot mushroom mix between two pieces of also-hot food gives me a slight case of the heebie-jeebies. That'll take a lot longer to cool than it probably should. I'd suggest cooling it open-faced for maxiumum safety. (For my own personal consumption, however, I'd probably follow the recipe as written.) @Oddthinking I would take the view that the mushroom mix is sterilised by the heat, then kept from airborne pathogens by the bread and greaseproof wrapping. What's left is whatever pathogens are in the bread, and in the meat -- most of the bugs in steaks are on the surface, and that's been well cooked. I would eat this the next day. I would serve it to friends and family. I wouldn't keep it unrefrigerated for an extra day. It would not, however, meet commercial food safety regulations. @slim Nothing in that sandwich has been sterilized. First let me point out that most of these ingredients that people would consider "dangerous" if left out, have all been cooked in this recipe. The most likely place that any bacterium would be introduced is using unwashed hands to pluck the bread from the loaf. I have made this myself, let the sandwich flatten overnight, refrigerated for 24 hours, then taken out on a hiking trip, where it provided me lunch for the following week stored in a zip=lock bag in my back-pack. Thanks to the other answers above and the food-safety info linked to in a comment, I can point out that the cooking process has pasteurised, NOT sterilised the food. There are still living microbes in the food.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.287763	2012-12-26T08:15:57	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29467", "authors": [ "Carey Gregory", "Jordan Brough", "Kate Gregory", "Oddthinking", "SAJ14SAJ", "Stephanie", "Yyttsa", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14908", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68523", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68524", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68525", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68531", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632", "jscs", "pushkin", "slim" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
128351	Are bare screw-heads on air-fryer food-safe? I just bought my first air-fryer - it appears to be a reputable brand, perhaps on the cheaper end. The Teflon-coated "basket" (bowl) is attached to the plastic handle by a number of screws. I was shocked to see that the screws are mounted so the heads of the screws are inside the basket. The curve of the basket is such they aren't even flush - the heads stick out at an angle. I am worried about food getting caught in the threads and other cracks and being impossible to adequately clean. I am trying to work out if I am being overly-sensitive, or this is a legitimate food safety issue. Product photo below is of the replacement part, showing the bowl and screws, and where the screws go. I've seen similar attachments on saucepans, though rivets are more common, so it's not a one-off @ChrisH: If I saw that, I would ask the same question. It seems very unhygienic to me, but I am prepared to be told my intuition is off. I wouldn't worry about the threads in the ones I've seen because of seals under the heads. Probably not yours either; those captive washers should make a decent seal given that you're not filling an air fryer with soup. I'd be more worried about stuff not washing out of the heads or the screw recesses very well, whether with a brush or a dishwasher. But still not very worried. Given the operating temperatures, it's unlikely to be a food safety issue, as anything that grows there is going to get killed in use. @Ecnerwal: Is that an answer? Please use the answer box where it can be voted, edited, accepted, etc.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.288169	2024-05-16T04:19:49	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128351", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Ecnerwal", "Oddthinking", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14908", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
29556	How to shape dough I have so much trouble getting a rectangle the right size when making multiple loaves of bread. It's always too long or wide for my bread pans. What's the trick? I won't call this an answer, but this video shows a man (and his wee lass :-) shaping some loaves in pretty good detail. Maybe it will help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3zBaKkxMY My normal trick is not to use loaf pans, or only use 'em when baking dough that doesn't need to be shaped. Or use french loaf pans, where I don't have to worry about length. Other than that, I'd suggest looking into getting a pastry mat with a grid on it (the ones with circles are more common, but those are mainly for pies ... the ones with a grid are useful for rectangles, and there are ones on the market with both). You can then know what size you're dealing with as you're rolling things out. If you can't easily get one, then refer to a ruler, or use the pan itself as a guide. You want to roll out a rough rectangle, with the short end being slightly smaller than the longer side of the pan -- aim for about 10 to 20% shorter. You then either fold it in on itself, or just roll the whole thing into a log. Pinch the seams closed, and then drop it into the prepared pan, seam-side down. Once you let it do its final proofing, it will have filled back out to the size of the pan. Folding will result in less of a dome, but can require more effort so that you don't end up too wide to fit in the pan easily. You may want to do a few rolled, and then once you're comfortable, try folding. Practice, practice, practice. That's the only way you learn shaping. I find the biggest help to get consistent loaves is to weigh the pieces of dough. If they are all the same size, then it's easier to shape consistently. Shaping for loaf pans is just the very beginning too. Once you get the hang of it, there's a whole world of shapes to conquer, as the Formes de pains website demonstrates. Practice? You can make a dead dough (that is: dough with no yeasts nor leaveners) to shape them, check how they fit in the pan, and then shape them as a ball to start the process again. You can also do it with normal dough, having in mind that after several reshapings it won't rise too much. Roll or pull your dough into a rectangle big enough to make it about 2cm (just less than 1") thick. Place your loaf tin along the top long edge. Fold the short ends in so that the rectangle is just narrower than the tin. Now roll the dough up from the bottom edge, pressing the leading edge in with your thumbs so the rolling part of the dough has some tension. When you get to the end of the dough, pick it up and place it in the tin seam side down to prevent it opening again. Cover, prove and bake as normal.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.288332	2012-12-29T18:37:39	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29556", "authors": [ "Anna Beeden", "Kay", "Lorenzo Battilocchi", "Lulu Abdulah", "OverCoder", "SAJ14SAJ", "Vim", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68736", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68737", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68738", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68743", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68757", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68761", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68812", "zanahorias" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
30356	Kosher salt vs. Table salt for rib eye steak I don't have any Kosher salt on hand and I'm cooking a rib eye steak tonight. Can I just use table salt, or would that drastically effect the taste of the steak? Why is Kosher salt better to use? @woliveirajr Kosher salt is not connected to Judaism. It is just a US term for coarse salt. The name comes from being marketed for a specific cooking practice needed in kosher cuisine, but it is used wherever an European would use sea salt. @rumtscho Wrong. It's called Kosher salt because it's used to remove surface blood from meat; consuming blood is one of the things forbidden by Kashrut laws. @IsaacRabinovitch This is the "specific cooking practice" I was referring to. Still, it is used for dozens of other purposes, and this one (from which it got its name) is only one of them. So most non-kosher cooks will have good experience with it, no need to search for a specialist in kosher cooking to answer this question (as somebody suggested in a now-deleted comment). The reason people choose Kosher/Sea/Rock salt over table salt is mainly down to the crystal size and the lack of additives like iodine. Kosher salt is less soluble and less dense than table salt. The large crystals in these salts mean that unless there is a fair bit of water present they don't completely dissolve. This means it is less likely you'll over salt steak even if it's caked in crystals. Table salt will dissolve with far less water present and will, therefore, get absorbed more easily into the meat. Also the lower density means you can liberality sprinkle Kosher/Sea/Rock salt on things and even if it does all dissolve you've actualy added less salt than you would think. It looks like a lot but 1g of Kosher/Sea/Rock salt takes up a lot more space than 1g of table salt. 1tsp table salt would be way too much. I'd go for about half the volume of Kosher salt if you were dissolving it in liquid and maybe as little as quarter the volume if I was using it as a rub (as in salting a steak). crystal size is the main thing, plus it spreads better. Coarse salt can also be used for a different effet on beef. Some people like more salt, especially if they just do a quick sear. I wouldn't necessarily say that 1 tsp is "way too much", although I suppose for someone trying this for the first time, some fairly liberal shaking of the salt shaker would be better as a starting point, just to get a baseline for the flavour. Easier to add salt than take away... Kosher salt is processed differently and has no iodine in it, so some people like the flavor better. It's not going to make that much difference, any salt will do. Just don't oversalt it, you want to taste the meat, not the salt. As for over salting, I read somewhere that 1 tsp of salt per side is a good idea? Lord no @Archey! 1 tsp per side is far, far too much! Beef already has a load of flavor, a small pinch of salt on either side and some fresh pepper (pepper after cooking so it doesn't get bitter) and job done. It's true that Kosher salt isn't iodized, but the crucial difference is granule size. "Regular" salt comes both iodized and not. You don't describe the recipe, so it's hard to say why the author insisted on Kosher salt. If you're supposed to rub the salt on the steak to remove surface blood, then kosher salt is more effective than table salt. If the salt is just a seasoning, Kosher salt (which has bigger granules than table salt) will add a grittiness that some people enjoy. Either way, you're not going to ruin the steak just by substituting table salt. You just won't get the precise effect the recipe was aiming at. Which is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the taste of the people eating the steak, but a minor thing in any case. The difference in salt is more related to how the salt is being used. So for the purpose of quickly salting before cooking or at the table any type of salt will do. However if you are salting your meat at least an hour in advance and letting it rest before cooking (which I HIGHLY recommend you do) then using the larger grains of Kosher salt has a positive effect. Salting the meat causes the proteins contained in the meat to change and allows the meat to retain juices significantly better. At the same time some of the salt is pulled into the meat as the water that has been drawn out of the meat through osmosis is reabsorbed back into the meat near the end of the hour. Using a finer grain salt, such as table salt, will allow significantly more salt to be absorbed into the meat. Using a coarse grain salt, kosher, will mean a more perfectly salted piece of meat. For reference see: http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.288616	2013-01-24T15:50:28	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30356", "authors": [ "0sg", "Aaronut", "Archey", "GdD", "Isaac Rabinovitch", "Kurt Fitzner", "Luke Xu", "Martyn F Walker", "Morani Roberson", "Pascal Belloncle", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15419", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15430", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15540", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70886", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70887", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70888", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70889", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70936", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70937", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70998", "lovekittens", "mtx", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
30467	What can I use in place of sherry in a recipe with king prawns, garlic and paprika? I'm going to try out a recipe containing prawns for the first time. The recipe includes sherry, but I don't want to purchase a bottle of sherry as I don't drink and don't use it for cooking so I fear it will go to waste. What could I use in its place? The recipe also calls for paprika, chilli flakes, garlic, tomatoes, breadcrumbs, red onion and parsley. Thanks in advance for your suggestions :-) Related Questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17670/what-to-use-instead-of-white-wine-in-recipes/17673#17673, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/829/what-would-be-a-good-substitute-for-rice-wine & http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1332/what-is-a-substitute-for-red-or-white-wine-in-a-recipe Sometimes supermarkets will sell alcohol freqently used for cooking (sherry, marsala, etc.) in 100 ml bottles together with the cooking ingredients (not in the alcohol section). It is worth getting those if it is a kind of alcohol you don't drink. Be careful of the 'cooking' versions of wines ... they're often salted heavily, so that they can't be drunk straight. (it's required in my state, as stores can't sell alcohol w/out a liquor license). Check the ingredients to be sure; if there's salt, you'll want to leave out any other salt, and taste the dish before adjusting the seasoning. Do you have any other alcohol (cooking or otherwise) in the house? A dry white wine could work. I usually have rice wine (Japanese, Chinese) or Sake around as I do a lot of Asian cooking, that would easily work too. I might try the white wine, I'm more likely to use that in other dishes and I'm partial to the occassional glass :) From reading the questions linked here in the comment above, Vermouth seems like a good choice. If I can find the 100ml bottle of sherry rumtscho, I'll use that. A dry white wine, or white vermouth. For the more adventurous, a cognac or armagnac would also be very nice (my preference!). If the pan is hot enough, you can also make it a flambé!	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.289127	2013-01-27T23:24:28	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30467", "authors": [ "Anthony Grist", "Felix Livni", "Joe", "Joshua Pinter", "Nicola", "Spencer Miner", "andrew", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15476", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71172", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71173", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71174", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71178", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71416", "rumtscho", "talon8" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33626	Can I cook lentils in a rice cooker? Can I cook lentils in a rice cooker? Would I need to adjust my lentils/water ratio? wold you cook rice and lentils together? or rice is cooked yet? are lentils dry, fresh or canned yet cooked? See: http://www.seriouseats.com/talk/2011/01/whos-cooked-lentils-in-a-rice-cooker.html Almost certainly: lots of recipes online. I'd go with the 'porridge' or 'brown rice setting' if your cooker has it. Concensus on water ratio seems to be about same as for rice. Here's a question which lists More things you can cook in a rice cooker. With a quality cooker, you can also make baked beans and tasty onion soup.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.289322	2013-04-19T22:36:25	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33626", "authors": [ "SAJ14SAJ", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832", "violadaprile" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
