/ck/ - Food & Cooking

I'm pretty sure 'A' is usually just called sauteed onions.

>>11159358
watch ANY youtube or read ANY recipe on the internet involving onions.
I guarantee for technique A they will instruct you to "caramelize the onions"

both are still caramelizing the onions, option b just takes it to a higher degree

>>11159366
Different anon, it's been my experience that the really good chefs I've worked with do technique B, and the "mass produced, everyone is a line cook" places do technique A. They are both caramelized in the purest since of the word, but you are right they have completely different flavor profiles.

So if the restaurant is legit, B.

>>11159366
"Caramelized" is just the pretentious fagots way of saying fried or grilled, and If you even fucking dare to pronounce it "care ah mel eyes" I will fucking snap on you

>>11159381
You can fry them without caramelizing them.

Properly caramelizing onions takes a shitload of time. I have just left the kitchen after spending 2 1/2 hours preparing goulash Viennese style, which is now simmmering in the pot. Had to brown the meat in three batches despite my giant 32cm skillet and "deglazed" the skillet afte each batch by sweating off a bunch of onions in it before taking the onions out again and browning the next batch. The goulash has a stunning colour now thoug, so getting all the sucs was worth it.

>>11159357
“caramelized” is the same as frying you nonce

>>11159381
>>11159421
Not the same thing.
A caramelized onion is fried but a fried onion is not necessarily caramelized. Why is this so hard to under... oh yeah.... ck.
Full of retards.

>>11159366
Maybe when they say caramelize they mean caramelize?
I see plenty of recipes that say "saute" "sweat" "cook" or "fry".
Maybe youre just being autistic?

>>11159357
A isn't caramelizing onions, it's just sauteing them and B is too much time.

>555 COME ON NOW

>>11159357
Technique A's high heat drives off moisture quickly and breaks down the proteins in the onion, resulting in a more savory maillard flavor and browning.
Technique B allows for a much more prolonged and therefore more thorough caramelization, resulting in more sweetness, without burning the sugars and turning them bitter (pyrolysis.)

>>11159357
To be fair, onions do not caramelize, they undergo Maillard reaction(s). I'm not being helpful, am I?

>>11159381
>If you even fucking dare to pronounce it "care ah mel eyes" I will fucking snap on you
What's your defined acceptable pronunciation?

>>11159533
No, you're being wrong.

>>11159533
They can do both. The maillard reaction and caramelization are different but not mutually exclusive.

>>11159357
>These are clearly two different processes resulting in two very different type of onions yet people seem to call both "caramelizing onions"
A lot of recipes are made with shortcuts and not doing things the exact right way to get more people to try them. You'll get less people trying your recipe if you tell them it takes an hour for the onions alone than if you tell them they can do it in 5 or 10 minutes. Caramelized onions are the ones cooked over low heat until sticky sweet, like caramel. Sauted onions are the ones cooked for 5 to 10 minutes with a bit of browning.

>>11159381
?
It literally means to burn sugar

>>11159381
There are four syllables in caramelized.
CAR-a-mel-ized.
For it to sound like "carrmel" you'll need to remove the A between R and M.

If you pronounce caramel as "carrmel" then you are an idiot and I will disregard anything you say.

Onions are supposed to be raw and crispy. Anyone who uses onions in cooking is a fucking retard who enjoys eating soggy tasteless shit.

>>11159564
>cooked onions are tasteless
raw onions are great but if your cooked onions are tasteless you're doing it wrong, sounds like you're just steaming them so they're still full of water and have no added flavor from the cooking process.

>>11159564
Onions take on completely different flavors depending on time and cooking method. But if you knew your ass from your elbow, you wouldn't be saying dumb shit like that.

>>11159564
What if I were to tell you that onions are a versatile ingredient that can be used in multiple ways?

>>11159567
I fry them in oil on very high heat for about 5 minutes. It doesn't matter if it's white, yellow or red onions because they all turn into shit.

>>11159589
>fry
Stir fry or wok or whatever the fuck you burgers call it.

>>11159544
>>11159549
>managing to reach high enough temp to caramelize sugars
>in aqueous media

>>11159357
I thought it was just cooking them with brown sugar

>>11159617
Onions contain a decent amount of sugar it isn't necessary to add any

>>11159357
It means caramelize them

>>11159357
The top one isn't really caramelizing. you're not converting the starch to sugar and then burning that sugar.
The top is just frying / browning.

