Datasets:

andrewsiah

/

se_cooking_preference_sft

like 0

Can I use regular sugar instead of powdered sugar to make a drizzle icing for my pound cake?

It depends on the type of recipe you want to use, but generally the answer is yes. Powdered/confectioner's sugar recipes for glaze or icing often just use a very small amount of liquid. With granulated sugar, it can be difficult to get a smooth consistency by just adding the liquid that way, so the more standard way with regular sugar is to add a small amount of water to a pan and cook the sugar in it until it dissolves and creates a thick syrup. (Alternatively, if you just don't have confectioner's sugar on hand, you can grind up granulated sugar in a blender or coffee grinder. Some also recommend food processors, but many of them won't get a consistent fine grain in your sugar. Just pulse until particles are fairly small and the sugar is powdery. The particles may then be small enough to dissolve quickly in your icing recipe.)

I rather like a strong smoky flavour in some of my food - I've tasted some rather lovely smokey vegetarian Mexican bean wraps for instance. However, I've struggled to replicate this in my own cooking without making things rather hot! I've tried smoked paprika, which is lovely but the smoky flavour simply isn't that strong in any that I've tried. Cumin didn't seem to do much, and Chipotle has a lovely smoky flavour - but unfortunately a fair punch of heat to go along with it. Is there anything else I can try to get a nice, strong smoky flavour but without the heat?

Depending on what food you are trying to imbue with a smoky flavour, you have multiple options. I here focus on methods that will just give you a smoke flavour, rather than smoked ingredients. Actually smoking the food seems an obvious suggestion. The internet will suggest any number of ways to set up a smoker at home, although you might not want to go through the effort or have to deal with the smoke. Cold smoking is often done with cured meats and fish. As the name suggests, this is smoking (actual smoke from actual fire), but without the heat, often accomplished by creating some distance between the fire and the food, and having the smoke travel from the former to the latter. This guide seems quite comprehensive, including some ideas for a home setup. Cold smoking has similar drawbacks to hot smoking. Some companies make 'smoke guns' such as this one by Breville/Sage, that accomplish the idea of a cold smoker on a much smaller scale. Thus, no need for elaborate setups, nor the risk of smoking up your whole house. Finally, you can look for ingredients or additives that give you a smoky flavour. Liquid smoke is reasonably common. I have also seen powdered versions of this.

We all know about the typical main dish sauces: gravies, cream sauces, marinara, vinaigrettes, bbq sauces, etc... However, I find that many side dishes have their own great sauces that you don't typically find as an entree sauce. For example: Baked bean sauce/juices are great on meat. Glazed carrots' glaze is great with light/mild fishes. I could absolutely see these sauces being used on their own - that is, without serving the beans/carrots. What other side dish sauces do you think deserve to be bumped up to entree sauce status?

For me there is one item I frequently purchase just for the "side sauce" it contains: Chipotle Peppers in Adobo Sauce. The adobo sauce is an ingredient I practically incorporate into everything I make that I would want to add heat to. (I wish they sold it outright, but cutting up the peppers and adding them is just as satisfying.) Frequent uses: Barbecued/grilled anything,Chili,Tomato sauces with smoky meats, (anything smoky), Queso dips, Mac & Cheese with poblanos

Garam masala is meant to taste sweet. However the powder I use doesnt taste sweet it tastes bland. I imagine this is because the powder has oxidised over time. Is oxidation really that bad that it can turn something like garam masala from sweet into bland and so is the only way to get around this to use fresh ingredients? Additionaly is it the case that even fresh garam masala isnt really tasty but bland, and so you in order to get any real taste chilli or other sweeteners such as paprika, black pepper etc need to be used?

I think we’re up against this mis-interpretation of the word ‘sweet’ again. Garam masala is a blend of aromatics you add towards the end of cooking. Many of the ingredients are the same as a generic curry powder, but emphasis on aromatics, so you get some elements of those spices in a long cook plus a quick burst of new aroma. Its shelf life is relatively short, maybe a year, max, once opened. It’s a simple smell test when you open the jar, the aroma should be huge. As it gets old, the last smell to go will probably be the cloves, the rest just fades to a generic ‘musty’.

I use pizza stones all the time, but recently have heard about pizza steel/baking steel which is claimed to produce better results. I have the know-how and materials to make my own, but do now know the best dimensions, and I also wonder about any potential drawbacks? So I was wondering what your experience was with Baking Steel and similar products? It there any reason not to fill the entire tray from edge to edge with baking steel If I have a use for that much cooking area, or does the oven need a certain amount of unblocked area to function properly? Additionally Steel is affected by temperature far more than ceramics. The examples I have seen did not seem to include any bracing to prevent warpage. Does anyone have any experience with their baking stones warping? I am thinking of a lip around the edge to help prevent spillage and retain the shape and flatness. Which leaves me only my most important question. Thickness and efficiency. I am hearing that these steel should pre-heated for 1 hour, and obviously the thicker the steel the longer you would pre-heat them for. How does this effect energy usage? Obviously the oven is running for longer, but does this greatly effect the energy usage? Has anyone measured this directly, or perhaps knows how inefficient the average oven is at keeping its heat? TL;DR: 1) How thick should Baking Steel be? 2) How much if any area do I need to leave open around the sides for the oven to function? 3) How much energy am I wasting by running the oven for longer? How much If I do not have a chain of items to cook after the pizza that require less and less heat (bread, cookies, etc)?

1) How thick should Baking Steel be? Opinions vary. Standard thicknesses for these seem to be in the 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch range. Advantages for thicker: Heat at faster rate for the initial burst of baking, if you're trying to reduce bake time as much as possible and approach Neapolitan style pizza (generally better ability to get some charring on the bottom, if that's your thing) Significantly improved ability to bake multiple pizzas with little recovery time in between Advantages for thinner: Weighs less: this is a significant issue with larger steels -- my 1/2" steel weighs more than 30 pounds and is a bit awkward to move around, not to mention making thin oven racks sag a bit Faster pre-heat time To me, the improvements of the thicker steel are worth the weight. I can do 3 or 4 pizzas in quick succession before I start to see the steel cool enough that I want to give it substantial recovery time. But it might be difficult to move around if you are concerned about heavy things. And if you only tend to bake one or two pizzas at a time, the thickness may not give you a huge advantage. I've never heard of noticeable warping with steel plates this thick. If you go thinner than 1/4", maybe it could happen, but then you'd begin to lose advantages of the steel over a decent stone in terms of heat retention and "burst." The only advantage of a lip, in my view, would be for the rare occasion when I miscalculate and have sauce that significantly overflows the pie, or a pizza gets stuck to the peel and ends up partly right on the edge of the steel with stuff bubbling over. More likely, it would just be in the way most of the time. But I have heard of people using steels as griddles on flat-top stoves -- in that case, having a groove (not really a "lip") near the edge could be helpful to catch grease, depending on what you're cooking. 2) How much if any area do I need to leave open around the sides for the oven to function? Depends a bit on the type of oven, but you need some room for air circulation. The standard recommendation is at least about an inch on all sides in your oven, but you might be able to get away with less on some sides if you have adequate circulation on others. (For example, most ovens are wider than they are deep, so you might be able to get something closer to a square steel that has less clearance in front and back, as long as air can easily move around the sides.) And again, type of oven matters a lot: for example, if you want to run convection, you want to ensure proper clearance for air circulation. And gas ovens often assume more air circulation for proper operation than electric. But from a practical standpoint, you may want to consider size vs. weight. I wouldn't really want a 1/2" steel that went edge to edge on my oven racks, as it would be even more heavy and awkward. (Tip: if you really want a very thick steel and want it to cover most of your oven, and you're having it custom-made, just have it sliced in half to make two smaller pieces that are easier to handle.) But with a thinner steel, I'd probably go as large as would be practical (with the 1" clearance or so). That's what I have with my thick baking stone. 3) How much energy am I wasting by running the oven for longer? How much If I do not have a chain of items to cook after the pizza that require less and less heat (bread, cookies, etc)? The general philosophy is that cooking energy use (including baking) is generally quite small compared to all the other uses for electric and/or gas in your home (like heating/cooling, other appliances, etc.). I've seen stats that electric ovens are generally less than 2% of electricity use in homes (on average). For those who cook regularly (probably not most folks), the percentage is likely higher. Even if you double your oven use by preheating your oven for longer periods, it's probably not going to make a huge difference in your utility bill. But of course your situation may vary -- if you're baking pizzas at super-high temperature every day, and you're doing it in the middle of the summer with the A/C fighting the oven, that might be significant. Lastly, the question asks in general if there are potential drawbacks, and I can say that I haven't noticed any for pizza. For years before buying a steel, I was known among family and friends for excellent pizza, so I had my doubts about the improvement. But the noticeably greater oven spring, the improved texture throughout, the faster bakes, the speckled charring on the bottom, the possibility to easily cook a "well-done" crispy pizza for those with such tastes (while using a dough that generally produces soft, thin crust) -- the steel to me is a much more efficient and flexible cooking tool for pizza than a stone. For other baked goods, the choice is more up to the specific application. Large bread loaves can more easily char on the bottom at higher temperatures with the steel. But with lean breads I've seen improved oven spring and crust in some recipes. The only other minor disadvantage I can think of over a stone is that rust may be possible if you don't use it frequently and don't store it properly. But it's not a huge issue, and compared to the greater fragility of stones, I'd say it's a toss-up in terms of maintenance/durability issues.