35757	timing on baking a birthday cake I need to have a birthday cake ready on saturday night and am trying to figure out how early I can make it without it impacting the quality of the cake. If I make the the cake friday night or saturday morning, will it be noticeably less good on saturday night than if I make it saturday afternoon? It depends on the type of cake. Pound cakes, and fatty, rich cakes like carrot cake are going to have the longest shelf life. Some of them even improve in flavor over a day or two, and should last at least 3 and maybe up to 4 or 5 days. Even some of the shorter lifespan cakes, like genoise, should be good for at least 24 hours. Much depends on what you are layering or assembling the cake with, as well as what the layers are made of. For example, if you have a pastry cream or whipped cream layer, these really only last a few hours. Cakes also freeze exceedingly well, especially prior to being iced. What you may choose to do is bake your layers or base cake at your convenience, let them cool, then wrap them well, and freeze. Then, as reasonably close to service as is convenient, thaw the layers and ice, and optionally decorate as appropriate. You can also freeze iced cakes, although it is a little trickier. See also: Where should I store my cakes? (my answer describes how to freeze iced cakes) How to properly freeze cake (really only talks about cakes that are not iced) How do I properly freeze a frosted cake? Just wanted to add that simple syrups brushed on after the cake cools can help keep a cake moist/tasting fresh baked for a smidge longer and add some wonderful flavor too.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.289402	2013-08-02T18:34:53	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35757", "authors": [ "Spammer", "Spammer McSpamface", "ganache", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19397", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83750", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83751", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83752", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83754", "phan", "user3345048" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
37617	how do some sandwiches feel creamy I'm just learning to cook, I'm from India so sorry if my question is too stupid. I made a sandwich following the recipe given on some blogs, using chicken salami but my sandwich is DRY and many sandwiches I ate felt like creamy. I don't think its cheese, I mean besides cheese there is something else! How to make sandwiches like those? are there any categories of sandwiches? In America we rely on cheese (different types), mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, butter --- all kinds of stuff. "Dry" is generally an unacceptable term for sandwiches. But when it comes to sandwiches, there are no rules. Anything you might use to add moistness to anything else is fair game for sandwiches. Questions are not stupid EVER just because they come from a culture other than the one(s) from which most of us come. Thanks. I added cheese spreads, but was wondering what would normally they add other than cheese, I'll try mayonnaise next time In my world mayo is the number 1 ingredient to make sandwiches not dry. Please do not let that stifle your creativity. If something else tickles your brain as an idea, try it. Besides the recommendation for condiments to add moisture, you should also look at your bread selection. It won't necessarily make the difference of a 'creamy' sandwich, but will prevent it from being overly 'dry'. Enriched breads (with egg & sugar) tend to be more moist, as do other softer breads. As far as I know, there are no official categories of sandwiches, although there are considerable regional differences in what is considered a "prototypical" sandwich across the world (and some cultures have multiple common sandwiches). A traditional American sub is very different from a German Käsebrot. So, I can't point you to a type of sandwich and tell you "it will always be creamy". There are two things which you can use to make a sandwich creamy. Spread butter or cream cheese on the bread before adding the toppings. It will give the sandwich a nice, mild taste, and remove the dry mouthfeel, without making it very moist. Use a condiment. Typical sandwich condiments are mustard, mayonnaise and ketchup. They make a sandwich very moist and creamy, and tend to also give it a strong taste. They are normally placed between the toppings, not on the bread, so they don't soak into the bread and make it soggy. My suggestion is to try out both variants and decide which you like best. Thanks, last time I spread thin layer of butter on one side and cheese on the other. But nothing between the toppings. Will try with mayonnaise or mustard between the topping next. Mayo is often spread on the bread. At least here... I agree with @derobert. It sounds to me as though you had sandwhiches with mayonnaise on them. Ketchup tends to be too wet for a good sandwich ... unless you're using a roll (and not bread slices), you risk it soaking through the bread. Sugary or oily condiments (eg, chutney, pesto, tapanade, mayo) tend to be better than overly wet ones for sliced bread. Mustard is strong enough that it's used sparingly, so doesn't suffer from the same problems. Try mayonnaise (aka "mayo" in American English). I use Hellman's, which I think is better quality. When making the sandwich, first begin by spreading mayonnaise on the sandwich bread that you use, before adding the meat. I would suggest starting with a little mayonnaise - then increase the amount of mayonnaise to your taste. I hope this info helps you to find that "creamy" consistency that you are trying to duplicate in your sandwiches.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.289566	2013-10-15T08:39:25	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37617", "authors": [ "Joe", "Jolenealaska", "Mark Allen", "derobert", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15687", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18046", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "pahnin" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
32248	Cook a frozen cobbler in a microwave instead of oven Here's my problem. We don't have access to a oven (we are out of town for a week and out hotel room only has a microwave and a 2 range stove top). I purchased a frozen Blackberry Cobbler and we want to make it. Does anyone know how long I should cook it and is it safe? It would almost certainly be safe, as there is nothing in a cobbler that could not be eaten if you just thawed the cobbler and ate it raw. It is unlikely to be as good as when cooked properly in an oven because: The topping will not crisp up The microwave will not cook evenly, and you cannot stir a cobbler; you will most likely end up with cooler spots where any thickeners in the filling didn't gel, and still taste a little starchy, and other spots where the fruit is overcooked It is not really possible to give you a time to use because, even if there was some sort of "oven to microwave" conversion factor (which there is not): Microwaves vary in power output The size of the cobbler in question will make a big difference If you can take it home frozen, I would cook and eat it at home once you have access to a normal oven. Related to the safety angle, I think if I really wanted to use the microwave and didn't have access to an oven, I'd just let it thaw on the counter before heating it in the microwave. At least it will cook more evenly that way, even though it still won't crisp and probably won't be great in general. Also, depending on the topping, it may be not really palatable. An oatmeal topping may get mushy in the 'nuking or it could turn into bits of concrete. I go along with @SAJ14SAJ and recommend taking it home frozen if you can or if you are willing to risk wasting the money you spend on it, go ahead and try cooking it in the microwave and see what happens. Good luck! I'll suggest turning down the power on the microwave. That'll help a lot with the unevenness. Also, beware if the cobbler is in a foil pan, the foil will block the microwaves—or worse, start arcing. You will need to transfer it to a microwave-safe pan.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.289862	2013-02-27T07:05:20	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32248", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "Kristina Lopez", "derobert", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113262	How to make low carb crispy fried cauliflower? Typically I would use a slurry of all purpose flour and cornstarch (with curd/buttermilk) to coat the marinated florets and deep fry them. Resulted in crispy fried cauliflower. An example of a recipe : https://www.kitchenathoskins.com/2017/05/26/crispy-crunchy-buttermilk-fried-cauliflower/#wprm-recipe-container-19056 I need some help in finding out how I can make a low carb version of the same preferably without eggs - am happy to use curd or buttermilk as the slurry base if need be. Glucomannan is a replacement for cornstarch - but from what I have tried and found it might be a replacement for when cornstarch is used to thicken gravies. I tried coating florets in glucomannan powder, slurry (more like jello) and that did not help in making a crispy end result. And I still need to work my way on finding a low carb APF replacement for frying. How does one make low carb crispy fried cauliflower? What do you consider "low carb". Is gram flour (chickpea flour) allowed? If so, look up recipes for gobi pakora. @Joe From what I know, chickpea flour is a complex carb and I have used it occasionally as its still relatively carb heavy. Frying florets dipped in a slurry of chickpea flour does not render them crispy. It makes a good pakora - but thats not what I am after. possibly of interest : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/99638/67 how crispy is crispy? does it need to have a batter coating, or if the florets themselves are crunchy does it work? @FuzzyChef Interesting question. Either batter coating or florets themselves will do. I tried to find a measure for crispiness and crunchiness - but am unable to quantify what I am after. This chef had a few videos where he measures in decibels the crispiness upon scratching the floret with a fork - am unable to find it now. To give an idea, just a few seconds around these timestamped links is what I am after : (1) https://youtu.be/F7GVjpBOMMU?t=60 (2 - non-English) https://youtu.be/5brouevnRaE?t=446 When I was low-carbing, I would use almond flour mixed with plenty of seasonings. I also used crushed up pork rinds that I would mix with freshly grated parmesan or the green container parmesan when fresh was not readily available.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.290053	2020-12-20T22:58:35	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113262", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "Joe", "happybuddha", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291", "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 }