>>11159381
It's pronounced car a mel. Caramelization is not the same as the Maillard reaction, it takes a lot longer to caramelize. Read a chemistry book you fucking mutt.

>>11159608
>what is evaporation

>>11159421
Why do cretins keep saying stupid shit like this. Go get a rudimentary understanding of chemistry before you open your mouth.

>>11159533
You literally don't know what either of those things are.

>>11159421
No it isn’t.
>>11159381
Learn to speak.
>>11159564
>I cannot cook to save my life and am of low intellect, possibly with borderline learning difficulties

you can speed up the process a lot with a touch of baking soda and or judicious use of a pressure cooker.

>>11159658
Baste and also redonion'd

>>11159648
>implying onions would go dry and not burn for their sugars to caramelize at 160-180℃

ITT: People who don't read cookbooks, books or even a decent fucking cooking blog.

>>11159674
Don't you have to make them lose half their mass in water beforehand for it to work?

>>11159555
>You'll get less people trying your recipe if you tell them it takes an hour for the onions alone than if you tell them they can do it in 5 or 10 minutes.
Trips don't lie. It's common to underestimate the time needed to get onions to a proper browned, sweet state. Not just on youtube, but also in print. Many published recipes mislead the reader on the time involved. Anything under 40 min is a lie.

>>11159701
no, you start them in the pressure cooker and finish in a pan or if you have a nicer cooker, in it with the lid off.

>>11159617
>adding suger, salt or any kind of spice into a pan
Enjoy ruining the teflon and also getting burnt spice powder into your food.

>>11159878
>using a fucking plastic coated pan
>not able to cook with spices as a direct limitation of this retardation
Don't worry, you'll be able to buy your first set of real cookware soon enough.

>>11159357
Alton Brown covered this in a French Onion Soup show.

>>11159366
>retard b/vloggers don't know how to cook or use proper terminology
Imagine my surprise.

>>11159878
>using nonstick
Enjoy your cancer.

>>11159358
>I'm pretty sure 'A' is usually just called sauteed onions.
Correct.

>>11159366
>>but but muh youtubers
People are idiots, anon. there is no barrier to entry on youtube. Any fool can post/say whatever they like, even if it's wrong.

Check any competent professional, or a culinary school textbook like pic related.
A is sauteed onions.
B is caramelized onions, though I've never heard of it taking 2-3 hours. About 45 min to an hour seems about right based on my experience.

>>11159375
The results are very differnet between the two.
A mainly gets the malliard reaction which tastes savory/umami, and the onions retain their natural moisture.
B cooks most of the water out of the onions (which is why it takes so long), and then the natural sugars caramelize. There is less malliard reaction and more sweetness, and a totally different texture. This method also loses a lot of volume (in other words, it takes multiple cups of raw in order to get a single cup of carmelized).

>>11159357
Carmelizing is just implying to basically brown the onion, but as you stated, the extent to which they cook/break down is very different depending on the technique. Technique B is obviously the more classical of the two, and to my mind, usually implies a slow-cooked dish like a braise or french onion soup. Technique A is reserved for more simple recipes like a burger or Philly cheesesteak.

>>11160151
The two methods give totally different results for totally different applications.
A tastes more savory/umami and retains its texture. B tastes very sweet and has a very soft texture.

A would be great on a burger, or in a fry-up or hash; B is what you want when you're cooking curry or French Onion Soup.

They're both caramelized. Maillard reaction happens at any temperature, it's just a matter of time. What change is that in B you evaporate more water from onion in respect to A. You can alter the pH of Onions with sodium bicarbonate in order to caramelize way faster

>>11160168
Malliard reaction =/= caramelization. They are independent, unrelated, reactions. What might be confusing you is the fact that they both tend to happen at the same time since they are both caused by heat.

A is mostly malliard and little caramelization.
B is the opposite: little malliard and a lot of caramelization. The reason why B takes so long is that the natural sugars won't caramelize until the water is cooked out.

>>11160176
No it's maillard reaction in both cases. You are the one that seems confused

>>11160129
Alzheimer you mean. Non-stick doesn't cause cancer but it ruins your brain.

>>11160188
Aluminum does not cause Alzheimer’s. Please stop with your mercury in vaccines, shit tier “science”.