I was a vegetarian restaurant over the weekend and ordered a meal that had "tofu" and "soy protein". The soy protein looked somewhat like steak, but was whiter and tasted similar to steak. I asked the woman what it was, but she could only tell me that it was "soy protein". I am looking to incorporate this ingredient in my meals, but I am not sure what to get or where to get it as I understand there are many types of soy protein. I know that I haven't provided a great description, but does anyone have any educated guess about what type of soy protein this could be? Also, where is a good play to purchase soy protein? Thank you.

This sounds like seitan to me, or mock duck, mock chicken, braised gluten, or one of the various other names for it. It is made from wheat gluten and has a texture, as you state, between tofu and a kind of rubbery steak. For vegetarians, it is my opinion that it is the closest of the simple meat substitutes to a sensible "meat" texture. I find it easiest to buy the fried variety canned in the UK from Chinese food shops and some large supermarkets. How the seitan is braised/prepared makes a difference to the final texture and flavour hence getting the different mock varieties. Companion Seitan "Tidbits" (Cha'i-Pow-Yü) I find are very useful for curries and that sort of thing. It should be quite easy to obtain in your area. There are a lot of modern western meat alternatives that are very accurate and are a combination of soy-based TVP and seitan. I know Tofurky is popular state-side, a company called Redwoods covers similar bases in the UK.

I went to buy some feta cheese today and noticed that there was both Greek and Bulgarian feta. I was wondering what the differences are between the two and can they be suitably substituted for each other?

Having worked for some time as a cheesemonger, I found that Bulgarian Feta was generally saltier and more assertive than many Greek fetas. I also found the texture to be a bit grainier with the Bulgarian feta and a bit more dense. However, my experiences are limited in that while I sold five different Greek fetas, I only sold one Bulgarian Feta. I'll also point out that while Feta is historically made with goat milk, it can also be made with sheep milk or cow milk as well, so one has to take the milk source into consideration also (for a quick overview, cow feta will generally be mellow and creamy, while sheep, and particularly goat feta will be more acidic. But even then, the brine can completely counteract these generalizations!).

Whenever I cook steak at home I usually grill it, but is this as good as frying? I have usually grilled so it is not cooking in the juices and I thought might be healthier, but have been told that frying would make it tastier. Also would a grill pan be good to use on the hob instead of a standard frying pan?

Generally speaking, frying gives a better crust due to the higher direct heat producing more Maillard flavours. A good, heavy, screaming hot pan is required. Oil the steak, not the pan, with vegetable or groundnut oil (olive oil will burn), and baste with butter towards the end for extra flavour. If your steak is thick, you might try a reverse sear - roast the steak at about 150°C until the centre is 10°C off your desired doneness level (if you don't have a digital probe thermometer, invest the small amount they cost, it is completely worth it), then sear the outside on your mega hot pan. This avoids you having to overdo the outside just to get the inside right.

I have access to as much sweet corn as I want, so I would like to remove the kernels and store them in the freezer. What is the most efficient (low time, high recovery) way to remove the kernels from the cob? I would prefer to get whole kernels if possible. I have been using a paring knife, slicing down the sides of the cob onto a cutting board but I find that this slices through most of the kernels, leaving a good bit on the cob and allowing the liquid to escape.

What's wrong with letting the liquid escape? The liquid is good! When I freeze sweetcorn, I slice through just the outer part of the kernels, and then turn the knife sideways and scrape to release the rest of the delicious gooey liquid inside them... I'm not particularly fond of the flavor or texture of the cob-side anyway, and the creamy result can be packed and frozen with a minimal amount of air. I highly recommend using a chef's knife instead of a paring knife though. A big cutting board and a bench scraper also come in handy. If you're doing a lot of corn at once, a baking sheet works well to catch the juice. Growing up, we'd get a bunch of people together and do bushels of the stuff in an afternoon - cooking, icing, cutting, scraping, and packing simultaneously. With a bit of practice, you become quite fast at it. But, if you're simply looking for a quick way to process the ears alone, there are specialized tools made for this job: search for corn creamer or corn cutter. You could probably use a mandoline as well, provided you're able to adjust the depth of the blade. Frankly though, this seems cumbersome. Practice with the knife...

I have reproduced on my website a recipe for a pizza, out of my Mediterranean cookbook: http://www.justrightmenus.com/recipe.php?id=275 What I'm looking for help on is whether they more likely meant for one to start with a raw-dough pizza crust or one that's already been cooked. The recipe in the book said to use a "prepared" pizza base.

I would imagine, if the book is of reasonable quality, by prepared, they mean one that you have prepared earlier. If there's a recipe for pizza base in the book, that's probably what they'd like you to use. Personally, if you're going to the trouble of making home-made pizza, make your own base. Invariably, the pre-made bases you can buy from stores taste like chalk. There's a few topics here that may be useful: What is the best flour to use for pizza dough? How to make pizza crust thin and elastic at the same time? For Pizza cooking at home. What is the best alternative to the pizza stone?

I store an Italian balsamic vinegar (BVM) in a fridge and use it from time to time for a couple of years. It used to be thick and viscous. (In contrast to some other reports, I did not need to reduce it, as the original consistence was totally satisfying.) But now it has almost solidified: How to make it liquid again?

Your title and your question body are somewhat different. Until now, answers seem to have been directed at the title. In fact, whipping cream with a gas siphon is a thing. Your idea is known, and widely used. You can buy whipping siphons with rechargeable cartridges for the home kitchen, and these sprays of "whipped cream" you get in the supermarket are exactly that, a one-time siphon which contains liquid sweetened cream and "whips" with the gas pressure when you press the nozzle. I believe there are also such siphons built in in some large all-in-one professional espresso machines, so the barista can float a little bit of whipped cream on your drink on the push of a button. As the other answers mentioned, you need a siphon which is designed for it. Not only does it have to use NO instead of CO2, but it also has to be engineered to be suitable for dealing with cream instead of a watery liquid. Soda stream is not such a siphon. There are, however, siphons which are multipurpose (just not ones manufactured by soda stream). They can handle both the carbonation of lemonade and whipping of cream, as long as you use the correct gas cartridge.

This happened a couple of years ago, but I still don't have an answer. Christmas eve. I had a duck in the oven. I tried to cook it at a slightly lower temperature and a little longer than the recipe dictated. Also, I didn't turn the duck over at all. The duck was completely done. My wife complained about the horrible taste of the breast, while I was happily eating the leg. Later on I found that the breast was foul smelling and tasting... Any idea why this would happen? Did I cook too long, should I have turned the duck over, why should the leg be tasty and the breast foul???

Assuming you didn't do some kind of "flavor injection" treatment, there is absolutely no reason why one part of a bird would taste radically different from another. I'm going to go with "Bad Duck." Cooking the bird slowly seriously reduces the possibility of a "hot spot" causing some kind of local taste variance. Breast meat will become overdone at the point where dark meat is still tasty, but that wouldn't explain smell or taste, and unpleasant smells are almost always related to bacterial issues. If it was discolored, it could have been local bruising, which would cause some taste issues, but, again, wouldn't explain the smell.

I really want to start experimenting with indian food, without relying on jars of paste. I am looking for any good information so: What spices to buy? What equipment? Any good books? Any good web sites? Any other resources?