33112	What kind of vegetable oil should I use for baking? I'm going to bake this cake: http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/French-Yogurt-Cake-395471 and was wondering what sort of vegetable oil (canola etc) I should use? Would the type of oil make any difference to the cake? related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/28131/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/31982/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/670/67 The kind of oil you use in baking is mostly a matter of personal preference. Any neutral oil (no strong flavor) will do. I suggest you use an oil that you keep around for another purpose, which is not too expensive. Some good candidates include: Canola oil Peanut oil (refined, except for those with peanut allergies) Generic "vegetable" oil Grapeseed oil is also excellent but tends to expensive. Oils you would want to avoid due to the fact that they bring more flavor which may not be what you want in baked goods include: Olive oil Sesame oil Unrefined oils of all sorts To put this another way, the whole reason they just say "vegetable oil" without being more specific is that it doesn't really matter which neutral oil you use. Corn oil is another commonly available 'neutral' oil. I recommend canola oil when I'm required to use oil, but I recommend using butter instead it taste more homemade.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.290228	2013-03-29T18:53:53	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33112", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Daniel Delos", "Joe", "Kevin OGrady", "Shivam Sarodia", "Stacie ", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76651", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76652", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76653", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76654", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76667", "user76652" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33129	How to adjust time for pineapple casserole and pork roast I am cooking a pork roast for3 hrs at 325. I am also cooking scalloped pineapple at 350 for 1 hr. I need to know how long I should cook the pineapple at 325 Don't bother to adjust for the pineapple. You are overcooking it anyway, so it doesn't matter for how long you overcook it. It will still be good. The time needed will be determined by the pork, and this depends on the cut you are using. If you are using roast meat, then the time you need has nothing to do with how long the whole roast takes - it depends mostly on the geometry of the cut. You should just stick a thermometer into a piece of pork in the middle and cook to about 60 degrees celsius. (It actually takes a bit more of that, but the meat continues to cook for several minutes out of the oven). If you don't have a thermometer, there is no way to predict the time, it can vary from half an hour to several hours depending on the shape and material of your dish and the amount you are baking. Just take out a piece, cut it open, and return it if it is not ready. If you overbake it, it will be unpleasantly tough. If you are using stew meat, it is easier. Leave it in for 3 to 6 hours, the longer the better.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.290364	2013-03-30T11:10:41	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33129", "authors": [ "Jacob", "Piotr Achinger", "SHS", "TesuqueT", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76692", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76693", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76694", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76700" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33185	Why is my green tea foaming too? I buy organic, loose green tea from a co-op and found that it's sourced from China. I've never had tea foam before and am concerned that the tea has some kind of chemical on it. The foam tastes very bitter. It made me throw the tea out. I know that the FDA only checks randomly at the port so I'm leary of what's making it foam. Many years of tea making and this is a first. Does anyone have any experience or answers for this? Thank you! Possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22262/what-is-the-white-foam-that-builds-up-when-i-make-tea Is it only the tea that's changed, not anything else about your tea-making? Is the tea significantly different from what you've used before in any way? Have you seen videos of the Japanese tea ceremony? They use green tea leaves, and part of the ceremony is to whip the tea with a bamboo whisk, creating foam. I don't know what the properties of loose green tea are, or if your green tea is like the tea of the Japanese tea ceremony, but that foam could be a desirable property of your tea. Another answer that might help: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19373/coffee-foam-vs-tea-foam The pouring of water over the tea adds oxygen, which stirs up tannic acid in the tea and causes it to foam. Stirring vigorously also adds air, leading to foam from the tannic acid. Why would this happen only with this particular tea? Different teas have different levels. Red tea has less than green tea, for example. As for why it hasn't happened with other green teas, I would guess that variations in how the tea is processed can have an effect. If concerned though, I would recommend getting rid of the tea. It is always better to be safe than sorry. @Debra if what Kaylie Marie Kipe says is true, you might want to try dropping the leaves into the water rather than pouring the water into the leaves and see if that helps with the foaming problem. If it does, it would be really helpful if you commented on the results. Tannic acid does not foam. The surface tension of tannic acid solutions (65 mN/M, source: surfactants in tribology, volume 3) is about the same as that of pure water (60-70 mN/M, source Wikipedia). I couldn't even find foaming index numbers for tannic acid. Significant differences in tannin levels would be really noticeable by taste. It's a completely normal chemical reaction. They call it tea scum. It's due to the extraction of amino acids and proteins from the leaves.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.290527	2013-04-01T21:04:19	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33185", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "David Siegel", "Eve Suhling", "Gringuita", "Jay", "Kaylie Marie Kipe", "Lyssagal", "Matt", "SAJ14SAJ", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17632", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17697", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2702", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76861", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76862", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76863", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76915", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305", "rumtscho", "snekse" ], "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 }
33264	Do frozen ahi tuna steaks need to be seared? I have a bag of frozen ahi tuna steaks purchased from Costco. Some of them have been quite tasty when seared. That said, I heartily enjoy raw tuna, so I am intrigued with the idea of trying them raw. Fwiw, the steaks are not labeled as sushi grade, but I am not sure how much that really matters. From my brief research, it appears that the primary determining factor for what qualifies as sushi grade is the fat & oil content of the fish. That might imply that these wouldn't be as tasty as fresh sushi, but it does not really have any bearing on whether or not these steaks would be good without searing. Is there any reason that they specifically need to be seared? from the sound of it you have been thawing, searing and eating with basically a raw interior already? if so then I don't see how not searing is making a big difference from what your already consuming. With fish, you have two safety concerns: parasites and bacteria. Freezing gets rid of parasites. It does not kill bacteria. You need heat to kill bacteria, that's why officially, food is only considered safe after being cooked to a specific temperature. Eating thawed uncooked fish is officially unsafe, and if you tried to sell it to people, the FDA would come after you. This being said, if your personal safety standards are not as high as the FDA's (which are extremely conservative), nobody will stop you from eating it. It shouldn't be more dangerous than sushi, as long as you eat it immediately after thawing. There is the small probability of it being kept around some time before freezing (as opposed to sushi-intended fish which should be frozen on the boat immediately), but as fish deteriorates really quickly after death, you should be able to notice it smelling fishy if this is the case. The USDA and FDA doesn't technically have a "Sushi Grade" for fish...its more about how fresh it is, and how it was frozen when packaged..d ..Like with Salmon, you'd really only want to purchase a filet or slab of salmon that was a more fresh delivery to the store and defrosted no ealier than that morning so you can use it that day and no more than the next morning...I'm sure you'd want to use the same logic on your Tuna. Try this link...Pretty standard and good info.. http://www.sushifaq.com/sushi-sashimi-info/sushi-grade-fish/ Atlantic Bluefin 'Sushi/Sashimi Grade tuna' (Ahi is Yellowfin not the same species as Atlantic Bluefin) is only available from certified wholesalers, usually buying whole fish which are extremely expensive. All bluefin species are highly prized for sushi and sashimi. Know your fishmonger! If you don't, beware of what you're buying. Escolar is widely being sold as fresh tuna! It is NOT! Escolar has been banned from consumption in Japan since 1977, as the Japanese government considers it toxic! I'm lucky to be able to only buy from my fishmonger, whose family has been fishing for generations. Fresh caught (in season) & frozen immediately to kill parasites. I read that some people buy from places like Costco etc. Don't! The people in this thread think that Costco's frozen Ahi is pretty high quality. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/893242 @Philip Sams club Tuna consumer checking in. Yuuuum.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.290774	2013-04-06T04:07:40	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33264", "authors": [ "Amanda Sandoval", "Amy", "Ann", "Brendan", "Fin", "J. Greg Quintero", "Peter M", "Philip", "g33kz0r", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11044", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129132", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5500", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77068", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77069", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77080", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93341" ], "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 }
33284	Lifespan of chicken stock in fridge I boiled some chicken last week, and saved the stock for future use. But, as I don't have enough freezer space, I just put it in the fridge, so it has been liquid. Since, it has been a week, is it still safe to use? Thanks! This is answered in How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer? (see "cooked dishes"). Chicken broth is one of the most perishable foods there is—it is nearly a perfect growth medium. The FDA recommends storing it no more than 3-4 days. I would recommend only keeping chicken stock two or three days after cooking - much like cooked chicken itself. If your stock was made with vegetables, I would keep it for even less time - not because of safety, but because vegetable stocks quickly turn bitter.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.291059	2013-04-06T23:22:51	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33284", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "Amber Y", "Becky B", "King", "Ocracoke Island", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77123", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77124", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77125", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77126", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77187", "pche3675" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33517	How to color Jiaozi (chinese dumplings)? I am planning to make Jiaozi (Chinese dumplings) for a friend's party. Because she is vegatarian I'd like to make one set of vegetable dumplings and one set of conventional dumplings. To make it easy to tell these apart I'd like to color the dough for one of them. Can you suggest me a simple way to color the dough of the dumplings? The dough for Jiaozi is simply made from water and flour. I am mostly interested in ways to color the dough that use "natural" integredients as she does not really like artificial stuff. Also, what is the traditional Chinese way to color dough? What about just making different shapes? @Jefromi I'm not skilled enough to make shapes that are distinct enough. Also, I fear the guests may not be able to tell apart the shapes and accidentially eat the wrong ones. related to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7152/i-would-like-to-make-my-own-food-coloring-with-natural-vegetables-what-is-the-t?rq=1 While I agree with Jefromi that you could do different shapes, if that is not going to work for you, just serve them on differently colored or shaped platters, perhaps with a small sign telling your guests which is which. I find this is very effective. You don't have to color the food objects themselves; vegetarians are highly motivated not to eat the meat dumplings or buns or whatever.... I find the larger problem is sometimes making sure everyone doesn't eat up all of the vegetarian option. Yup, no matter how clearly you mark things, if you're making comparable vegetarian and meat options, you pretty much have to make enough vegetarian stuff for everyone. SAJ14SAJ and Jefromi are right ... last week I was at a conference, and they made the stupid mistake of putting the vegetarian sandiwches first in the buffet line -- with the result that they ran out before the majority of the vegetarians had been through the line. I find that the only good way to keep people from eating the vegetarian option is to mark it vegan ... I've tested identical plates of cookies, one marked vegan, one unmarked, and the vegan ones hardly get touched. @Joe Of course I plan to mark them. It's just that I want to color them additionally in order to avoid confusion. @FUZxxl Joe's suggestion was to tell a white lie, and mark them as vegan instead of vegetarian. People tend to think that vegan things will have left out some important ingredients, and be more "healthy" than "yummy". (I imagine it's more effective on cookies than dumplings, though.) You could add chopped fresh herbs to the dough. I'm not familiar with Jiaozi to know how much it would affect the texture, but its common in pasta dough. If you chop it fine enough, it should bleed quite a bit of green color into the dough. I don't know any particularly traditional food coloring methods, but I do know that tea is often used in place of water to change the color and taste of certain dishes (e.g. tea eggs). However, I doubt that is a flavor you really want to introduce into the dumpling dough. For Qingming Festival, Chinese will eat a vegetarian dumpling called "艾饺", pronounced: /aɪ tɕja/. This is easily distinguishable from other dumplings due to their vivid green color, see Baidu Baike, which comes from the ingredient 艾草, a variety of mugwort grown in China. As it's flour and water, you could likely use coloring used in Italian pastas, although most will impart some flavor of their own: green : spinach: cooked, strain some, run through a food processor, then strain again. Add back the spinach liquid in place of water for extra flavor. red : tomato paste or beets. black : squid ink (requires having a specialty store near you). Other common colorants: yellow : turmeric (or egg yolks for the non-vegetarian one, but this'll also change the characteristics of the dough) If you have the time, and want to be sure that they'll be obvious in low-light conditions, you can even make them striped If considering using squid ink, recall that it may not be considered vegetarian. Perhaps it was meant for marking the non-veg options, and it is fine for that purpose, but since it is an unusual additive, and its potentially vegetarian status was an actual question among a few people I know - best to be clear that it may not be. Megha : A good point -- it's definitely not vegan. As harvesting it requires killing the squid, it would probably be considered similar to gelatin, which most vegetarian will avoid That clears it up, and our question as well. The conversation I was part of was not sure if its harvest required the squid's death (if it might be gotten from a living animal, since the squid use it to hide), but generally thought that it was likely that it was harvested from a squid meant for food, and so certainly questionable unless we found otherwise. @Megha : I doubt the ink that the squid used for defense would be as useful, as it'd have been diluted in the water. (unless you got it out of the tank and then scared it ... but I have a feeling that vegetarians would be upset if the way to harvest it was to keep the squid in a state of fear).	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.291182	2013-04-16T04:40:51	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33517", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "FUZxxl", "Joe", "Megha", "SAJ14SAJ", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17866", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