ITT
>It's brown and sweet, must be caramel!

>>11160176
>natural sugars won't caramelize until the water is cooked out
See >>11159685

Caramelizing is breaking down the sugars
Do people not realize this? That's why they are sweet when caramelized correctly

i dont like slimy sweet onions, i like them crisp cold and pungent

>>11160314
>teflon non-stick is aluminum
Are you a retard?

>>11160344

Maillard reaction = deprotonation of amino acids and the production of a non enzymetic Browning on food through heat

Caramelization = the breakdown of sugars through heat

A is not caramelization
B is caramelization

>>11160187
No.

The maillard reaction is a poorly understood, hugely complex process involving the reaction between amino acids and sugars with an aldehyde or ketone group.
Caramelization is a poorly understood, hugely complex process involving the pyrolysis and subsequent condensation, polymerization and inversion reactions of sugars and reducing sugars (those with aldehydes or ketones)

He may be confused, but you, you are the one who seems to be a smug, poorly informed twat.

Caramelising onions is just sauteeing or frying them with sugar. Also sweating onions is bullshit, literally changes nothing

>>11160187
Learn some fucking chemistry or get the fuck out of the kitchen.

>>11160366
Wrong

>>11160358
Not him, but since you seem to have researched it, at what temperature does caramelization begin?

Thomas Keller describes the difference between sauted and caramelized onion in his French onion soup recipe in Bouchon.

>>11159534
Car muhl

>>11160445
Idiot. Please fuck off.

>>11160314
>aluminum
LMAO

>>11160428
I have no idea. You could probably work backwards from the 'caramelization temperature' of various single sugar solutions, using kinetics to arrive at activation energies for whatever is the limit of reaction at that temperature, but there could be wholly different pathways at lower or higher temperatures, with different limiting factors.

Even assuming there was one specific process responsible for starting caramelization, the process will still proceed, albeit at slower rates, at lower temperatures. It's not reversible, so you'd expect it to occur at room temperature, but it may be that below a certain threshold temperature there are other processes that prevent caramelization from proceeding, either by diverting products onto a different reaction path or by directly preventing the initial pyrolysis.

The problem is that any study looking at this sort of thing is interested in producing yields of specific products. _Low Temperature_ pyrolysis, in the literature, usually means "only 200 degrees under tens of atmospheres". Nobody cares what you get at room temperature, because you can't use it to make industrial chemicals or pharmaceuticals.

>>11160396
I know chemistry. It's maillard, you cretin

>>11160358
There's no need to write something I know or that I could read on books. In Onions happens maillard rection because of what you wrote

>>11160507
No it's not you fucking dunce.

>>11160507
Maillard and caramelisation are not the same thing. Please research a bit and then desist.

>>11160507
>It's maillard, you cretin
Not exclusively. Study the fuck up. I recommend starting with Modernist Cuisine, page 1. you could use a refresher on the basics.

>>11160354 and >>11160176 are correct.

>>11160538
I know. Maillard happens in presence of proteins. Which is the case of onions

>>11160541
I didn't say it was exclusively maillard you mental midget. Why is reading comprehension so fucking hard for you?

>>11160501
First of all, thanks for your long answer and for your time.

My understanding is that caramelization reactions have a temperature threshold, 110°C for pure fructose, for instance. I wonder how much would be the temperature drop due to impurities (in molasses or onion matrix). And here is my problem: I have a hard time imagining it droping the temperature below 100°C.

Therefore I doubt "caramelizing" onions result from strictly caramelizing onion sugars when the conditions are also prone to Maillard reaction. Sure, the water evaporate, which concentrates sugars (and amino acids) and make so-called caramelized onions sweeter.

But evaporation also happens to favor Maillard reactions (optimal between 30% and 60% water). So, chemically speaking, I'm still waiting to be proven wrong when I consider onions Maillardize rather than caramelize.

>>11160513
I think I understand what you're trying to get at; both the maillard reaction and caramelization will occur in onions, but
the original claim was:

>>11160176
>Malliard reaction =/= caramelization. They are independent, unrelated, reactions. What might be confusing you is the fact that they both tend to happen at the same time since they are both caused by heat.
>A is mostly malliard and little caramelization.
>B is the opposite: little malliard and a lot of caramelization. The reason why B takes so long is that the natural sugars won't caramelize until the water is cooked out.