What spices to buy? I have listed commonly used spices/ingredients. If you are on a budget, purchase the ones with a (!) before them. Powders and Pastes ("Masalas") (!) Coriander Powder ("Dhania Powder") (!) Cumin Powder ("Jeera Powder") (!) Red Chilli Powder ("Laal Mirch Powder") Turmeric Powder ("Haldi Powder") Garam Masala Powder Ginger Garlic Paste (You can skip this if you have fresh ginger and garlic) Seeds (!) Cumin Seeds ("Jeera") (!) Mustard Seeds ("Rai") Cloves ("Laung") Cardamon Seeds ("Elaichi") Bay Leaves ("Taej Pata") Fresh Spices (!) Green Chillies (!) Garlic Ginger ("Adrak") Coriander Leaves ("Dhania") Curry Leaves ("Kadhi patta") Common Vegetables (!) Onions (!) Tomatoes (tomato is officially a fruit, ignore the heading) Lentils & Beans Buy these on a need basis, depending on the recipe. Tur Daal (Yellow lentil. There are 2-3 yellow lentils, ask the store for Toor dal, which is most common) Chick Peas ("Chhole" or "Kabuli Channa") Kidney Beans ("Rajma") In the US, most towns have an Indian Store. A while back, a small packet of each spice/powder would be around $2. What equipment? To cook Curries, you don't need anything special. A small grinder/food processor to grind spices is very helpful. If you don't have one, you can always crush the spices using a rolling pin before putting it in the frying pan. A pressure cooker is helpful to cook/boil lentils or beans. If you don't have one, you can always cook them in an open container - it just takes more time. Any good books? Any good web sites? Sanjeev Kapoor and Tarla Dalal are two popular cooks in India. Their websites have some good recipes that you can pick up. Youtube has some great videos on Indian cooking, but you need to know what to search. Read the blogs I mentioned above, pick up a curry/dish you find interesting and search it on youtube. That's perhaps the best way to find good videos. Any other advice? Just some little tips that I think would help you get started - Most curries are based on Onion and Tomato. A generic recipe would be - "Pour a little oil in a frying pan. Add spices till they start to crackle. Add chopped onions and saute till golden brown. Add chopped tomatoes and saute for a few minutes. Add dry spices/powders. Add vegetables/chicken/meat and cook". This is the most basic Indian recipe, and others build from here. Ginger Garlic paste is readily available, and is handy when you don't want to peel and crush garlic cloves. Garam Masala powder is always added last India is a huge country, and every region has its own distinct flavour. In general, North and South Indian food are totally different. The curries usually come from Punjab in North India, so searching for "Punjabi Recipes" is likely to get you better results. The most popular South Indian dishes are "Idlis" and "Dosas".

I had heard that raw or simply pasteurized milk does curdle if ginger is put in it before it reaches its boiling point. Alright, so yesterday I boiled the pasteurized milk at 23:00. Room temperature was around 17 degrees Celsius. In the morning I put in the ginger and then started boiling it, but the milk curdled! (I had put the plain tea leaves and sugar also along with the ginger). When the milk had been boiled in the previous night, why did it then curdle with ginger in the morning? I boiled the remaining milk separately and it was fine.

If you want to prevent the milk from curdling when adding ginger, you have to boil the ginger or at least add it to boiling milk. Ginger protease (the curdling agent in fresh ginger) is rapidly destroyed at temperatures above 70°C. It does not matter if the milk has been boiled in advance if you add ginger to cold or room-tempered milk, it will still curdle.

I'm about to make some pancakes(1) for my daughter, and will want to make some for me and my wife this evening (in about 3-4hrs), since using a single egg should make at ~six I'll have too much batter for the one or two I wish to make now, so I'd like to use the same mix for both instances. Is it better to store the mixed batter for 3hrs and then cook this evening's fresh or should I cook them now, store the cooked pancakes and reheat this evening? What's the best way to store the batter/prepared pancakes? Finally, what should I take in to account when cooking/reheating the stored batter/pancakes? 1. I know the term has different meanings, so to be clear, I mean pancakes like these.

Batter for pancakes is often nicer if it is left in the fridge for a few hours. I'd make them fresh tonight with the batter you're making for the couple you want now. Enjoy!

I often make tilapia fillets in the oven. I put two pieces of fillet on an oiled Corelle plate, put some lemon juice, salt and basil on it, and cook it at 170°C for 15 minutes. This is my routine breakfast, so I've cooked this meal over a thousand times now. I love the taste of lemon juice on the fillet, and I don't like how most of the lemon juice just collects at the bottom of the plate rather than sticking to the fish. I was thinking, is it possible to add something to the lemon juice to give it a gel-like texture? If it's viscous like that, maybe I can just spread it on the fish, and have a nice thick layer of lemony taste. I looked at gelatin, agar agar and Gellan Gum. The first two seem to not be able to withstand high temperatures (I need 170°C). There's a page about Gellan Gum here and it says "Hydrates between 167-203°F/75-95°C, Gels from 50-122°F/10-50°C, Melts from 176-284°F/80-140°C". I'm not sure what that means though. Can you think of a solution to make lemon juice be more like a gel, and withstand 170°C?

I wouldn't believe this - it sounds like marketing hype to me. Stainless steel consistently sticks unless you add at least some small amount of fat. That's true of All-Clad or any number of other brands and pans using 18/10 or 18/8 stainless steel. This copy says nothing about any special non-stick surfacing that would explain the claim; it's nothing more than an aluminum pan with a topcoat of stainless. Additionally, that page features a ton of other hyperbolic nonsense, like this gem: With our Cooking System, described below, also thanks to the perfect fit of the lid to the pot that creates a natural hermetic seal, it is possible to cook at a lower temperature saving time and energy, without condiments addition and preserving both nutritional and organoleptic features of the foods. In short, foods are cooked more delicately in their own natural fluids, for more vitamins, less fats and less calories. They're talking here about... braising. That's it. You can do this in just about any cookware with a lid. Someone went overboard with the marketing jargon here, and it's not even particularly well-written. Don't believe a word of it.

How do I get a crispy crust for wood fire oven pizza? Do I knead the dough enough for a windowpane test? Do I add oil while kneading? By crispy I mean real crisp on the base yet smooth as you bite further into it. Not crispy crunchy like short crust pastry.

This may be more of a function of cooking surface and temperature, but there are a couple of other issues too. Traditional Neapolitan pizza is fermented at least overnight (which reduces the the need to knead intensely because gluten develops over that time). This type of pizza dough has a fairly high hydration and no oil. We are talking 70% hydration. You will also want to use 00 flour, which is milled powdery soft. It's cooked on a stone surface at a very high temperature (600 - 700F), for a short time (2 -3 minutes). Thus achieving a crisp exterior. If you have a wood fired oven, I would recommend your first experiment be a high-hydration dough with 00 flour, and an overnight ferment. There is also a technique to stretching this dough. I am sure you can find some videos on the net, but it does result in a center that is thinner than the edges, as another poster suggested. Do not use a rolling pin to stretch your dough as you will ruin the effect.

An Asparagus shoot has triangular shaped markings on it. I'm wondering what they're called and why there there (if possible)

They're something leaf-like. If you look closely, you'll find that they aren't just markings, they can be pulled away from the stem. There doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement about the best name; you'll see "scales" and "leaves" in plenty of informal contexts, and "bracts" in some (but not all) more formal contexts. On Food and Cooking says they're bracts, and actually mentions why they might be there: The stalk doesn't support ordinary leaves; the small projections from the stems are leaf-like bracts that shield immature clusters of feathery photosynthetic branches. That cluster inside them is what makes them bracts: In botany, a bract is a modified or specialized leaf, especially one associated with a reproductive structure such as a flower, inflorescence axis, or cone scale. Brittanica says "True leaves are reduced to small scales.". That's a bit vague about where it actually is on the plant, but there's an image later in the article making it clear what they're referring to: Oddly, Brittanica's article about shoot-stem modifications goes into a bit more detail: In asparagus (Asparagus officinalis; Asparagaceae), the scales found on the asparagus spears are the true leaves. If the thick, fleshy asparagus spears continue to grow, flat, green, leaflike structures called cladodes develop in the axils of the scale leaves. That does match the definition of bract. Asparagus is only tender enough to eat when pretty young, though, so perhaps when you eat it those cladodes haven't developed yet. That's still the purpose of the scales, though. In any case, it sounds like "scale" vs "bract" may just be a difference in precision and perspective.

I've never seen anyone do that until yesterday. So I wanted to know is this appropriate for when preparing apples for any meal, how about other fruits? Unlike plates, fruits can absorb chemicals.

No, you would not use a detergent or soap when washing fruit. Normally, you would just wash them with water, using a brush on thick skinned produce. See, for example, Best Ways to Wash Fruits and Vegetables from the University of Maine extension.

I've been making a fairly standard arrabbiata sauce for months, and I'd like to expand the number of sauces I can make. However, many of these recipes involve cheese and/or milk, but I'm sadly lactose intolerant and would prefer to avoid these ingredients. What others sauces could I be making, and what pasta should I use with them?