38234	How do I use my lever press correctly? I have a lever press espresso machine and wondered how I can produce the optimal shot of espresso. I am using the single serving sieve and try to fill it up to a point so that after compressing the grinds, it tightly fits in the machine. Then I pull the lever up, wait until some espresso pours out and start to gently pull the level down. I do this twice. Is it OK to let espresso pour out? Should it be dripping or flowing or is this a bad sign? How often can I pull down the lever, does this change with the size of the sieve? Because manual machines work under the same premise as automatic machines, you can follow the standards for a normal espresso. Id suggest looking at other guides to making a good espresso, or even watching how the espresso is poured at your favorite cafe. Consistency The ideal consistency for espresso should come out between a pour and a drip in what I'm coining a half-drip. It should look like this: Brew Ratio The standard brew ration for an espresso is 1:2 - 1:1.5, 1.5-2 grams of water for every gram of coffee. Since a double basket is usually about 18g of coffee, you should aim for about 27-36g of espresso. Since every manual machine is different, you'll have to play around to see how many times you need to pull the lever to get the right amount of espresso. This also means if you have a bigger basket, you will need to pull the lever down more times to get a similar shot. Just to add to the "half-drip" description: if it pours like a viscous liquid (maybe similar to honey), you're on the right track. The way (only way) to get that is fresh beans; 4-14 days post-roast tends to be the sweet spot, but some blends are great 30 days after roast as well. I aim for about 1.5-2 oz for a double, but that differs based on blend, age of beans, what flavor you prefer.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.291677	2013-11-07T12:46:26	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38234", "authors": [ "Bettina", "Ligaire", "Susan", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90047", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90049", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90111", "zoned post meridiem" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
36510	Using Soy Meat in Lasagna I made some vegan lasagna today, despite initial doubts it turned out pretty good. However the soy meat I used was a bit tasteless. I am not expecting it to taste like meat, I am completely happy with it having its own taste. However I think I could have gotten a bit more out of it. How I prepared it: I soaked the soy meat in water, I didn't completely fill the bowl but dredged it until most of the water was soaked in. Then I heated olive oil in a pot and added chopped red onions. Then I added the soy meat and some salt. After that I added the other ingredients of the tomato sauce (strained and chopped tomatoes, spices etc). The sauce itself was pleasing, just the meat missed something, maybe it was too soggy, maybe not enough salt. Maybe I should have separately fried it, adding it to the sauce after cooking? So how do I correctly prepare soy meat for lasagna? Can you clarify which soy meat you used? Are you referring to tofu? Or to tempeh? TVP (Textured Vegetable Protein)? "Soy crumbles"? Or possibly the westsoy brand seitan (primarily made with wheat but also contains soy?) Not trying to be nitpicky, but each could be used slightly differently. @Matthew The product is labeled in German and I am not completely familiar with the English names of different types of soy products. However, the link in the question leads to the wikipedia article on TVP, it basically looked like this, chunk sizes were about 1cm-2cm. I guess TVP is right, definitely neither tofu nor seitan. Assuming TVP is what you used... it is essentially a byproduct of the production of tofu, and as such is largely tasteless on its own. Generally, to use it you first rehydrate it with a 1:1-1.5 ratio of TVP to liquid. The liquid can be pretty much anything, from water, to broth, mustard, ketchup, liquid smoke, etc. Very similar to tofu, it will absorb the taste of whatever you prepare it with. When cooking it for vegans I usually use vegetable broth, water, vegan worcestershire sauce, a dash of liquid smoke and Bragg's Liquid Aminos (the liquid aminos and worcesershire sauce add some of the savory that you REALLY need to simulate beef). A small amount of sherry works well here too. Stir the liquids, and add them to the TVP and allow to rehydrate for about 10 minutes. Check about 5 minutes in and ensure you have enough liquid. It's usually better to have too much than too little as you can pour off the excess. You'll have to play around with what flavors you use in the liquid - as mentioned, TVP is more or less a blank palette. This is actually both a boon and a burden compared to store bought "meat crumbles" which are already seasoned. After rehydrating, it is ready to eat. You just need to warm it. So in the future, you can sweat your onions while it is rehydrating, add the sauce, and add the TVP last (just to bring it to heat). You'll have to play around with flavors that work best here. Sorry I can't be more specific, I usually don't use TVP for lasagne. HTH TVP (Textured Vegetable Protein) is a great meat substitute. It's easier to season than tofu, seitan, and tempeh (IMHO). Sautee a half onion add in some spices to match the dish then add in 1:1 ratio of vegan beef stock, chicken, or vegetable stock. Bring to a boil then cover and remove from heat for 15-20 minutes. TVP is the left over protein strands from the process of making tofu. Because it's essentially dehydrated, letting it soak up a broth base like I've described above means the flavors are now absorbed into the TVP pieces, marinating and cooking at the same time. Try adding a diced poblano pepper, 2 Tbs ground cumin, 1 Tsp chili powder, 2 Tbsp cilantro, and 1/2 Tbs of garlic powder for a tasty taco filling.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.291838	2013-09-03T15:34:58	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36510", "authors": [ "Baarn", "Kevin O'Neill", "Matthew", "Michael Knott", "No way", "YH Ng", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85674", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85675", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85676", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85702", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8717", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95018", "jason_13" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
20570	Why does boiling cream have such a drastic effect on my salted caramel? We have a recipe for a salted caramel spread that is basically a big pan of sugar, glucose, milk and butter, cooked until it becomes a thick paste, then mixed with double cream to achieve a smooth consistency and a glossy finish. Our only problem was that we kept having big variations between batches -- some ended up as thick, sticky spreads (like we intended), others were runny and sauce-like. After some experiments we discovered that the final stage of the process -- pouring the double cream in -- was responsible. Pour the cream cold and the caramel would come out runny; heat the cream before pouring and the final result would be thick and rich. Although we feel we're in control of the process now, I was wondering if anyone could explain to us why does heating or not heating the cream have such a big impact on the thickness of our spread. You don't tell us neither the ratio of double cream to caramel, nor the time you heat the completed mix, so this is just a guess. But it sounds logical that your problem is evaporation. Double cream consists mainly of fat and water. I don't remember the exact percentages, but more than half of it is water. So, if you heat cream, part of it evaporates during the heating, and it continues evaporating after being added to the pan with bubbling caramel. But if you use cold cream, its water hasn't evaporated during a heating phase, and if you add a large amount of cream to a hot caramel mixture, the whole mixture cools considerably. If you don't heat it and let it simmer for long enough afterwards, the water content of the cream continues thinning the spread. You end up with a runny sauce instead of a sticky spread. Instead of pre-boiling, you should be able to just simmer for longer time after adding the cream, if you find it more convenient. But you'll have to try it a few times until you have found the cooking time which gives you optimal consistency. Makes perfect sense! We'll probably experiment with simmering the final mixture (with the cream poured in) to see what other consistencies we can achieve too! Thanks so much for your answer! Other than evaporation as in the accepted answer, boiling the cream is also denaturing the proteins in the milk which provides a better, more pleasurable consistency.[0] Just ask any coffee drink connoisseur or barista, the magic of a Cafe Latte or any other milk and coffee drink is in the milk consistency. These coffee folk have don a lot of work and research into milk and milk temperatures. I'll sum it up here: don't go over 158F but do get up to 140F[1] you want the fats to melt and the whey to denature but you don't want the denatured whey combining with the lactose. I assume, it's ideal to have the denatured proteins combine with your sugary slurry instead. All in all, the advice 'boils down' to the same: simmer it. don't boil. Although i would argue keeping it under 158F(70C) at least until adding to the spread mixture. And even then maybe not. [0]: I don't care if it's half and half, whipping cream, heavy cream, double cream, or even butter. if it's not Ghee it's got milk protein in it. [1]: a good rundown of milk temp as it relates to coffee drinks: https://perfectdailygrind.com/2019/02/what-temperature-should-your-cappuccino-milk-be/ ok, i just double checked myself and technically whey doesn't denature until after 70C. so before 158F(70C) what you're really doing is smoothing the fats and condensing the milk. (evaporation). In reality, you don't want to denature the globulin and albumin because you'll break up the lactose/protein bonds which will make for a yucky flavor, I assume because they recombine in weird ways upon cooling. Burnt meat is yummy, Burnt milk is not. Ask Monsieur Maillard. I don't think that this is relevant here. First, both raw milk and scalded milk are quite tasty in both flavor and texture, so the effect you describe must be small. Second, I doubt that commercial baristas are allowed to use raw milk, only pasteurized or ESL, which has been heated to above 158 anyway. Third, the OP is unlikely to have access to raw double cream. Fourth, protein denaturation works slightly differently in the presence of large amounts of fat, and double cream is almost 50% fat. Fifth, the OP is dumping the cream into caramel at about 375 Fahrenheit, heating the cream instantly.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.292151	2012-01-18T16:39:49	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20570", "authors": [ "Eliška Roubalová", "GSKSIEEF", "James Stott", "Tomas Buteler", "anna", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45163", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45164", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45165", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45174", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8749", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
20549	Does oil evaporate? The oil is said to be evaporate at very high temperatures but while cooking something in pan with oil, is the smoke that goes upwards because of oil evaporation? If not why does the chambers of chimney get greasy after some time? Looking at olive oil you can see that atleast some of it's constituents (oleic and palmitic acid) has a boiling point of about 355 degrees celsius. This just shows that it depends on the oil, and various elements of the oil will turn to vapor at different speeds. @Max: Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. A mixture has a single boiling point. Its components do not boil separately. So it doesn't matter what the boiling points of the component fats in olive oil are; if it's possible for olive oil to boil, it will all do so together. (Note that this misconception is why so many people mistakenly think that you can simply boil away alcohol.) @Jefromi My error seems to be that the oil burns instead of evaporate. While it is true that a mixture of liquids will have a single boiling point, it is also true that this boiling point is somewhat of an average of the involved liquids. Also, I merely said that the various elements will turn to vapor at different speeds, which is the foundation of ethanol destillation. You can cook away the alcohol, atleast down to a very low percentage, but it's achieved by temperatures lower than boiling (or a good reflux system). @Max: Okay, fair enough, sorry. @Cascabel: ahem: fractional distillation - works entirely on boiling point separation of mixtures... @Cascabel: To expand on bob1's comment: Azeotropes have a single boiling point, because the vapor has the same composition as the liquid (e.g. ~95% ethanol in water). In general, though, the components of mixtures have separate boiling points and can thus, at least in theory, be separated by distillation. Many of the ideas we learn in highschool are in principle true, but only apply to a tiny, tidy portion of the world that is not representative of stuff we are going to encounter every day. One such idea is that substances have a melting point and a boiling point - in reality, some of them do and some don't. Oil is made of big organic molecules, containing long carbon chains. Unlike anorganic substances with small molecules (like water), heating oil does not lead to a point where the molecules stop attracting each other (that would be the boiling point). Instead, the big, fragile molecules just break up. Which means that oil has no boiling point at all, and it is impossible to produce oil in a gas phase. (You can produce something similar to "oil vapor" with a mister, but this consists of tiny droplets of liquid oil, not a real gas). As oil breaks up before it boils, there is no oil evaporation. You can destroy oil by heating it, because it