I am absolutely certain that sugars will undergo pyrolysis in cooking onions, even at low temperatures, and I am also certain that a greater degree of caramelization is occurring in situation B over situation A. I wouldn't honestly be willing to bet that the absolute rate of maillard reaction is greater than the absolute rate of caramelization in slow cooking of onions, but the question was over which situation was more characterized by caramelization. This is clearly situation B. I would actually guess that the greater rate of caramelization in situation B has more to do with increasing concentrations of something else in the onion, rather than removal of water. Amino acids mostly undergo maillard reactions at lower temperatures and pyrolysis (but not sugar pyrolysis, so not caramelization) at higher temperatures, so 'purging out water to allow higher temperatures' should result in bitter, sour flavours from pyrolysed amino acids, rather than fatty, sweet flavours from caramelization.

>>11160544
Do you have any sort of grasp of chemical kinetics or even rudimentary probability ?

>>11160548
Yet the post I just quoted mentioned malliard only, not both.

And the first time someone discussed it being both and which process dominated in which onion cooking method you started pitching a hissyfit about it.

>>11160557
I do. Are you hitting on me?

>>11160552
>My understanding is that caramelization reactions have a temperature threshold, 110°C for pure fructose, for instance.

No, that's the temperature at which they proceed from a culinary perspective, in that it's the point where the bulk of the material can undergo the process, but really, there will be a distribution.
This random image of google should make sense. As the temperature of the material rises, the total area under the graph increases and the peak stretches up and to the right, but the vertical line where the graph goes green stays where it is. At 110 degrees, the peak will be approaching the green line, so the average molecule in the material is hot enough to undergo the process. If the process produces heat, or is auto-catalytic, then 110 °C might actually be when the peak is still quite far to the left of the line, but the process has hit the point where it is self-accelerating.

>>11160552
Nobody said it was "strictly" one or the other, anon.

>>11160176 is quite clear that both processses occur, but in different proportions depending on which procedure is being followed.
A is predominatnly malliard because of its higher temperatures.
B is predominantly caramelization because of its lower temperature.

>> I am also certain that a greater degree of caramelization is occurring in situation B over situation A.
It sounds like we agree then.

>>the greater rate of caramelization in situation B has more to do with increasing concentrations of something else in the onion, rather than removal of water.

Would not the removal of water result in the increasing concentration of everything else?

>>11160584
>the total area under the graph increases
Oh, wait, no, this isn't exactly the graph I thought it was. The total area of _this_ graph would stay the same, but in the onions, more material will be liberated and become able to react as the temperature rises, so the total area would rise.

>>11160587
>Would not the removal of water result in the increasing concentration of everything else?
Yes, but that's doesn't work how you think it might, in practice. The behaviour of reaction B is probably not linearly dependent on concentration of material X, but is definitely differently nonlinearly dependent on material Y, so rising concentrations of X and Y don't result in 'the same environment, but more concentrated', if you see what I mean.

I am going to go and make dinner now, but I'll check in in a couple of hours.

>>11160587
>A is predominatnly malliard because of its higher temperatures.
>B is predominantly caramelization because of its lower temperature.
Funnilly enought I'd think the exact opposite.

>>11160602
It's only because of what happens to the onions themselves. A still retains plenty of water, but the Maillard (which a lot of people are misspelling itt) reaction occurs and browns the onions. One could say that they are partially caramelized, but that's stupid. B loses vast majority of its water slowly and then the sugars start to burn, ie caramelization. A is sauteed, B is caramelized.

>>11159525
this thread represents the basic problem with humans and defines why they should be avoided. here we have a succinct correct answer with no fanfare hidden amidst 90 people who know the correct answer but have become bored with being correct and decide to spew bullshit for an hour. the bullshit is obvious and "entertaining" to those who already know the answer so everyone can wink and nudge each other and have their stupid "fun" but now comes along someone who doesn't happen to have been born knowing what a fucking Maillard reaction is and wants to know whatsgoing on. now they have to sift through thisbullshit and that may seem really easy if you already know the answer but it actually isn't at all and its really not entertaining for people who don't know. if you want to do all this you should at least highlight the correct answer for other people who don't already know it.

>>11159878
>he can't even cook his spices
I legit feel sorry for you.

You shouldnt' even be in a kitchen if you dont start cooking by chopping up a few onions first and let them slowly saute in a pan while doing other shit your food needs.