Tomato Sauce Putanesca Pesto (omit parmesan) Bolognese (meat sauce) Squash Puree (maybe with sage) Olive oil infusions (fresh herb/garlic/chilis/lemon zest) Roasted Red Pepper puree sauce etc

I have a way of cooking cod loin which has never failed me before. This time, large parts of each loin became so rubbery as to be unchewable. I know several things that deviated from my usual recipe, but I'm wondering which thing was the culprit. First, the recipe: Cod is dipped in milk and egg and then rolled in panko mixed with Cajun spices. A little olive oil is heated in a cast iron skillet. Cod is fried for a couple minutes on each side. Then the heat is turned to low and the lid is put on the skillet. The fish "bakes" in the cast iron for about 11 minutes. This has never failed to give me nice white flaky cod. A couple things were different this time: These were from a bag of frozen cod loins (maybe from Sam's Club or HEB.) These were the last two, so they'd been in the freezer a while. I had gotten these last two out a couple weeks ago, and then didn't make the fish, so they went back into the freezer. Instead of 11 minutes, they got more like 20 minutes of "baking". On the first piece of fish, I took a bite off the end and it was fine. The next bite I couldn't cut with my fork. It was almost exactly the texture of that triangular piece of cartilage one gets on a chicken breast: rubbery, tough, bleh. I would think that if over-baking were the problem, then the fish would have been tough at the ends, but the ends were the only edible bits. If it were that Sam's Club just stocks bad fish, then I'm incredibly unlucky/lucky in that out of a bag of 15 pieces, I chose two at a time over the months and only the last two were bad. That leaves "refreezing." Only these two pieces were thawed and then refrozen. Could that have caused the puck-ness?

Your supposed advantages are not correct. I believe if eggs are mixed too much, whites can get a rubber-like texture. No, this is not correct. Are you thinking of gluten? That is the ingredient that gets tough with overmixing. So by that logic, you should be adding the flour last - but the whole point of recipes which are being held for a long time is to allow time for the starch in the flour to hydrate, and with the longer periods (you mention 24 hours), to allow for the building of slight sourdough flavors. So you cannot add flour last either - or you can, but then you don't need to keep the batter around. Anyhow, there is no change in toughness when you add eggs first. Eggs are fresher when they are in their shell They may be "fresher" by common sense understanding of the word, but by food safety rules, the two batters (the one with the eggs added before a rest, and the other with eggs after the rest) are equally safe. The food safety is not increased. On the other side, if your suggestion is followed, there may be some slight disadvantages in handling. They are not so terrible as to make your suggestion unworkable, but together with the lack of advantages, they provide a good reason for recipes preferring early mixing. A list of some of the disadvantages: Not only is it more convenient to only get out a whisk once, but there are also people who prefer to mix the eggs with the flour first because this is their preferred method against getting lumps, There are the recipes which require you to start with an egg and then adjust the consistency with incremental additions of flour and milk There is the slight effect of possibly less-well beaten egg diffunding better into the mixture during the resting period. Basically, if you want to go to the trouble of doing a resting period, whose purpose it is to get everything to settle together, you'd better add everything before you rest it. I must say that personally, I actually do add "egg last", but that's more of a side effect of my method. I use a very simple recipe (only eggs, flour and milk) measured by weight. I whisk by hand, and I have noticed that I get the least lumps when I first whisk the flour with the milk. This automatically means that the eggs (separately stirred, without whipping) come in last. I don't rest my batter, so there is no question of adding it after the rest (and if I did rest, I would add it before the rest). So you see, egg last is not impossible, just like Willeke said, it just has no special advantages, and in some cases it comes with disadvantages.

I would like to make a cheesecake with confectioner's sugar and though it's been awhile since I've made cheesecake, I believe I used normal sugar before. However, I only have confectioner's sugar on hand at the moment.

I have done this, and it was regrettable. The flavor of the cheesecake was acceptable (not great though), but the texture left something to be desired. Like Dorothy pointed out, there is cornstarch in confectioner's sugar. This left the cheesecake I ended up with incredibly dense, and it also cracked (more than usual) while baking. I would not recommend using confectioner's sugar as a substitute for granulated sugar when baking a cheesecake based on my experience. I certainly would not try it again. At least, not without taking the time to do something to offset the cornstarch effect. Adding a liquid could do the trick, but right now I would be guessing on what and how much to use. It's easier to just head to the market for what you need in this case.

I was living in southern California where the water is one of the hardest in the country, but once passed through a Brita filter it was perfect for tea. Now I am living in a country where the water is soft. All the sources of water are surface sources and this has been aggravated by heavy rainfall. The water coming out of the tap and all sources of local bottled water I can find are soft. As a result, I have not been able to brew tea that has much of any taste. The Darjeelings that I enjoyed in California with their beautiful distinct aroma, here do not taste or smell like anything. Even the strongest teas like double bergamot earl grey have just a faint aroma here. Assam comes out sour. I have tried the baking soda trick or putting in a pinch of baking soda, which helps a little bit (mostly in color) but not that much and has its own taste. Using too much quickly ruins the tea. There are few imported waters here and in any case, I don't want the expense of using expensive imported bottled waters. There are also no mineral drops on the market here as far as I know. So besides baking soda, what are some things I can add to the water to change its mineral profile, pH level and make it suitable for tea? Would dissolving calcium and magnesium supplements in the water work? I have heard of Epsom salts being used by brewers for its magnesium content, but don't know if that would work for tea.

You are going to need Epsom salts, baking soda and Calcium chloride to make a run of the mill hard water. You can easily find these in food grade and small quantities at your local homebrewing store. I live in Seattle and we have notoriously soft water, but I don't mind it for my tea. But for brewing, I use these minerals all the time. Get 500ml of distilled water Add half tablespoon of Epsom salts stir until dissolved Add half a teaspoon of Baking soda stir until dissolved Add half a teaspoon of calcium chloride until dissolved Wait a bit until everything dissolves. Voila instant hard water! If you are really serious, there are plenty of resources out there, especially around the homebrewing community. Here is an online Brewing Water Calculator

Every time I try to whip egg whites, I seem to end up with the same problem. After a good bit of strenuous beating with the whisk, the egg whites finally reach the "firm peak" stage. I then go grab something (last night, it was the chili peppers to coat in egg), and right away the egg has separated into fluffy white peaks on top, and liquid on the bottom. What's going on? Is there a trick to keeping the egg white a uniform texture?

This is the nature of meringue: they will start to fall apart as soon as you stop whipping. There are a few tricks to help it hold longer, but in general you want to have EVERYTHING ready to go as soon as the meringue is whipped. To help stabilize the meringue you can: Use a copper or SILVER-plated bowl to whip, or add a tiny amount of powdered copper supplement from a health food store Acidify it slightly: add 1/8 tsp cream of tartar or 1/2 tsp lemon juice per white, before beating Let the bowl warm to room temperature, which increases the ability of the whites to take in air Ensure there is absolutely no yolk in with the whites. The fat greatly destabilizes the foam. Now for WHY these tricks work: I'm going to quote heavily from Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking", as it does a wonderful job explaining meringues and other whipped egg whites: Like the head on a beer or a cappucino, an egg foam is a liquid--the white--filled with a gas --air-- in such a way that the mixuture of liquid and gas keeps its shape, like a solid. It's a mass of bubbles, with air inside each bubble, and the white spread out into a thin film to form the bubble walls. And the makeup of these liquid walls determines how long a foam can stand up. Pure water has such a strong surface tension--such strong attractive forces among its molecules--that it immediately starts to pull itself together into a compact puddle; and it's so runny that it puddles almost immediately. The many nonwater molecules in egg white both reduce the surface tension of the water they float in, and make it less runny, and thus allow the bubbles to survive long enough to accumulate in a sizeable mass. What gives the mass of foam a useful kitchen lifetime is the white's team of proteins. Whisking unfolds these proteins, primarily globulins and ovotranferrin, which bond to each other and stabilize the bubble walls. Cooking will evaporate the water and unfold ovoalbumin, creating a rigid and permanent protein network. However, the same proteins can ALSO destabilize the foam if they bond too tightly. "The protein network begins to collapse when too many of these bonds accumulate and the proteins cluster together too tightly" (page 102). In the case of egg proteins, one of the strongest bonds is a disulfide bond between the sulfur-containing amino acids, cysteine and methionine. Eggs contain copious quantities of these amino acids, which are why they produce such a potent stench when they spoil; the sulfur is converted to malodorous sulfur compounds, particularly hydrogen sulfide. Copper, silver, and acids stabilize the egg foam by preventing the formation of these disulfide bonds. To quote Harold McGee (page 103): It turns out that along with a few other metals, copper has the useful tendency to form extremely tight bonds with reactive sulfur groups: so tight that the sulfur is essentially preventing from reacting with anything else. So the presence of copper in foaming eggs whites essentially eliminates the strongest kind of protein bond that can form, and makes it harder for the proteins to embrace each other too tightly. McGee also notes that silver has the same property of inhibiting disulfide bonding. Acid achieves the same goal of reducing disulfide bonding, but works slightly differently: The sulfur bonds form when the sulfur-hydrogen (S-H) groups on two different protein molecules shed their hydrogens and form a sulfur-sulfur (S-S) connection with each other. The addition of an acid boosts the number of free-floating hydrogen (H) ions in the egg white, which makes it much harder for the S-H groups to shed their own H, and so slows the sulfur bonding down to a crawl.