will turn into something different than oil. You can also burn it by heating it in the presence of oxygen, and this is what happens when you see smoke coming from your pan. (This is chemically different from simple breaking up of molecules). But no, it does not evaporate. The chambers of the chimney get a greasy film because: 1) the particles in the smoke from smoking oil can feel somewhat greasy (pure soot feels greasy too) 2) when your oil breaks down under heat, some of the new molecules (pieces of oil molecules) can be light enough to become air borne and go up and build a film. While technically not an edible oil any more, they can have a greasy feeling to them. 3) When you fry, oil droplets fly through the air. You notice it on the stove around your pan, but I bet some droplets are small enough to be carried by the upward draft of hot air into the chimney. I simplified here a bit, because the oils we cook with are not made from a single chemical compound, they are a mix of different compounds. But the explanation still works for the mix, because it is always the same type of compound. +1! I do wonder if, under low pressure, oil might be able to evaporate. But most of us don't cook in vacuum chambers. @Cascabel Probably there is a pressure for which the oil would not be solid, or liquid. The effects reported by rumtscho are caused by the heat, which causes the long molecule of oil to break up before it can evaporate. That is the reason why using oil at too high temperature, or re-using it is not suggested: Those broken molecules are toxic for us. Breaking down before the boiling point is reached does not mean that oil molecules don't have vapor pressure (@C Yes, every substance theoretically has a boiling point, depending on pressure too (hydrogen at 0K in atmospheric pressure is still a gas). Still, quite a few substances are flammable - with flash point far below their boiling point. Oil, for example, will first start smoking, then go up in flames long before reaching its boiling point in our atmosphere with ~20% oxygen. Moreover, some substances undergo significant chemical reactions at certain temperatures, meaning whatever would eventually reach the boiling point will no longer be the original substance (thus the theoretical boiling point - the substance can't reach it because it will cease to exist and become something entirely different before reaching it.) I'm not entirely sure, but I'm fairly convinced thermal cracking temperature of oil is still below its boiling point, meaning no, even if you remove oxygen, oil will first separate into simple hydrocarbons, before they begin boiling. OTOH, vegetable oil dries up - gets thick and sticky (although very slowly), meaning it shouldn't be used for bearings, hinges and the like. But that's not really on-topic. While mixtures do have a specific boiling point, the amount of each component that boils off is not the same. If one of the components has a low boiling point compared to the others, then it is said to be more volatile, and so more of this component will boil off than the others when the boiling point is reached. Also, when you get above this volatile component's boiling point, it will be evaporating a fair amount even if the entire mixture isn't boiling. However, in the case of a mixture that interacts a lot on a molecular level, the situation is different. Water and alcohol are both very polar, and hold to each other relatively strongly. When this happens, once you boil off a certain amount of alcohol, you won't decrease the concentration, because the small amount left is held as tightly as the water is. However, in the case of oil, because air is present, the high temperature causes the oil to break down to the same components as you would get if you burnt it, even though it isn't technically burning (i.e. with a flame). When it burns, ideally, carbon dioxide and water is formed. However, since the temperature isn't as high as in a furnace for example, there is a lot of residual carbon left over. The airflow from the hot surface of the frying pan etc. pushes the carbon (Smoke), which is still very hot, onto the steel or brick, where it binds to imperfections in the steel's surface. Likewise, low boiling point oils can pass to the surfaces above, and very small droplets of more high boiling point oils can be carried upward in the bulk flow of hot air rising from the pan also. All this is from a chemical engineering perspective, but I hope you can read between the lines. Everything has a melting point and a vapour point but oil needs the extra heat added to get it to the vapour point. The smoke you see is the oil breaking down and turning into vapour. However, when you get oil build up in the oven hoods what is usually happening is a combination of vapourized oils and regular oil droplets which have been carried up with help from steam. I'm pretty sure that the smokepoint is before the boiling point. The oil do break down, but I'm not sure that smoke is classified as 'vapor'. It's just a by-product of the 'burning' of the oil.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.292511	2012-01-18T06:07:44	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20549", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Maimoona Gilani", "Martin Villumsen", "Matthias Brandl", "Max", "Swai", "avpaderno", "bob1", "cbeleites", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45114", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45115", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45116", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45134", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79837", "krabcakes", "sashang" ], "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 }
34702	Why does my cookbook want me to drain my tomatoes for a pasta sauce? I have an excellent recipe for pasta sauce, but I'm having trouble convincing people to try it because it contains a counter-intuitive and potentially wasteful instruction. The gist of it is this: Take a tin of plum tomatoes Pour the tomatoes into a seive and smush up the tomatoes themselves, draining away the tomato juice Heat with a teaspoon of sugar and a generous pinch of sea salt The resulting sauce is extremely addictive, but why do I have to drain the tomatoes? Tins of plum tomatoes aren't hugely expensive, but neither are they cheap, and I don't know why we'd want to waste tomato juice. Is it for the sake of taste (perhaps the juice is bitter?), or for texture instead? Convincing people to try eating it, or cooking it? You're not wasting anything with most canned tomatoes as all you are losing is water added in the canning process. If it was expensive, high quality tomatoes I'd think twice but for most tomatoes it makes perfect sense. @GdD - cooking it, but I think if I get them to try it, that problem might resolve itself! The main purpose is to allow you to get a thick, hearty sauce more quickly. By pre-draining the liquid, you lose a a very small amount of flavor, but save time and energy in reducing the sauce. Otherwise, you would simply have to boil away the excess liquid to get the desired consistency. Draining some of the juice allows you to get to a thick sauce quickly. It may also reduce some of the acidity which may be why you prefer this recipe. The thickness of the pasta sauce goes hand-in-hand with the shape of the pasta you're making. Different pasta shapes can hold different amount of water (say fusilli vs spaghetti) and traditionally you boil down the sauce to make it thicker so the pasta can hold it. However, this can have other effects including change of colour. You can save the tomato juice and make a mean bloody-mary/ceasar with it. Throw in some worcestershire sauce, tabasco, a stick of celery and optionally a stick of dried meat (e.g. beef jerky) and it's a meal onto its own. Tomato juice is also a great hangover cure. so either way, you can save the stuff and not waste it. While there is certainly traditional variation in pasta shapes across Italy, is there any evidence that they actually hold significantly different amounts of water? That sounds like an old nona's tale, much like "you must have a large volume of water to boil pasta." physics, says if water sticks you and you have more surface area, you hold more water. e.g. Regular Penne with ribbs holds more water trapped in the ribs than Penne Lisce. significant mando, significant. There are lots of true but non significant facts. For example, adding salt to the water raises its boiling temperature, except at culinary concentrations the effect is so small is to be completely negligible. To the Italians that bother making traditional variations it is significant. I certainly notice it, and it is enough to save guests from seeing their pasta resting in a puddle of soup. You can run your own experiments if you so desire, though. @SAJ14SAJ I'll be the first to say that sometimes tradition is based on bad assumptions, but in this case, the facts are both true and significant. This isn't a .01% boiling point elevation difference; for example, capellini has about twice the surface area per volume of spaghetti. But then the question is: why would a pasta with a lesser surface area ever be appropriate? And wouldn't the cook simply adjust the ratio of sauce to pasta, rather than straining or not straining the tomatoes? I am still finding it a little bit of a stretch. @SAJ14SAJ Because it's good enough (the sauce doesn't need help sticking), and you like the shape or texture - or perhaps even because the sauce is rich/strong enough that you actually want less sauce per pasta. There are a couple related questions, but I don't think one exactly about this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7722, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11152, and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19295. It can make your sauce watery and almost impossible to reduce in time for dinner. What I tend to do is drain them off and reduce the remaining liquid in another saucepan while the main pasta sauce is cooking and then add in the end when it's the desired consistency. I suppose it depends on the brand but one must assume that the juice contains a significant amount of water soluble vitamins and taste - my pasta sauce always has an intense rich tomato flavour.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.293112	2013-06-15T21:19:11	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34702", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "GdD", "Jimmy Breck-McKye", "John Connor", "MandoMando", "Pamela Burden", "PeteT1", "Pouria Almassi", "Purpleyin", "SAJ14SAJ", "Spammer", "Valerie Kugler", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80953", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80954", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80955", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80956", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81011", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81031", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81035", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81077", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8828", "par" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
25708	Stew in the oven or on the stove, does it make a difference? What is the advantage (if any) of finalizing a stew or other slow-cooked meals in the oven instead of on a hob? A lot of recipes tells you to set the pot in the oven to cook for x hours after the initial frying has been done on the stove. Why is that, couldn't you just as easily cook it at a low temperature on a hob for the same period of time? The only advantage I can see is that the dish maybe doesn't burn as easily when cooked in the oven. In the oven, that heat is coming from all directions more or less equally. On the stovetop, the heat is coming only from the bottom. This can potentially cause convection, and almost certainly requires occasional stirring (especially for larger batches), meaning that the ingredients are being moved around. The combination of the ingredients being heated more when they're at the bottom and the movement can cause them to start breaking apart, and generally cook unevenly. Personally, I only find this to be an issue with beans and meat (and it's not something that's going to cause failure; it's really just a refinement) but if you are making an especially large batch of stew, you may want to try the oven. Generally speaking, stews are cooked on the hob when the liquid element requires a reasonable amount of reduction. Casseroles (stews done in the oven) are generally covered for the majority of the cooking time, occasionally being uncovered near the end to thicken up a little. IF you're lazy like I am ... to thicken a stew, grate a potato in, then bring up to a simmer ... it'll break down and release starches to thicken the stew. If you have instant potato flakes, those work too. I can think of two advantages: Less heat in the kitchen. (if it's cool outside, fine, losing heat to the ambient air might be useful ... other times, it's not so nice) Convenience. When you keep the stew (or other long cooking item) on the stovetop, you need to stir it occassionally. The heat from all sides helps, but the fact that you don't need to effectively overheat the stuff at the bottom (so that the remaining heat can conduct / convect though ... or be lost to the air), reduces the need to check on it so often and give it a stir. ... And, then there's the fact that it's actually the traditional way of doing some stews. Housewives would drop off their assembled dishes with the baker, he'd put them in the oven after he was done with the baking for the day, and leave them in the cooling oven, they'd then collect them in the afternoon. This freed up the housewife from having to slave over the fire all day, so that she could do other tasks (eg, laundry, back in the days when required going out to a stream and beating the clothes) I had always thought that an enclosed insulated oven conserves more heat, and hence electricity, than an open stove. When you install your oven, did you pad it with insulation? When I touch the glass door of an over that had been running 450 for an hour - I could barely feel the heat. You can only make thin stews in the stove. If the stew is meant to be eaten after it has hardened, you can't make it on the stove. It won't be dry enough, and the topping won't bake. I used to do corned beef braised in beer on the stovetop, now I start it on the stovetop and do most of the cooking in the oven. The flavor is far superior due to the heat being all around the heavy pot.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.293613	2012-08-17T14:47:16	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25708", "authors": [ "Ash", "Cindy", "Cynthia", "Homster", "Joe", "Robert", "Samuel Ketcham", "Steve", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58962", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58963", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58964", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58967", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58985", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58986", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59006", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "logan rakai" ], "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 }