For fuck sakes forget sauteing, atleast use the fucking dead kike on a stick granted deliciousness that is onions!

>>11160602
>Funnilly enought I'd think the exact opposite.
Why? A is cooked at high heat, and B is cooked at low heat.

>>11160626
>now they have to sift through thisbullshit
Nah, they can just google "malliard reaction" or look it up in a dictionary.

>>really not entertaining for people who don't know
What does entertainment have to do with anything?

>>11160639
>put spices on my hamburger
>flip it
>half of them fall off and the other half becomes burnt powder covering the burger

>>11160622
>>11160660
Well, quick high heat would deplete water at vicinity to contact area whereas slow and low would deplete the whole bulk.

In the end I believe there's no difference in which one of both reactions occur in both situations. I don't think, given the aqueous medium, that the temperatures would significantly differ from boiling water.

What if you pressure cook it

>>11160675
I cook my ground beef with spices all the time, none of them have ever burned. There's plenty of oil in the ground beef to keep that from happening. You sound like an incompetent buffoon.

>>11160726
>>Well, quick high heat would deplete water at vicinity to contact area whereas slow and low would deplete the whole bulk.
Right. that's why sauteed onions (A) are browned on the exterior, but the center is still white and largely unaffected by cooking, whereas carmelized onions (B) have the brown color uniformly all the way through.

>In the end I believe there's no difference in which one of both reactions occur in both situations
How can you possibly say that? Have you never tasted the two and noticed how incredibly different they are? Hell, you can look at them and see the difference.

>>11160729
Then you get caramelized onions which are plump and not "reduced" like normal. That method is recommended by Modernist Cuisine for their French Onion Soup recipe. I've done it before, it tastes similar to the B method, but I prefer the texture of B.

>>11160758
>I don't think, given the aqueous medium, that the temperatures would significantly differ from boiling water.

>>11160791
I'm not asking you about your thoughts, I'm asking you about your experience. Why are you dodging the question?

As for your silly repeated greentext, just apply your brain a little:
When you sautee onions (A), the center of the onion never exceeds 100C. Why? Because there is still moisture present. It's the same principle as how a double boiler works. There hasn't been enough time passed to cook out the water, so the center remains at, or below 100C the whole time. however, the outside edges of the onion (where the water cooks off rapidly) can easily exceed 100C. We can see this with our eyes: the outside is browned (especially at the corners) but the inside is not.

Caramelizing onions, B, is different. The heat on the stove is much lower so the exterior of the onion is not heated any differently from the interior. The temperature isn't high enough to effectively create the malliard reaction. Instead, the water slowly cooks off and eventually when its concentration gets low enough the naturally occurring sugars caramelize. Have you ever done this before? the onions never change color and the pan never exceeds 100C until far into the cooking process. They remain colorless for a full 30 minutes or more, then very slowly the darker color creeps in, exactly like what happens when you simmer sugar syrup to make caramel.

It seems to me like your head is full of chem class but you've never actually cooked or tasted what's being discussed. Stop talking about sex until you lose your virginity.

4 hours to Care uh muh lize the oignions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo4dkYFqshw&feature=youtu.be&t=840

>>11160675
Put the spices *in* not *on* the burger, you fucking moron. People like you really make me worry about the future of humanity.

Tell me, bitches: how do I produce an unsoggy ring?

>>11161832
what's your recipe/heat?
sometimes lower heat for longer periods of time removes a lot of moisture

>>11161196
no, don't mix spices (or anything) into your meat
good burgers don't neat it and you shouldn't be burning your spices regardless of how you cover it
just season afterwards if you really want a specific flavor profile
desu, all a burger needs is salt and maybe pepper if you're basic

>>11161832
That looks like failure to control oil temp properly. See how some are very dark brown while others are very light? It appears that you either overcrowded the fryer (put too much in at once) or you were doing it in batches and didn't let the oil recover back up to the proper temp.

Here's what I do, this has never failed for me:
2 cups flour, ideally rice flour for maximum crispiness, but wheat flour works too.
1 tb baking powder
1 tsp salt
1 large egg
~12oz soda water or beer
Whisk together to make batter. Heat oil to 375F, use a thermometer or a deep fryer with a thermostat to make sure the oil is at the right temp.

Vidalia onions. Slice, dip in batter, into the oil. Don't overcrowd the fryer. If frying in batches double-check the temp before you move on to the next batch.