So they both seem to always require relatively long cooking in some kind of liquid containing fat. The only difference I seem to be able to find is the shaping of the potato and colouring of it by frying of the fondant potato. Is this correct? Is this the only difference? I'd also like it if someone can provide a generic definition of both!

It will definitely change some vegetables, specifically tender vegetables with large surface area (e.g. whole leaf ones). Have you ever tried making a complete salad including dressing, then storing the leftovers in the fridge for a day and having it limp the next day? That effect is due to oil. The mechanism behind that has nothing to do with penetrating the vegetables or having the oil soak into them. It is just that it stops their perspiration, so they die off earlier than they should. (I know it is counterintuitive, but metabolically speaking, your raw vegetables are still alive in your fridge). So I wouldn't describe the change as getting "soggy", especially because some kinds of vegetables won't change that much anyway. Especially those which are fruits or roots or tubers will stay mostly firm even when oiled. But e.g. spinach will be definitely different - whether you care for that difference or not is up to you.

I have ghee in clear glass jar on a shelf in my kitchen, would it keep for longer if I try to store it in a dark place? Does light speed up oxidation?

According to IndiaCurry, it should be stored in containers opaque to ultraviolet light for long term storage: The UV rays from sunlight, florescent lights, and other sources accelerate oxidation process. The storage container container for ghee must be opaque to filter out UV rays. Preferably ghee must be stored in a dark place I was unable to find credible sources with more detailed information that indicate exactly how this affects storage life. In fact, it was hard to find any references at all--most were far more concerned with keeping it from being exposed to air (oxygen). However, as it is such an easy thing to arrange--just put the jar in a cabinet for example, or use an amber glass jar--that it seems worth doing. My guess is that in practice, unless you are using your ghee very slowly, or have an extraordinarily large amount, that it makes very little difference, but again its easy, so why not? I did find lots of references to using ghee in lamps--this is the power of Google! :-)

I've followed this recipe from Serious Eats to make sous vide carnitas. The sous vide step is easy - just leave it in the bag for 12-24 hours. The last step of the recipe is to break up the meat with a fork and put it under the grill for 10 minutes. However when I do this the meat goes from delicious and moist to crispy but completely dried out! How can I finish the meat and keep the moist meat I spent so long preparing?

Make sure not to break up the meat too much. In particular, try not to smear it between the fork and the dish... You want chunky pieces, not spread-out strands. The more broken and strand-y the pork gets, the greater its surface area and the faster it dries out. You also want to crowd the pieces in the pan as much as possible while browning. It's better to have a bunch in the middle of the baking pan, than individual pieces spread around the pan.

I was playing the Sims Medieval the other day, and at one point, the blacksmith proves s/he's a capable cook by... taking a piece of meat, firing up the forge, and hammering the thing into a steak. It's obviously done tongue-in-cheek, but it got me thinking - is it somehow possible to use a forge (bellows, coal, anvil, the works) to produce something actually edible? If 'yes', what sort of constraints (e.g. necessary preparations, limitations on what kind of foods you could prepare) would there be? Putting aside issues of cost and practicality.

Amateur blacksmith here. So, first, let me caution that two of the things that are around any forge are toxic chemicals like borax, and lots and lots of tiny metal fragments that would be very bad to get inside you. So I don't recommend ever actually cooking around a forge. If you were to do so anyway, though, how you would do it is by heating a large flat piece of steel to red-hot in the forge, and then holding that steel above or below the thing you wanted to cook. There's actually a standard medieval cooking tool called a salamander that works on this principle, just starting in a fireplace and not a forge. I cannot comment on whether anyone actually cooked this way at one or more ABANA meetings, given how unsafe it would have been to do so.

You're always hearing that a tougher cut of meat like a brisket or a shoulder be cooked low and slow to break down the tissue and be tender. I have also heard (by the experts) that a tough cut of meat like a flank steak be cooked no further than medium rare for tenderness? How does one know what doneness goes with a tougher cut of meat?

There are two basic cooking methods for tough cuts: Cook for a long time ("low and slow"): this is appropriate for large pieces like roasts Sear very quickly on both sides and remove while barely medium-rare: this is appropriate for thin steaks The thing is, while many people mention the second method, it's still going to produce a relatively tough piece of meat. Some people claim that you could take a piece of chuck steak or round steak and make it as tender as a ribeye as long as you cook it fast and don't overcook it. That's just not true, but it's a way of cooking the meat fast, while minimizing the amount of toughness that occurs with fast cooking. Usually you'd want to do this either with very thin steaks (which is one the reasons flank is often sliced very thin) or with the type of meat that you'd slice into thin strips before serving. Many people cook a traditional "London Broil" this way (which tends to be a relatively lean and somewhat tough cut): very fast cooking on both sides, then slice thinly and serve. The reason for these two conflicting pieces of advice is that "tough" meat reaches its maximum toughness when it's just "well-done." You generally want to cook it to medium-rare, because that's when beef is juiciest, so you get juice and still less tough. But once you go beyond medium-rare, it just gets tougher and less juicy. At that point, the way forward is to continue to cook for a long time, which will eventually break down the tissues that make the meat tough (as you note), so you'll end up with thoroughly cooked but more tender meat in the end.

I'm planning on making a cornbread stuffing (likely one of the NYTimes' recipes) for a potluck Thanksgiving. (e.g., stuffing will cooked outside of the turkey) Unfortunately, all of the recipes require celery. I'm allergic to celery and would like to make a portion without it for myself. What can I substitute for celery that provides the same flavor and texture? Celeriac and celery root are a no-go, and jicama and lovage aren't available where I live.

You don't need to substitute anything, you can just leave it out. I've made both regular and cornbread stuffing with and without celery and I've never felt it was missing anything without celery, in fact I personally prefer it. Celery will release moisture as it cooks, I've found that I can compensate for it by adding a small amount more stock or water at the beginning. If you want to replace the texture element then I'd suggest chopped peppers, sauteed or roasted to partially cook them as if you add them raw they won't always cook through in time. Other options are apple and onion, although they are stronger flavors that may interfere with the result you want.

I have a packet of ground garam masala and if I make a stew with it it tastes very bland and has no taste. Two of the ingredients in the garam masala include pimento and cinamom which I know contain lesser amounts of capsaicin. However even so I cannot taste any heat in the stew. Is this because the capsaicin content is too low or does the capsaicin lose potency with oxidation and time? The problem with saying yes is that most chilli powders seems to be hot even after they have been oxidised over time.

Garam masala is not a "hot" (piquant) spice mixture. It doesn't taste spicy because it's not supposed to. I'm not sure if cinnamon contains capsaicin, but it certainly doesn't contain a lot; otherwise it would taste hot, like cayenne does. I suggest that you try to think less about chemicals and more about tastes. Taste some garam masala; that's what (your) garam masala tastes like. (The taste will change somewhat during cooking, but it's not a night-and-day difference.) If you're going for heat, taste other spices until you find one that's what you're looking for.

I sometimes put bottles of soda in the freezer for 20-30 minutes to get them near frozen (taste SO much better that way). If I time it just right I'll pull the bottle out and the liquid will appear completely liquid until I loosen the cap - the liquid will then spontaneously turn into slush. Can anyone explain why that happens? (this being my first post on the cooking stack exchange I apologize in advance if it's deemed unsuitable)

Obligatory mythbusters: Instant Frozen Beer It's an instance of Supercooling. The liquid is chilled to below its nominal freezing point, but it doesn't transition to solid, largely because there isn't any growth catalyst for ice crystals. But agitate it, or open it, and the disruption jumpstarts crystal formation, and it freezes solid in seconds.

I got a bit confused when looking up nutrition values for milk versus kefir made from that milk. For some reason many tables list higher values of some nutrients (e.g. potassium and magnesium) than is in the source form, i.e. the milk. Can someone shed light on how this would happen? I realize that lactose from the milk gets turned into carbon dioxide and alcohol, but where does it take the additional nutrients from if the only nutrition for the kefir grains is the milk and air?

It could just be the difference in milk sources. Different cows, receiving variable types of feed, produce milk with varying nutritional content. They probably only tested kefir using milk from one or at most two sources. In comparison, the figures for normal milk could be drawn from hundreds of dairy farms across the nation. I would expect there to be changes in the carb/protein/fat content of the milk, as well as vitamins produced/consumed by the kefir. Specifically, the carbohydrate level should be lower from lactose being digested into lactic acid.