59955	Cryoconcentration, can you do it yourself? I'm looking to concentrate freshly pressed apple juice. In order keep the apple-freshness I would very much like to avoid heating up the juice. Does anyone have experience with cryoconcentration, is it possible to do yourself? I was thinking about putting the juice in the freezer while constantly stirring it (using a magnetic stirrer), and once in awhile strain away the ice crystals and hopefully reduce it by half. Is it possible to do? Any pointers would be highly appreciated. if you freeze apple juice while stirring it, you'll end up with a grainy sorbet. Why do you think there will be more apple solute concentration outside of the crystals? Do you plan on using a second solvent? My thought is that the water will freeze first, kind of like slush ice. And the by filtrating the water crystals I would get at more concentrated apple juice. Why do you think that water will freeze before anything else? The only condition in which this will work is if the freezing point of water is above the freezing point of anything else. I really rather doubt that this is true... This worked for me as an experiment in freeze concentration (of plums) and freeze distillation (of a lemon juice/vodka mix). It is not fast. Remove the pith, stem, seeds, and the rest from the fruit you want to use. If you want to extract with alcohol, add full-strength vodka now, at about 50/50 ratio with the fruit. Blend it Freeze in a strong plastic bag, preferably inside a bowl, until it is solid. Twenty four hours should be good but the longer the better to grow the ice crystals Break it up into a crystalline slurry with a hammer whilst still in the plastic bag (but not in the bowl, of course. This is why the bag needs to be quite robust. Fruit juice does not freeze as hard as water so 'slurrifying' is easier than you would think. Put the crushed slurry in a sieve, over a bowl and put in the fridge to thaw slowly. Doing it in the fridge is important because you want the whole thing to thaw very slowly and evenly Leave it until you judge the extract to be about the right strength. If you are just concentrating fruit juice, it is up to your judgement how long you leave it to 'melt', depending on how strong you want the resulting syrup. A lot of fruits are around 10% sugar so you can get a strong syrup by taking syrup equivalent to about 1/5 of the original (sugar recovery is not complete but I judged it to be pretty efficient because the remaining ice had only slight sweetness). If you added vodka, it will tell you when it is ready because the melt pauses for a few hours after the alcohol is through but before the water starts to melt. The alcohol will collect all of the flavour chemicals and a lot of the sugars. I did it with lemons (including the zest in the blend). The result was a super-intense liquor. I do not know what possible value such a labour-intensive method is, but it produces a very clean essence (no heating, you see) and I enjoyed the experiment when my wife was away and could not object. If you try it, please tell me how you get on. Yes, you can do it yourself: People have done this to concentrate alcohol, and other water contaminants, at least as far back as the middle ages. Example: Fractional freezing -- "jacking" in old parlance -- has a long history in the United States. The beverage applejack was produced using this method by first fermenting apple juice into hard apple cider. Then barrels of this cider were left outside during the winter and the connoisseur would occasionally fish out the frozen chunks of water, leaving an ever-concentrated batch of hard alcohol behind. At some point in the 20-25 percent ABV range, the liquor would stop freezing at ambient temperatures and the booze was ready to consume as "Jersey Lightning." It was also used as currency. Wikipedia has a short piece on fractional freezing, but you're better off looking into use by home brewers; ignoring the alcohol part of the equation of course. Generally stirring is not required. You just let the liquid partially freeze, then pull out the ice chunks. The result is relatively pure water ice, and concentrated juice of whatever you started with. Obviously, you can repeat the process several times to end up with a stronger juice. As the phase diagram in link 1 shows, a -20° (-4°F) will get you alcohol up to 30%. Bear in mind that the fractionation isn't perfect, and some compounds tend to freeze along with the ice more than others. The existence of Applejack suggests that your apple juice concentration scheme will work. I'd just not bother with the stirplate. You can also let the juice freeze solid, then let it thaw over a strainer - the concentrated fruit juice will drip out first and leave much of the water behind. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/46411/25059 I find your last sentence plain wrong. Applejack only means that this scheme works for concentrating alcohol. We have a totally different situation here. The process may work or not for concentrating a fruit juice, but as it has a very different chemistry from apple jack, I don't see it as relevant. @rumtscho Much of which gives applejack its flavor is not booze, it is the fruit. Freeze concentration of fruit juices is hardly new science: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260877411000999 Here's an illustrated 'how to' for Cranberry juice from last year: http://www.abarabove.com/juice-concentrate/ The exact best protocol will of course depend on the juice involved. I know applejack keeps the fruit taste. But we still cannot leap to the conclusion that pure juice will keep its taste too, because the alcohol plays a major part in the thermodynamics of applejack cryoconcentration. It's good to know that it still works for pure juice, as evidenced by your cranberry link, but the applejack analogy is by itself not sufficient for claiming that it should work. We're not leaping conclusions. We did synthetic chemistry/biochem for 30 years, and cryoconcentration happens with most watery contaminants. The original question asks about freezing apple juice to concentrate it. I can answer it as I have done it easily at home with unpasteurized cider. It works quite easily. How I did it was to just remove a little cider from the plastic 1gal jug and place it in the freezer for a couple days. After frozen I just took off the lid, set it upside down in a clean container like a large margarine tub and moved it to the fridge. The concentrated juice starts to melt first leaving the ice behind. Empty the tub occasionally. I typically concentrated to about 1/3 the original volume which I then used to make a very sweet and high alcohol ice wine. If I were to do it again I likely wouldn't concentrate it quite as much as it was a bit sweeter than I would like. Apple jack is a different animal. I haven't tried that yet. Apple juice or cider (unfermented) is fundamentally a sugar solution. As is any fruit juice. Water does, indeed, freeze out of solution first, leaving a more concentrated sugar solution. Having partially-frozen plastic jugs of cider inadvertently, what pours off is definitely concentrated (and what's left in the jug after the ice melts is then rather weak, assuming you leave the ice in the jug; which is normal, since getting all the ice out of a jug with a narrow mouth is difficult.) I've never done this with cider deliberately, but I have LOTS of experience with another sugar solution which is often subject to freezing - maple sap. And you can very definitely increase the sweetness (concentration of non-water components) of the remaining liquid by freezing it. It's inefficient (you lose some sugar when removing the ice) but it does work. Due to the loss of sugar that is rarely used as the means of concentrating maple sap, but it's often seen/tasted when buckets of sap freeze, or when freezing sap to keep the storage container of sap cold until you are done boiling.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.294234	2015-08-16T12:54:32	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59955", "authors": [ "Abhimanyu Karkara", "Boris the Spider", "Christine Richardson", "Jakob", "Julie Wilcox", "Nola Leclair", "Richard Mccance", "Sirima Amarakone", "Tammy Johnston", "Wayfaring Stranger", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10357", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143399", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143400", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143426", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143458", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152895", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27204", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455", "logophobe", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
24376	Dissolving Egg Shell I know that an egg shell is made up of approximately 92% Calcium Carbonate. The remaining percentage of the mass is a protein matrix. I know that vinegar (5% acetic acid) dissolves the Calcium Carbonate. Does any other food (such as lemon juice or some other acid) dissolve the shell of an egg. If so, how long does the process take? I want to dissolve the shell of the egg before I soft-cook it. Before you soft-cook it? What is that going to get you that cracking the egg wouldn't? Science is why. Also cracking the egg risks breaking the inner membrane and leaking the albumen. Dissolving the shell would not dissolve the membrane. Any acid will do it eventually. I know it takes a few days with vinegar. But you'll need to leave it in the fridge if you intend to eat it, so it'll probably take longer. Also, you're pretty well guaranteed to pick up some flavour from your acid. Someone once had me on in a pub that you could pickle eggs by simply placing a raw egg in a jar of vinegar and the energy released by the shell dissolving would hard boil the egg. When I got back home I put a raw egg in a vinegar filled jar. Immediately air bubbles appeared around the shell as some chemical reaction kicked off. The shell was completely dissolved in about 3 days. The egg was raw and no doubt gone off since it had been denyed its naturally given vacuum pack, i.e. the shell. My memory of how acids work from high school chemistry is that pretty much any acid will dissolve the shell, eventually, given enough acid. Depending on the concentration, the type, and the volume of the acid, the amount of acid you require will vary though. There will also be variability between eggs; some will have a much thicker shell than others. If you want to eat the end product, that will of course rule out any acids that aren't food safe. I disagree with @RossHolloway's answer that the egg will automatically go off because its shell has gone. This site indicates that the shell itself is porous and though they say the shell can block bacteria they also say the inner membranes "provide efficient defense against bacterial invasion". The next question is whether the acid will also affect the inner membrane (you may want it intact). My link states that the membrane is made of keratin, which is a protein. I suspect it will not dissolve quickly in some weaker types of acid, so it probably is possible to completely dissolve the shell but not the membrane. Maybe someone else can expand on this? Raw eggs (without the shell) already keep for a few days in the fridge, and this is true even if you've broken the membrane when you cracked it, so I don't really see why there'd be a safety issue from the amount of time it takes. The reason vinegar ruins the naked egg is that the vinegar moves into the egg by osmosis. That's a function of time and of concentration. The longer the egg soaks, the more acid it absorbs. I haven't tried this variation of the experiment yet, but I've made a naked egg for non-cooking purposes. I've been thinking how to do this, and here's what I've got: 1) Use a more concentrated vinegar to weaken the shell faster, so it doesn't soak as long. Be prepared to remove most of the shell by hand when it's weak enough. The egg's membranes should hold up fine if you're careful. 2) Once the shell is sufficiently compromised to allow expansion, try soaking it in distilled (or highly purified) water. The egg will expand, and that should counter some of the osmotic pressure, keeping the vinegar out. It will also make removing shell pieces by hand easier. Expect it to take a few days. Also, I don't know if you're using supermarket eggs or something sturdier, but the shells on most supermarket eggs are thinner to begin with. I wouldn't try this on a free-range egg from your henhouse. I have put uncracked boilled eggs(with shell) in a jar of pickled eggs (without shell) i bought at the store. And in less than 1 week there was nothing left of the shell. save for a little muck at the bottom of the jar I have also boilled eggs in about aquart of water with about 2 tbl spoons of citric acid (sour salt) The eggs come out marbled looking black and white and quite beautifull with no sour taste to the egg.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.294859	2012-06-12T04:18:11	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24376", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Chris Cudmore", "Matt Krause", "Peyton B", "Turnerj", "cytinus", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10507", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55488", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55489", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55490", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70715", "tiisetso" ], "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 }
24377	Flavor and Chemical Composition of Thyme What is the flavor of Thyme? What chemicals give it this flavor? Thyme is dominated by the phenolic compound thymol, with the terpenes pinene, cymene, and linalool adding additional pine, citrus, and flowery flavors, respectively. Source: On Food and Cooking (revised edition), pp 391, and table on 392. If you're into the chemistry of flavor, I highly suggest buying a copy, because the same table lists main flavor compounds for dozens of common ingredients and flavorings.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.295233	2012-06-12T04:39:13	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24377", "authors": [ "Dror Sh.", "Gilbert Garcia", "Hue Nery", "Ivana", "Latoya Johnson Panton", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55496", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55497", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55498", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55525", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55526" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