To keep your fried food staying crisp as long as possible keep it on a rack instead of on a flat surface. I put a wire cake rack on a baking tray. This lets steam escape. If you put the rings down on paper or in a bowl or plate then the steam can't escape because of the container, then it makes the batter soggy.

>>11161874
You're a kind-hearted boy. Thank you for your words.

>>11161837
A lotta bitta whole wheat flour, a lotta bitta wheat germ, a lil bitta wasabi powder, a lil bitta baking powder, a skinch of salt, egg, milk.
Heatin at 375
Act of desperation, not premeditation.

>>11162155
whole wheat flour and wheat germ is the problem
it's not starchy enough to get crispy
I would honestly try mixing in regular flour, cornstarch, or maybe finely ground corn flour
the crispiness comes from the starches
375 is a good temp though, but maybe kick up the heat a little (no more than 20 degrees) if you insist on wheaty coating

>>11162172
I was out of regular flour.
I don't really buy your "starchy to get crispy" angle. What does starch have to do with overall moisture? Care to provide the science?

>>11161844
You’re not my massa, fatboy. I’ll eat what I want and I often want a kofte/burger hybrid. Go fuck your dad (again).

>>11162349
https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/8360-why-starch-gets-crispy-when-fried

Not him, but there's something for you. Also anyone saying you can make caramelized onions in under 45 mins has about as much expertise as a food network cook.

So any good recipe for tasty caramelized onions?

>>11163489
Cook those little shits low and slow for a few hours.

Call me a weirdo but purely caramelized onions are too sweet for me. Sauteed > raw > caramelized
>>11160328
What if I told you that caramel is called caramel because it's sugar that's been...
...caramelized

At the end of process B, I add water to rehydrate my """""""""""""""""caramelized""""""""""""""""" onions so they're less sweet and I don't end up with a ridiculously small amount. Especially useful for pissaladière.

does anyone else have a gag reflex when it comes to onions?
I can eat them fresh, but as soon as they're cooked - instant gag reflex

I do a but to emulate b i add sugar to it. Similar taste and is fine for weekday meals. Obviously if im making an onion soup im not skimping out and will do b

Does sweetness of B result from caramelization itself or from concentrating sugars through evaporation of water? Isn't A less sweet, less soggy and sticky because it cooks out less water?

What is the final word about caramel vs Maillard? Is it a combination of both? If so, how could one reasonably (experimentally) tell each contribution?

>>11161196
>yes, mix it IN a frozen burger
Fucking retard

>>11163711
>eating frozen burgers
My sincere apologies, I didn’t realise you were a poorfag.

>>11163634
The sugars are made from other sugars so it is a chemical reaction, not just evaporation, which does occure. Plus the bitter things break down

>>11163634
Caramel can be made in wet conditions and in low heat.

>>11163786
>>11163801
>[Citation needed]

>>11163807
Dulce de Leche recipes?

>>11159357
I always called the higher heat, lower time method "grilled onions", but they do get caramelized

>>11163849
>Dulce de leche
>not Maillard reaction
Wew lads

>>11159563
you're wrong

>>11163866
No u

>>11159563
I make carmelized onions because it's a delicacy from the quaint northern California town of Carmel-by-the-Sea. It's a much different process though.

>savages prefer crispy raw onions that make your mouth stink

onions should always be well cooked and used for the flavor rather than the texture.

>>11164621
good onions don't stink, tastelet

Step 1.

Step 2.

Step 3.

Wala!

Last saturday I made caramelized onion for the first time. A large batch so I could refrigerate and use throughout the week. How long will they keep?

>>11164677
Is it swimming in fat?

>>11164838

Yes. Butter and a little oil.

>>11164621
Complete, actual IRL fag

>>11164682
It's Voila! It's French

>>11165909

You new here?

>>11166445
Tou noveau est?

>>11159357
Caramelized always means the latter, although not always reduced to that degree.

>>11166854
>Tou noveau est?

/ck/ spells it Wala! Always has. Always will.

>>11160584
What are partides?

>>11164746
>How long will they keep?
Until they spoil.