I'm not familiar with Mexican cuisine, but I enjoyed the things I've eaten so far. To me, they are all quite similar. Is there a real difference between fajitas, enchiladas and tacos? The taco is perhaps most distinguishable, because of the hard shell, but I've seen pictures of soft tortillas as well. But fajitas and enchiladas are both rolled up meat + veggies + sauce in tortillas, no? I've checked some websites and pictures, but I can't find a good criterion. Is there a real difference? If so, what is it?

Enchiladas are normally shredded meat and/or cheese rolled in corn tortillas, covered in red (or green) enchilada sauce and cheese, and then baked. Fajitas are normally strips of meat either grilled or sauteed (often with onions and peppers). They can be used in tacos, burritos, or served on their own or with tortillas on the side (corn or flour depending on preference). Tacos can be either hard or soft shelled and are usually meat (shredded, ground, grilled etc) with some sort of cold veggies (like lettuce, raw onions, pico de gallo, etc) and perhaps cheese etc.

I had a whole bag of Cocoa Puffs that had gone stale, and thought it would be fun to mess around and see if I could bake something with them. So I aimed for muffins. I more or less based it on a banana muffin recipe I make all the time: 2 1/2 cups ground Cocoa Puffs (I used this to replace both flour and sugar) 1 tbsp baking powder 1/4 tsp salt 1/3 cup vegetable oil 1 egg 1 cup milk 1/2 cup vanilla yogurt (I figured this plus extra milk would make up the mass, pH, and moisture content of the bananas) I didn't really expect it to go well, but I figured I'd probably have bad muffins, not this: The batter was stretchy, like less-sticky bread dough. I spooned it into paper cups and baked it at 400ºF. At first they looked like they were puffing up as expected, then they looked a little imploded in the center and shiny on top, then one by one they burst and started dripping everywhere. I expected 20–25 minutes but had to pull them out at 15. The aftermath was soft but cohesive and a little rubbery, not at all hard to clean. So, lesson learned: Cocoa Puffs are not flour. But what chemical reaction happened or didn't happen to make it go this wrong?

Muffins and cakes rise because of chemical leavening agents and the expansion of hot gasses, they stay risen because the flour and sugar forms a structure which traps the air, then solidifies enough to hold its shape once the expansion has stopped. Cocoa puffs are made in a process called extrusion, where batter is pressurized and shot out in little spurts. On the release of this pressure the little squirt of batter expands and almost crystallizes in the same way as a muffin or cake, in other words puffs are cooked by a different method, but the processes which make them hold their shape is the same. These processes aren't reversible, you can't turn a cake back into flour, milk, sugar and eggs. Grinding up cocoa puffs is essentially the same thing as grinding up dried cake, they may absorb some moisture but as the chemical and physical changes involved in crystallization have happened it won't happen again. What it looks like is that your batter expanded enough to go over the top of the muffin pockets and then outward, then collapsed because there was no structure to keep the shape.

Some very interesting posts, like this one, which has links to some more extensive discussions and websites that I consulted, too, describe some aspects of the method used to prepare and bake the batter, affecting the end result. However, a sentence in one post: You can play with the ratio of ingredients every which way and still end up with a batter that rises tall. left me quite baffled, because I thought: surely the composition of the batter must matter to some extent... From a little research on the topic, I found that, indeed, the proportions of the ingredients vary widely between different recipes, but I could not find any extensive account of how that impacts the outcome. See below the links to each recipe I looked at, and the % of ingredients, in order of egg to flour ratio. Allegra McEvedy Egg = 19%, Flour = 24%, Milk = 57%, Water = 0%, Egg/Flour = 0.80 Tom Kerridge Egg = 26%, Flour = 29%, Milk = 45%, Water = 0%, Egg/Flour = 0.89 BBC food Egg = 22%, Flour = 22%, Milk = 44%, Water = 11%, Egg/Flour = 1.00 Serious Eats Egg = 36%, Flour = 27%, Milk = 32%, Water = 5%, Egg/Flour = 1.33 Mary Berry Egg = 31%, Flour = 21%, Milk = 47%, Water = 0%, Egg/Flour = 1.50 James Martin Egg = 33%, Flour = 18%, Milk = 49%, Water = 0%, Egg/Flour = 1.78 However you look at it, Egg/Flour ratio, (Egg+Flour)/(Milk+Water) ratio, there is a huge variability. I experimented a bit, although I did not make all of them. Allegra McEvedy's version is my favourite so far, whereas other recipes (I won't say which ones) gave me stodgy, undercooked puddings, a completely different thing, despite the fact that the method was to all practical purposes the same. Q As per title of this post, would anyone be able to please point me to posts or websites describing how the batter composition affects the end result, e.g. in terms of shape, texture and taste?

There’s a food processing trick, where producers use dextrin to keep the coating crisp for hours. You simply replace some of the flour (around 20%) in your recipe with dextrin and you’re good to go. As the other answer mentions, multiple layers also helps creating a thick barrier to slow down moisture seeping into the coating. You can use dextrin in both layers. Once you’ve adapted your recipe to use dextrin, frying followed by rapid cooling should give you a good result.

How do I store bought-warm corn tortillas to keep fresh longer? reheating tortillas has been discussed here After refridgerating 24hrs, a quick reheat in micowave or on griddle yielded a pliable tortilla for tacos. 48hrs in fridge, Fat-free reheating methods yielded a flacky easily-cracked-when-folded taco. Absolutely didn't let them dry out. Room temp storage or other tips for keeping fresh longer? Will hold off on frying to soften as long as possible

Unfortunately, the only responsible advice anyone can offer about "weird smells" is to throw it out. Of course, you have to know what fresh, properly stored chicken smells like, but if unidentified or "off" smells have developed in your poultry, you don't want to play with that stuff -- throw it out. Cooked chicken is a bit trickier. You don't know what unfamiliar flavors might have developed from your seasoning or what other tastes/smells might have been picked up in the cooking process. That is very difficult to comment on authoritatively. The best way to assure food safety is to be meticulous about cross contamination and proper storage of the raw product. So just a few quick notes on that subject -- the best assurance of food safety is heeding the freshness dates and meticulously assuring proper handling and refrigeration in storage. Spoiled or "off" chicken smells have more of a sour quality than that classic sulfur odor... but don't rely on that. There is no reliable "smell test" to assure food safety, particularly in poultry.

There is inconsistent terminology surrounding what is considered "processed meat". Some take any meat that has been smoked, cured, or possibly dried to be "processed", while others are consider "deli meats" that have added preservatives (nitrates, eg) for longer shelf-life, stability, and color to be processed. Can someone clarify what is a "processed meat" in the context of dietary health recommendations for reduced intake as well as any other contexts in which "processed meat" is a term that is frequently used?

Despite the fashion of using "processed" as if it is a derogatory term, and processed foods are dangerous, almost all foods are processed in some way(s). Most of us, for example, do not chew wheat berries directly off the stalks, but prefer them threshed, hulled, ground into flour, and then baked into breads or other foods. What is that, if not processing? Of course, cooking itself is a form of processing, since most of us no longer eat our meat raw from the carcass. There are a number of common ways that meat is processed, after being butchered, some of which are more extreme than others. Some foods have several of these processes applied. Among the more common are: Cooking Grinding (as in hamburger, and many sausages) Curing with salt or other curing agents (as in bacon) Canning (as in the infamous Spam, or Vienna sausages) Drying or dehydrating (jerky) Pickling (pickled pigs feet) Smoking (which is often combined with curing, cooking, or drying, such as Virginia ham) Freezing Injection of brine or other flavorings or enhancements (many ham products) I don't think there is any universal measure by which you can consider processing good or bad. You have to consider each within the context of the particular food product, and its outcome.

It strikes me as an unsafe food practice to follow Cook's Illustrated's advice for soaking dried beans for 24 hours unrefrigerated. I've also seen them suggest you soak steel-cut oats unrefrigerated overnight. Is there some reason why these practices are okay? Would there be any harm in refrigerating them, particularly the beans, while soaking? From Cook's Illustrated: Dissolve 3 tablespoons salt in 4 quarts cold water in large bowl or container. Add [one pound] beans and soak at room temperature for at least 8 hours and up to 24 hours. Drain and rinse well.

In fact, although the risk is low, the Penn State Extension does recommend soaking in the refrigerator, or using the quick soak method as opposed to an overnight room temperature soak: To be on the safe side, it would be advisable to use the quick soak method: Bring water and beans to a boil, cover and boil for 2 minutes. Remove from heat and let stand 1 hour. Drain and further cook. Similarly, the US Dry Bean Council recommends (emphasis added): A 12-hour soak in cold water before cooking helps hydrate the beans and considerably shortens cooking time. Ideally, beans should be put to soak the night before they are to be prepared and be kept in a cool place, or in the refrigerator, to avoid any fermentation taking place. Before soaking, wash them several times in cold water and remove any damaged or split beans. Discard any particles floating in the soaking water, such as small insects from the harvest, specks of dirt or other contaminants.