41757	Determining sugar content of liqueurs My girlfriend and I have been experimenting with making different flavors of chocolate truffles. One difficulty with this is that different flavorings have different amounts of sugar, meaning we need to adjust the amount of other sweetening in the truffle to keep it from being overly sweet or bitter (usually by changing the ratio of unsweetened to semisweet chocolate). Obviously getting the sweetness exactly right is going to take some experimentation, but we'd like to be able to start by making the total amount of sugar in each truffle the same, no matter what flavor it is. We can figure out approximately how sweet most flavorings are are by using their "Nutrition Facts" labels. Unfortunately, alcoholic drinks don't come with these labels, which means we need a different strategy for liqueur-flavored truffles. Neither of us drinks very much alcohol, so we don't have a very good intuition for which potential flavors might be sweeter. Googling gives several sites with widely varying numbers, and I don't know which ones to trust. For example, this site claims an ounce of Kahlua has 11.2 g of sugar, while this site claims it's 15 g. Is there a good way to determine how much sugar is in a given liqueur? Ideally, I would like either a pointer to a reliable source, or a simple experiment I could do myself to determine sugar content. The amount of liqueur you should be using in a truffle should be small enough that you don't really need to worry about adjustments in the chocolate to balance sweetness, even across extremes like bourbon to khalua. For example, 15 g of sugar is about a teaspoon and a half, spread across the entire batch. @SAJ14SAJ: The base recipe we're using gets about 100 g of sugar from chocolate, and calls for 2 oz of liqueur. Are you saying that a 30% difference in sugar content is irrelevant, or are your truffles sweeter and/or less alcoholic than that? No idea if this would work (hence just a comment) but I wonder if diluting and measuring using a blood glucose meter would be an option? In my practical experience, and in the truffle class I took at Peter Kumps, it simply doesn't come up as an issue. Unless you are doing blind tastings to compare truffles, humans are not highly accurate sweetness detectors. We are good at presence, not magnitude. And if you are that obsessed, you won't be using unsweetened chocolate which is generally poorly conched, and you will be custom making each mix and balancing it by taste, not by formula. @PeterJ: That's a really cool idea. Unfortunately, glucose meters don't detect sucrose. So I'd probably have to pretreat it with an enzyme, which would likely push this into the "more trouble than it's worth" category... Even if you could accurately determine the concentration of sugar in different liqueurs, that wouldn't answer your question. The overall sweetness of the liqueur is determined not just by the sugar content but my the strength of flavor, sweetness and bitterness of the other ingredients too. Some ingredients are a lot sweeter than others without added sugar, some things are extremely bitter or astringent. Your best bet is to gauge the sweetness of the liqueur by taste, not by the numbers. Imagine a cup of very dark, deep espresso. Next to that is a cup of Dunkin Donuts morning coffee with cream. For some reason you want your 5 year old to drink 6 ounces of each. Neither contains sugar before it's added, but the kid can add his own sugar to down the coffee. Which is going to get more sugar? Does that really make the espresso more sweet than the Dunkin Donuts coffee? There are sugar meters for wine, I don't know if they work with liqueurs (they are density based). Wine brewers also use titration for determining the perceived sourness of a wine (to decide whether to add sugar), but I don't know if they let you make conclusions about perceived sweetness in a liqeur. And in the end, most tastes are not antagonistic to sweetness in a way to completely change the perception the way sour taste is; bitter and salty components don't reduce the perceived sweetness, but people still like adding more sugar when they are present. There are also optical refraction based brix meters, but those are designed for simple syrup (sugar/water mixes), not sure how well they work on liquor. What you need is a refractometer, also known as a Brix meter. They can be quite inexpensive. Brix is essentially sucrose in baker's percentages, so 1 gram of sugar in 100 grams of water is 1 brix. You just need to choose a model that measures in the range you are interested in. Here are some on Amazon. Do these work on spirits as well as simple syrups? @SAJ14SAJ There are brix meters frequently used in wine making. I would be more concerned about other ingredients in the liqeur than alcohol. (And I don't know if they are the refraction type - my grandma used the density type). @rumtscho The differing density of water/alchohol and the mixture thereof would certainly throw of a density based brix meter. @SAJ14SAJ it's nevertheless widely used. Maybe it gets calibrated for wine (whose alcohol content is in narrow limits), or maybe the difference is not significant in everyday use. Or, in the end, maybe my grandma (together with many others) just found her wine good enough that way, and didn't care to improve. But the empirical observation stands: these things are in use. @rumtscho It is far from obvious that they generalize--in any accurate way--to liqueurs with their higher and more varied alcohol content regardless of whether they are used in other contexts or not. @SAJ14SAJ but it is also far from obvious that they should be completely excluded from consideration just because liqueurs are alcohol based @rumtscho which is why I asked... and we still don't have an answer as to whether they are applicable. @SAJ14SAJ I agree that we don't have such an answer, and it seems that neither of us will be able to provide such an answer (unless one of us commits to further study). I just wanted to point out that your objection does not render them irrelevant and that seeking an answer can be worthwhile for the OP, especially if we don't know if the refractive ones are better Alcohol does affect index of refraction. On the other hand, alcohol percentages are marked on the bottle, so I ought to be able to correct for that. I'm not sure I'd trust this on its own (both because I don't know what the error bars in reported alcohol percentage are and because of @rumtscho's point about dissolved solids) but it seems like a solid start...	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.295330	2014-02-04T06:20:58	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41757", "authors": [ "ChristopheLynch", "Hien Nguyen", "Jolenealaska", "Micah", "PeterJ", "SAJ14SAJ", "Spammer", "antoine", "derobert", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10614", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97381", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97382", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97383", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97492", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
28543	Is there a way to save cookies that were baked without flour? I forgot to put flour into my cookies (though I was careful to remember the oatmeal, and I blame the lack of flour on that). They are absolutely delicious, but also difficult to eat because they have more the consistency of goopy pie filling than a cookie that you could hold in your hand. Ideas include mashing them up, balling them, and freezing; and mashing them up, adding flour, and rebaking. I understand that at this point they'll never be quite like cookies, but I refuse to waste them, and that would be easier if I could get them into a more manageable to eat format. If they contain enough butter they may firm-up enough just by storing them in the fridge. I've had them in the fridge for a while, and they're still pretty mushy. I'm thinking about freezing them as I mentioned. Mix them with vanilla ice cream? I wonder if you could coat in batter and deep fry... Once it's baked that's really it, re-baking them will likely ruin them. Why not make drop cookies and put them in the fridge? They'll keep for most of the week that way.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.295838	2012-11-21T10:19:34	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28543", "authors": [ "Chris Steinbach", "Eddie", "John doe", "SDROSE", "clweeks", "derobert", "economistdolly", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65947", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65948", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65949", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65950" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
24688	Cooking Chemistry: lemon juice/soymilk buttermilk substitute turning bitter and 'rising' I made a soup recipe the other night (mainly potato, spinach, and veggie broth) that called for buttermilk. I substituted soymilk and lemon juice, reading online that that was a good substitution for buttermilk. Now, about 48h of refrigeration later, the leftovers are bitter and a little bit bubbly - it's as if they are 'rising' like a baked good would (I imagine my buttermilk substitute was intended for baking). What can I put in to stop this chemistry and, for bonus points, nullify the bitterness? It's to the point where it's physically difficult to eat - I'm having trouble keeping the few bites I forced myself through down - but I abhor the idea of wasting food. (I tagged this baking thinking that people who frequent that tag may have a better than average understanding of the chemistry behind this) That sounds like an acid-base reaction, between the lemon juice and some carbonate-containing base... but I'm at a loss for why it would occur with soymilk. To google! Sounds more like curdling to me. I don't know about bitterness, but soy milk will coagulate in anything even mildly acidic, like coffee. @Aaronut: I can believe that, but how do you account for the foaming? @aaronut- FYI. soy milk actually coagulates more readily in the presence of calcium or magnesium ions. Coffee has a fair amount of magnesium in it that I would blame for the coagulation before the acidity. Soy proteins coagulate at a pH of 4.5. @BobMcGee - any thoughts on the foaming? @humanstory: Sobachatina's answer tracks perfectly with what I know of the chemistry involved here (limited because I don't know much about soymilk). Soy milk is bitter. Enzymes in the beans (lipoxygenase) combine with fats in the presence of water to produce what is usually described as a "beany flavor"; bitter and grassy. The solution to this problem, although not done in many traditional soy milk preparations, is to cook the soy milk long enough to destroy the enzyme. Many, but not all, soy milk manufacturers will cook the milk as well as add a lot of flavorings to mask the bean flavor. When enough lemon juice is added to soy milk it will coagulate but in my experience it does not produce flavors more bitter than the milk itself. I have, however, found that, regardless of coagulant, soy milk declines in quality very quickly and, even when I thoroughly boil it to deactivate enzymes and "beany" compounds, it will go from sweet to bitter in just a few days. I have also had homemade soy milk start to turn after a relatively short amount of time developing rancid flavors or activity that implied fermentation such as independently souring or clabbering. I don't have any proof but based on my own experience I suspect that the lemon is not the culprit. If your milk has become so bitter as to be inedible then I think your soy milk may have spoiled. As for the foaming- in your comment below you mentioned that the soymilk in question was Silk. Silk is one of the most modified soymilks- they definitely err on the side of flavor rather than simplicity and have a lot of additives for flavor and texture. One of the additives is Calcium Carbonate. Calcium Carbonate gently coagulates soymilk and is sometimes used for making silken tofu. In Silk it is no doubt used to make the product more creamy. The existence of Calcium Carbonate in your milk could explain your foaming as it can form CO2 in the presence of acids. Notes Soy milk does not coagulate well with lemon juice. It requires a lot of acid to coagulate and so is overly sour and it abruptly produces a very fragile curd. I agree that the advice that you read must have been for baking. If you can't use real buttermilk then in such a dish I would recommend silken tofu for the creaminess and don't worry about the acidity. In general the way to temper bitterness is to add salt. As a rule of thumb food that is bitter is often poisonous. I don't imply that that is the case here but you should trust your tongue better and not feel forced to eat questionable food. The soymilk was Silk, which I imagine is fairly well cooked/preserved given that I can't pronounce some of the ingredients BUT this does explain why a couple other things that I've thrown soymilk into in the past have gone bitter quickly as well, regardless of whether or not there was lemon present. Do you have thoughts on other non-dairy milks one could use instead, that would hold up better a few days into being a leftover? Also, I appreciate you mentioning that it could be poisonous - I may have forced myself to stomach it, otherwise. Thanks for the thorough answer! @humanstory- to be clear, soymilk goes bitter easily enough that I don't think the bitterness is an indicator of poisonousness. My advice was to in general trust your tongue. As for a buttermilk substitute, again, try adding silken tofu to the soup when it is served just for the creaminess. Don't add the tofu to cook with the soup because it could accidentally further coagulate in the high heat. Hmm, I think that perhaps it was an order of bitter beyond simply bitter soymilk? Generally I can close my eyes and force things down, but the few bites I managed of this kept me feeling a little queasy for almost an hour. Perhaps @bobmcgee above was right that there was more to it than the soymilk. All of the chemistry here makes perfect sense, and the logic here seems sound. Spoilage (or enzyme reactions) give rise to the extra bitterness, possibly in combination with additives. The calcium carbonate + acid gives the foaming, as I suspected. Excellent job analyzing and researching this one, @Sobachatina!	