>>11165909
Hey retard, it's Arabic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EchqQjMHwqo

>>11160626
or maybe people could learn to use google instead of asking a bunch of retards on 4chan

>>11167412
>using google
>letting the government know you can't caramelize onions

>>11167416
>he doesn't use a browser with an integrated proxy
literally what are you doing

>>11167435
>he doesn't realize most proxy services exist to skim your personal data and sell it to intelligence services and scammers

>>11167466
>most
sweet summer child

>>11159533
>Maillard
that's proteins getting brown, not sugars

>>11167489
There are always exceptions. Some of them just ARE the intelligence services and scammers, cutting out the middle man

>>11167516
mallards are those green ducks you retard

>>11159533
You dont know whats Maillard reaction is do you anon?

>>11159357
>oil pan
>high heat
>small amount of water
>dark onion goo starts to stick
>douse with water
>scrap brown stuff with spoon so it dissolves
>repeat until onions are dark as you like
low heat? hours? heh

>>11168239
My dubs say otherwise

>>11168239
My dubs said otherwise

>>11168490
>>11168498
How much of a fuck up are you?

>11168508
have a (you)

How to do technique B in shorter time?

>>11168647
>>11168290

>>11168853
That's not the same thing. That method gives you sauteed onions, not caramelized ones, because the heat is too high.

>>11168647
You can't, really. Slicing the onions really thin helps, as does using a large pan and spreading them in a thin layer. If you're diligent about stirring them in the pan you can start out with higher heat while the moisture is still cooking off. But it's not really possible to do it a whole lot faster than about 40-45 min or so.

Caramelize in the oven you retards. No one has time to stir a pot for hours. Just fill a big-ass oven dish with sliced onions, mix in 1% salt and 3% melted butter by weight, cover with aluminum foil and bake at 350 F / 175 C for around 4 hours. There's no need to stir. Then remove the foil and let it brown for another hour or so, stirring every 15 minutes. Make this in large batches and freeze it.

>>11168898
Whoops, the proper amount of salt is more like 0.5%. You can omit salt entirely as well.

>>11159357
"carmelizing" is exactly what it means. You are burning the sugar chains in the onion, giving it the brown and dark/burned/cooked flavor notes.

Which do you prefer if you're eating a steak (given you serve steak with onions)? A or B?

It was explained to me the difference between a caramelized onion and a sauteed onion was the middle.
If you cut a strand in two and the middle is still white/pale then you've only sauteed the onion; if it is the same color throughout outside and in then you've caramelized them.

>>11168886
Throwing salt on the onions doesn’t help?

>>11168983
Salt helps remove the water from the onion so it will cook off faster, and the faster than happens the faster the sugars will start to caramelize, so yes, it helps. I didn't mention it as a "trick" because I'd assume you'd already be doing it. It's standard.

>>11168961
A. I want more of the meaty malliard flavor, not the sweet caramelized one.

>>11168977
http://www.scienceofcooking.com/caramelization.htm?fullweb=1

>>11169007
what's you point?
If the middle isn't caramelized then it's not a caramelized onion.

>>11168886
they are dark and sweet and sticky, this is how you start French onion soup

>>11168898
>>11168915
>>11168915
I'm an oven man myself, but brown sugar and bad bourbon are necessary for good sweet caramelized onions

>>11159357
just cook them al dente

>>11169504
>they are dark and sweet and sticky,
Dark, yes. but not as sweet as if you do it the long way.

>>this is how you start French onion soup
speak for yourself. I don't cut corners that fuck up my dish.

>>11159357
>This reaction of breaking down larger sugars into single sugar molecules is what causes sautéed or caramelized onions to brown and develop a sweeter flavor. Heat causes the sugar molecules that make up polysaccharides (at top) to separate into monosaccharides (at bottom) in a process called pyrolysis.

Serious answer if you cared.

>>11159419
>spending 2 1/2 hours preparing goulash Viennese style
My man. Fuck that hungarian shit, Wiener Saftgulasch is where it's at.

>>11164270
Wouldn't those be Carmel-by-the-Sea-ized onions though?

>>11159573
>>11159576
>>11159658

>>11165909
Pretty sure it's African.

>>11169527
idk tasted pretty sweet to me and the soup was good

>>11159564
I like raw onions but this is the worst post I have seen on this board in a while.

>>11169593
Sauce me up bro, I'm tired of all the crap in this thread.

>>11159357
dumbest thread we've had in a while, thanks goys

>>11168898
>>11168915
>amounts in %
>precise instructions
I like your style