I like to fry chicken breast whole -- I always flatten the meat with a meat hammer first, to make it an even thickness throughout. A few minutes into frying, the meat returns to almost the identical shape (big at one end, tapering towards the opposite end) it was before I pounded it. Any ideas why/how to stop this happening? Thanks!

As you cook meat, the proteins in it contract and denature. This is part of what cooking actually is. This will cause all cuts to shrink, whether they are hamburgers, roasts, or pounded chicken breasts. You can minimize the effect by not overcooking. Different major protein groups denature and contract at different temperatures, the last one around 160 F. Chicken is thoroughly palatable and safe at 155 F. Of course, this is a tricky range to hit in a frying technique which is very fast. To minimize the shrinkage when cooking chicken breasts: Remove the tenderloins before butterflying or pounding. They might be good in your recipe on their own, or can be saved for another use. They contribute to the extra thickness on the fat end of the breast more than the thin end. Butterfly or slice the breast in half before pounding. This will minimize the amount of pounding you have to do, and start with a thinner base cut. I know you prefer whole breasts, but they will simply shrink more, and have a more uneven size. Whole breasts are more suitable for roasting, braising, or deep frying which are applications where they will not be pounded. Pound only until the breast reaches a reasonable and even thickness. Do not overcook. Depending on the item you are making, you may slice off the narrow end of the breast, and then butterfly the thicker half of the breast, so that you have more even overall thickness across the pieces to start with.

On my stove, it appears that low heat is 1 - 3 on the nob, mid is 4 - 6 and high is 7 - 9. It works for me. But, I'd like to know if there are indicators to determine the heat without the convenient numbers. Suppose I want to cook on a camp-fire... What visual indicators are there. A smoking oil is too hot, anybody knows that. But I've no idea what to look for. Do you 'just' eyeball it?

There are a few factors that make it pretty easy to gauge heat: Splash a few drops of cold water in a dry pan on an element. If it bounces on the surface with a great fuss of noise, it's hot (medium-high). Oil in a pan like this will smoke quickly, and is perfect for browning as adding ingredients will quickly drop the heat. Do not leave your hardware at this heat for long without adding anything to the pan. Place your hand 3-4 inches over your grill or pan. If a few seconds become uncomfortable, it's above 400/450. If you can stand more seconds, it's 350ish. And if it's comfortable it's probably not warm enough. I don't start grilling until my grill is closer to 600F (very obvious in a second or two). If you have oil in a pan, look at the texture of the oil. If it's thick, it's still cool. You'll see it start to thin out and spread around (the oil will look very active); this is oil quickly warming. As soon as the oil is at it's thinest it's hot. When it starts to smoke, it's at the upper edge of it's heat range (add food quickly, or remove from heat). The texture of oil is quite neat to watch as it heats. If you're deep frying, you'll see the texture change from #3. As well, you can drop a tiny drop of water in the oil. If it makes a fuss and starts to spit, the oil is above 350. The more fuss, the closer it 375 it is. Note that using too much water is dangerous, so you can alternatively try a small portion of the food you're frying. No bubbles means it's too cold.

I like the smell of diesel, and other heavy oils. Are there any food ingredients, i.e. safe to eat, that have a taste similar to diesel. I think it would be an interesting experience to eat or drink something that had a taste that I associate with something that is most definitely not food. The question was prompted by a dispersible aspirin that has a chemical taste vaguely reminiscent of fuel oil. A beer or tea that tasted like diesel would be fascinating. I'd be interested in any other "not food" scents that have food safe sources, beyond the more familiar dichotomy transpiring from butyric acid.

Retsina immediately springs to mind; it's a fortified wine stored in pitch-sealed barrels, and it develops a slightly kerosene-like aroma from that. Certain tequilas and mezcals also have a subtle diesel-like aroma.

I am going to an Italian restaurant and trying to educate myself a bit about the food before going. I own the oxford companion to Italian food, but it says nothing about the term "spuntini" which is a category of food listed on the menu. Given that spuntini means snack (of some sort) and given that I don't see appetizers listed anywhere on the menu, I wondered if spuntini meant appetizer. Does spuntini mean appetizer? If not, what does it mean? If so, why doesn't this show up when I google spuntini and appetizer at the same time?

It's not a standard. 'Antipasti' (before the meal) would be the typical replacement for 'appetizers'. Quite a few of the categories on the menu could be classified as antipasti: Olives Salumi Formagi As Catija points out, the items all seem to be vegetable dishes intended as a starter. In my opinion (having taken courses on classification & thesaurus design), the menu's a bit of a mess. I suspect that it's in part from mixing lunch, dinner & bar menus, they have starters, salad & soup courses, small plates (which includes stuff from the starters), main dishes ... and even one category (vegetariano) which mixes both main & side dishes. They're also inconsistent on the text after the title ... sometimes it's a translation (Coppa Classic / Fragrant Spiced Pork) or description of the item (Taleggio / Cow's Milk, Nutty, Aromatic, Semi-Soft), some list sides it comes with without translating the main ingredient (Stracci di Grano Arso / Broccoli Rabe, Tomato, Onion, Garlic, Red Chili, & E.V.O.O) or (Veal Osso Buco / Gremolata). (Note that this says nothing about the food itself -- it might be excellent ... it's just a confusing menu)

I want to make Nutella cookies. I've found a recipe for it, but it's in volume measurements. It asks for a cup of Nutella and I don't own a cup. I tried searching my regular converters, but the only one with a hit was Wolfram-Alpha and I've noticed this result can be quite wrong. Is anybody kind enough to weigh a cup of Nutella? Or do you use a converter that knows the weight of a cup of Nutella? Note: I do own a tablespoon measure, so if nobody knows, I'll just scoop out some and calculate it myself. And post it as an answer of course.

I actually measured and weighed a cup of Nutella and I got 290g. Of course we have to take into consideration my 1 cup measurement (I'm pretty sure they are not exactly the same) and my scale. But it just shows that the 300g mark is not far off.

Usually when there is alcohol in a recipe, it's wine. Why isn't there more beer? I've only ever seen it used in beer batters. Can beer be made into sauces or other uses? Do ales, lagers, or stouts have different uses? I have a fridge full of steak and Sam Adams. Can I turn this into something amazing?

I use beer a LOT for my cooking. As the others have said, you need to watch out for the bitterness, which can intensify when you cook and reduce it down. As such, I often cook with different beers than I drink. You can use the IBU (International Bitterness Unit) rating for a beer to get an idea of whether your favorite beer will be a problem. Personally, I use Guinness and other dark beers when red wine is called for in a recipe. The flavors are definitely different than the red wine version, but it usually comes out good. I also cook quite a bit with wheat beers and the kind of beers that people describe as "nutty", like porters. America's Test Kitchen looked at beers for cooking at one point and a "non-alcoholic" beer actually did really well: O'Doul's Amber. I agree with them and tend to keep it on hand for cooking, even though I never drink it. It stays mellow and away from the bitter flavors when used for cooking. So, what do I cook with it? Like most of the others, cooking bratwurst before grilling and cheese fondue, but I also use it for lots of other stuff. I have a baked bean version that uses 4 cans of beer and a couple of shots of whiskey and sits in a crock pot on low for 24 hours. I've made this with all different kinds of beer and each brings something different to the results. (Recipe for J's Drunken Beans) I also like using beer in most of my stews. Throw beef chunks, veggies and beer in the crock pot in the morning and it's a tasty stew when you get home. It works well as the liquid for braising pork or beef. In the winter, I'll often throw a pork shoulder roast into the crock pot with a bottle of beer and let it slow cook all day. When it's completely falling apart, I pull it out, shred it and add back as much of the beer as the shredded mess will hold (which turns out to be far more than you thought). What results is a juicy sandwich option, which is really good, topped with mustard or bbq sauce. It comforts me when it's too cold to deal with slow smoking pork (I live in MN). I'll also often take some of that shredded "drunk" pork to my baked beans and give the beans some extra dimension. We do a version of "bangers and mash" that I use beer in the gravy/sauce that I like. Beer and self-rising flour make for a really quick quickbread that has an interesting flavor profile. I particularly like using wheat beers like Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat, as the wheat flavors work well in a bread. Beers (and hard ciders, which I actually REALLY like) work well for marinades. Beyond that, I tend to find myself just tossing a few ounces of it into a lot of other liquids/sauces to add some flavor.

I made different types molasses nut brittle for the first time tonight to give as holidays gifts. I'm going to put a little of each type in small round holiday tins that I found at a craft store. I plan on putting the tins in my check-on bag when I catch my flight. However, I'm not sure how I should package them for this! Should I wrap the contents (if so, with what?), and how can I make sure the tins stay closed during the flight? I haven't packaged using tins before so I wanted to hear your thoughts.