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.295992	2012-06-25T22:03:57	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24688", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "BobMcGee", "Sobachatina", "economistdolly", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33534	Chili and bell pepper substitute due to allergies? I recently learned that I am allergic to ALL forms of pepper except black pepper. Bell peppers, chili peppers, etc. I am allergic to and it makes my throat swell up. I have several recipes using ground chili pepper. Is there a substitute spice that will give my (mostly ground beef casseroles) recipes SOME flavor? related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12562/67 Do you know if you're allergic to capsaicin, or to something else in the peppers? If you're not allergic to capsaicin, you could probably buy pure capsaicin and add a tiny amout to dried tomatoes for a "pepper" flavor and texture. That's assuming you're not allergic to tomatoes as well, of course ... Black pepper, which you say is OK for you, is usually underestimated in terms of heat (we are used to use tiny amounts) and flavour (the average stuff we get is not the best available, doubly so if preground and/or stale). To make the best of it, IMHO, freshly ground or mortar&pestle... The chinese actually make a condiment/cooking sauce out of mostly black pepper, tried the bottled version once and found it respectably spicy (read: would likely be too f.... hot for the average american/european palate) White pepper, Galangal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galangal Galangal is kind of like ginger on steroids; well wort a try. You can get it dried, and it retains most flavor. You are not going to find anything outside the chili family that gives quite the same flavor, so substituting flavor-wise is not going to be possible. Note that paprika is a spice ground from particular pepper, so if you are allergic to all capsicum peppers, you don't want to use it. What you can do is build other flavorful combinations which you enjoy and which you can eat. Some things to consider that bring a touch of some type of heat with them include: Mustard powder (a touch of mustard-type heat, and a deep flavor. Probably want to combine with some herbs like oregano or rosemary. Horseradish (just a touch for piquancy) Ginger, which will work very well in Asian inspired dishes, and in combination with those flavors Szechaun peppercorns (not a capsicum pepper) -- they have a unique flavor and effect; you will have to decide if you like them All of these flavors are "hot" but from different chemicals than the capsicum peppers, so they will all have different effects. You may also want to experiment with ground papaya seeds. The flavor is similar to black pepper, and they also act as a meat tenderizer. Adding to the list: raw garlic freshly cut/squeezed. It can get very spicy, although it's "slow burn", takes time to reach the full burn potential on the tongue - and cooking it even just a bit completely kills the heat, plus some people seem completely, 100% immune to the burn. Plus there may be... "social repercussions". I share your allergy and have for some time. First - I'm very sorry, it's not a fun one to have. Second - there are a lot of spices you can use that give color and flavor without going into the pepper family. I have a recipe for a curry powder you can use: 2 tablespoons whole cumin seeds, toasted 2 tablespoons whole cardamom seeds, toasted 2 tablespoons whole coriander seeds, toasted 1/4 cup ground turmeric 1 tablespoon dry mustard It's adapted from an Alton Brown recipe (no cayenne) but the cumin still adds a bit of a kick without requiring an epi-pen. Also - you can use wasabi in some cooking - it gives a bit of a bite as well. I also use tumeric, as it adds color as well as flavor. I use quite a bit of raw garlic and onion, as it gives a bit of a bite to food, but too much will leave a casserole bitter. Hope this helps! DO NOT USE WASABI! "wasabi" which is marketed in the USA and Western Europe is generally 0-30% actual wasabi root, and the rest made up with powders from jalopenos and other chili peppers. This allergy sufferer would have a reaction. @FuzzyChef I'm sure some products labeled as wasabi use chili peppers, but not all. Real wasabi can be found in the US, and others have horseradish and mustard, but no chili. Good point, anyone with allergies should read the label, but wasabi isn't necessarily verboten. See this answer for more: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50329/how-much-of-wasabi-is-actually-wasabi-in-the-united-states/50336#50336 One of the ingredient lists is suspect because it lists "natural flavor", I don't know chili powder can fall under that or not. Sure. But since the original question was about allergies, you shouldn't recommend a product which often contains what the person is allergic to without warning them. And yes, chili powder can fall under "natural flavor", but more likely extracted pure capsaicin can. And we don't know if the OP is allergic to capsaicin. Galangal root is a possibility (more info). It's sort of like ginger that's been kicked up a notch on the hot/spicy axis. Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai stores will have it. There's also a powdered form available online. I've never tried that, but maybe it doesn't suffer the same terrible fate as powdered ginger. Prickly ash (Sichuan pepper) and Japanese Prickly ash are other possibilities. The Sichuan pepper does add a funny sort of heat to things. I've never found the Japanese version to try. Thanks for all the tips. I have arthritis and any thing in the 'deadly night shade family of plants is bad for us. That is: Potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, chilli and its sidekick Paprika. These two latter things make my joints swell - not life threatening but very painful. In looking for an alternative, I have found some Garam Masala does not contain any Chilli or Paprika and many recipes for Korma curry do not use chilli. It doesn't quite have the kick but it is very tasty. Be very careful with mustard. Premade mustard contains paprika. I make my own for recipes that call for it, and use the dry mustard to cook often. Cumin is a wonderful way to add flavor, and I especially like corriander. Experiment and see what you like best. Its a bit of a crapshoot and everyone's tastes are a little different. Cook in small batches, so there's no leftovers, until you find what you like best. Good luck! Some premade mustard contains paprika (French's does, for example); however, there are plenty that don't. Neither Maille nor Coleman's contains paprika; Grey Poupon has no paprika but does have all kinds of random junk. Black Pepper falls into a very different plant family than chilies and bell peppers. Also the compound that produces the spicyness is different (piperine vs capsaicin). There's are a A LOT of different pepper species that should offer some variety if you can get a hold of them. Also don't underestimate the differences in black pepper alone. This site also lists a few other species that are sold as "pepper" but are neither Solanaceae nor Piperaceae: Schinus Molle / Pink pepper Prickly Ash / Sichuan pepper And as others have suggested, the Ginger family is always a good source of flavorfull spicyness. Further options for spicyness taken from this answer: Horseradish Mustard Or Wasabi as others have also already suggested and warned about fakes. I'm allergic to red chili pepper and usually make do with ginger, mustard and some cumin. At last! Other people who are allergic to all forms of capsicum. I thought I was alone. I use mustard (Colman’s) and lots of black pepper. I am not that fond of heat.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.296555	2013-04-16T15:11:28	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33534", "authors": [ "David Richerby", "FuzzyChef", "Joe", "Jolenealaska", "Manoj Chaudhry", "Matthias Hofmarcher", "SF.", "Wayfaring Stranger", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101737", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122169", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122175", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "malik kashif", "mrog", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116777	Is a partially translucent banana safe to cook with? I let my bananas get very ripe prior to making banana bread with them. This time one of the bananas had become translucent at the top towards the stem. See attached photo. Is this banana still safe to cook with? I would chop off the translucent part and bit use the remaining non-translucent banana for cooking. The whole thing, including the translucent part is fine to cook with. As they ripen, fruits convert their starches to sugar. Starch isn’t water soluble, but sugar is. So as ripening happens, the sugar dissolves into the moisture of the ripe banana, giving it that translucent appearance. Additionally, as bananas ripen they deploy enzymes to weaken their usually firm cell walls, so that is why bananas soften over time. That’s also why super ripe bananas are actually much sweeter and great for cooking/baking. This banana looks great for banana bread to me!	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.297104	2021-08-10T19:23:27	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116777", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
33890	Is it okay to keep flour in the freezer? Years ago I noticed I was getting little bugs in the flour that I kept in the pantry. To prevent this, I started keeping my flour in the freezer. I don't do a lot of baking, but I was wondering what effects this might have on anything I do bake. Do baked goods turn out any differently when flour is kept in the freezer vs flour kept at room temperature? Also, if it's okay to freeze flour, how long will it last this way? Yes, of course you can keep flour in the freezer. For whole wheat flour, which is susceptible to rancidity due to the fat from the whole grain being included, it is even recommended. For white flour, according to the University of Nebraska Extension in Lancaster County (emphasis added): For longer storage, keep white flours in the refrigerator in an airtight container. All-purpose and bread flour will keep up to two years at 40 F in your refrigerator, according to the Wheat Foods Council. They can be stored indefinitely in the freezer. Short answer, yes provided you emphasize the airtightness of your storage container. I often trust the wisdom espoused on the forums of King Arthur Flour's website, and specifically this topic on freezing flour. All commenters who report personal anecdotes with freezing flour report positive ones. The one note that should be made is that self-rising flour could lose some effectiveness if frozen, "thawed", refrozen, etc due to the moisture changes. Also note that if you remove the cold flour from the freezer and let it sit at room temperature it will gather moisture from the air because of its temperature (ala a cold glass of water gathering condensation.) I've had great success freezing flour to kill the bugs. It's important to keep the chilled flour in its sealed container as its brought back to room temp. That way, condensation from ambient air will precipitate on the container and not the flour. Same with baked products that you freeze to store--keep them sealed up as they transition to room temp, and a slight crisping in the oven will bring them to almost new. @user57361, it's to kill insect eggs, primarily, but also to kill any tiny insects already in the flour. As a raw natural product, flour is typically contaminated with insects to some extent; the main question is how much. I know this is a little late, but IMHO, you should never store any flour, pancake mix or corn meal in its original package. That's the easiest way for bugs to get in. Always store it in airtight containers (such as Tupperware or something like it). Someone once recommended using glass mason jars with a good lid. I always cut the date from the paper package and place that on the top of the flour (that I've stored in Tupperware) so I can see at a glance when the best by date really is. If you really don't use a lot of flour, freeze some and date it. It will be fresh for months. Hope this helps. I found that this just wasn't enough. Even buying it from the store and putting it directly into airtight plastic containers with screw-on sealed lids, the flour still got bugs, because they aren't getting in, the eggs are are already in the flour when you buy it. Taking your suggestion one step further by storing the flour in the freezer once you've transferred it, does work to prevent the bugs from ever hatching. I know it does when making ginger cookies. The moisture picked up tends to make the cookies "flat" versus slightly raised with surface "cracking" which is so typical of ginger cookies. The moisture completely eliminates the characteristic "cracking". "the moisture picked up" sounds a bit strange, since most items dry out in the freezer - for example, freezer burn on meat is water moving from inside onto the surface. I purchase Gluten-free organic flour mix from Costco. It comes in a plastic air-tight bag with a tear-off resealable zip top. I store it in the freezer and take only what I need and combine it immediately with all other ingredients. Sometimes the use-by date has expired and the flour is still good, however, I am not a food scientist and cannot recommend using out-of-date anything to other people. Whenever I buy bulk grains, flours, beans, I put them in the freezer for a month. Or for years. If the freezer ever dies then all that dry goods just starts a shelf life. Freezing extends the life of these foods indefinitely. And kills all bugs.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.297219	2013-05-02T02:05:24	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33890", "authors": [ "Anoma Hettige", "Diana RS", "Laurence White", "Lizzie", "Quddus George", "briantist", "dfeuer", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107123", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27380", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29207", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78739", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78740", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78741", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78744", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78746", "rumtscho", "starfish" ], "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 }
34149	Cooking Dry noodles without them being soggy Could I get some tips on how to cook like or similar to Sharwoods Dry Noodles since when I cook, strain, wash and add them to the wok for cooking they always seem to come out soggy and sloppy. I've tried cooking them less but it doesn't really help too much. So any tips to make them better? Soak in boiling water while cooking the rest of the stir fry, drain and lob 'em in for the the last 30 seconds so they get coated with sauce and don't get too soggy.	Stack Exchange	2025-03-21T13:24:59.297577	2013-05-15T21:08:53	{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34149", "authors": [ "Alex Seidlitz", "Jeff", "Kent", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79443", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79444", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79445", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79449", "n_b" ], "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.