I had the chance to ask a tea scientist this very question about 25 years ago, and he said: if you put the tea in first, over decades your cups will be more stained than if you put the milk in first if you put the milk in first, you cannot add less milk on discovering that the tea is weak or there is less of it than you thought He further reported that the Royal Family always put the tea in first. So, despite being raised milk-first, I am a tea-first person (the milkiness of my tea being more important than possible stains to my cups) and my mother tolerates this when she visits. Killing bacteria in the milk is really not an issue now and probably never was; even if it were the temperature difference is not important between the two approaches. A little cold milk in a room temperature cup probably won't prevent thermal shock either: many people claim leaving the spoon in serves this purpose, but I think it's just to avoid putting the spoon down on the counter and leaving a dribble.

I buy bulk peeled garlic. When I bring it home I always throw some in the food processor and freeze it in single use aliquots. That's fine for daily kind of use, but for fancier stuff I really like garlic thinly sliced. Unfortunately, what used to be easy is becoming more difficult. My hands often shake and cramp up when I try to do fine, detailed tasks. To make matters worse, I have cut myself several times in recent weeks. I'm considering getting a mini-mandoline like this: Garlic Slicer Is there anything in particular I should look for in a mandoline for very thin slices? I don't own a mandoline of any type, so it would be sweet if I could find one that handles garlic well and can do bigger slices too, like potatoes for a gratin. In the meantime, does anybody have any good tricks for slicing garlic old school (with a knife and cutting board)? I find that if I try to do more than one clove at a time, they slide around on the board making even slices difficult. Even one at a time, I find it hard to hold the last half of the clove without risking a trip to the emergency room.

For the general case of cutting vegetables, I will always recommend a mandoline. Cutting with a mandoline vs. knife is like drawing a straight line with ruler vs. without - even though very experienced people can get good results both ways, using the mandoline is always quicker and more precise. And for anybody whose fine motoric skills are compromised, the mandoline adds even more value than for the average person. But the main disadvantage of the mandoline is that it doesn't work so well with the "butt" of the vegetable. With a normal-sized mandoline, I usually start using the cap when the food is worn down enough to pass about 4-5 cm above the blade, and because the cap is fiddly when the food is too thin, I leave the last 1 cm unsliced. There is no problem with making paper-thin slices of something large like an apple; but I would be wary of slicing something smaller than a garden radish on the normal mandoline, and wouldn't attempt a single garlic clove. The small garlic mandoline looks like it is designed to solve this problem, as a video of it shows that you can push it down inside a holding "cell" instead of having to rely on a nail to hold it in place as with traditional mandoline caps. But it might still lead to large butts (which you can of course process as per Kate Gregory's answer). Another thing important about a mandoline is that it should stand on a surface by its own. Mine has a rotating frame in the back which lets it stand stable on the counter, like a tablet holder. I only have to move the vegetable while the mandoline remains stable. Some have holes in the bottom edge so they can be put on a bowl rim. I can't see such a mechanism in the one you linked. If it requires the use of both hands (hold it stable with one hand while slicing with the other), its usability will be diminished a lot, especially when you have trouble with muscle coordination. You should try to find a model which can stand stable on its own. The person in the video does not use such a mechanism, maybe you should write to the manufacturer and ask if it exists.

Maybe a silly question, but I've been trying to learn a lot of baking fundamentals and trying to understand specifically what makes a cake. Most explanations I've read are something along the lines of: flour for structure fat to interfere with gluten development sugar for taste and moisture binder (eggs) to keep it all together Then the explanation for the flour is that the water and flour interact to produce gluten that then gives the cake its structure. One main thing doesn't make sense to me here though: If flour is there for the gluten, and gluten is required to form the structure of cake, how can gluten-free baking ever work? Now, I've done gluten-free baking plenty of times. Have never really had an issue. Additionally there are tons of alternatives, how can you get something cake-y out of so many different materials, none of which have gluten? Are there alternative protein networks that function like gluten? Are these protein networks common or rare, or beside the point altogether? Not sure if it's related, but why does adding xanthan gum to these gluten-free flours seem to always make them better?

Then the explanation for the flour is that the water and flour interact to produce gluten that then gives the cake its structure. Your confusion is well-founded, because gluten is required to form the structure of cake is too strong of a premise. Gluten can be a primary contributor to the structure of a cake, as in a wacky cake, but it is not required. This answer limits its scope to cakes and does not discuss other forms of gluten-free baking (bread, pies, etc). Gluten is a significant contributor to the structure of wheat products including breads, croissants, and some types of pie crusts and pastries. Non-Gluten Sources of Structure for Cakes On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee is a well-regarded reference. In its section on cakes, it does not describe gluten formation as necessary or desirable. I consider this weak evidence that "conventional wisdom" does not count gluten as a major structural contributor in cakes. Egg Protein As noted on page 554 of the second edition of On Food and Cooking, A cake's structure is created mainly by flour starch and by egg proteins. The omission of gluten as a contributor to structure is especially notable given that the next sentence mentions how other ingredients interfere with gluten. The tender ... texture comes from gas bubbles ... and from the sugar and fat, which interfere with gluten formation and egg protein coagulation, and interrupt the network of gelated starch Angel Food Cake As noted in this recipe for angel food cake by Stella Parks, egg white can provide sufficient structure for a cake. ... angel food cake is so high in protein from egg whites, it has enough strength to stand on its own ... With that kind of underlying structure, all angel food cake really needs is enough starch to keep its moisture in check Note that the motivation behind removing gluten in this recipe is specifically avoiding the additional structure gluten provides: angel food cake toughens up like shoe leather in the presence of gluten Personal Example: Gluten-Free and Egg-Free Brownie Recipe Adaptation In my personal experience with a few brownie recipes, protein from eggs provide a considerable amount of structure; omitting eggs without adding protein produces dramatically different results. The most rigorous experiments that I have performed were attempts to remove gluten and replace eggs in this recipe for brownies by Alice Medrich. Egg Protein In my earliest experiments adapting Medrich's recipe, I tried replacing wheat flour with an equal amount (by mass) of rice flour. This produced a result that was recognizably a brownie. However, also replacing eggs with binders and emulsifiers without protein (in my trials, a mix of water, lecithin, fiber, and starch) produces a sticky, caramel-like mass that separates from a significant amount of oil. This outcome was observed when using rice flour and gluten-free flour with xantham gum added.1 These two results are evidence that, in this recipe, eggs are sufficient for structure even without gluten. Another recipe by Dandelion Chocolate also appears to work fine with AP flour replaced by an equal amount of rice flour. 1 Correction: A previous version of this answer reported similar results with AP flour, and inferred from that result that the procedure outlined in Medrich's recipe made the gluten content of the flour irrelevant. In light of newer experiments that showed that simply adding enough starch and enough gluten in place of the AP flour produces brownie-like results, the inference is incorrect. Other protein Whey protein isolate, mixed with psyllium and starch for binding, baking soda for lift, and water for hydration, is the best substitute for eggs I tried so far; it produces a crumb very similar to that produced when using eggs. Carbohydrates Adding more starch than called for in Medritch's original recipe (e.g. increasing flour used from 65g AP flour to 100g rice flour, then adding another 10g of tapioca starch) appears to have a stabilizing effect. Mucilage (in the form of hydrated xantham gum, psyllium, or flax) may contribute to structure as part of their role in egg replacements.

If I cook an individual stuffed pork then immediately after at same temp cook an asparagus casserole will this affect the casserole flavor? Both items cook for approx 20/25 mins each.

If I'm understanding your question correctly (please let me know if I'm not), you want to know if the air inside the oven would carry flavor from one just removed dish to another since no time would pass for the aromas in the air to dissipate? The answer to that question is usually no. One exception might be if the first dish created a lot of smoke in the oven. As a matter of fact, you could bake a delicately flavored white cake on one shelf of the oven while cooking fish on another shelf, and the cake would not taste like fish. Assuming no chance of the fish in my example dripping, I would place the fish on the shelf above the cake, since aromas being carried by the hot air would travel up. Perhaps someone else will come along to better explain the science here. I am only answering from experience, like cooking several Thanksgiving dishes at the same time. Which leads me to one more thing I would like to say. If you can fit the casserole and the pork in the oven the same time, you could cook them simultaneously.

I cooked a kilo pork belly yesterday with a very nice crackling in a roasting pan with a rack so that the pork does not touch the pan. Once we had dinner, I put it in the fridge without covering (in the same tray with the rack I roasted it). I have reheated pork belly in the past in a microwave but that just makes the crackling chewy. Is it possible to reheat pork belly without losing the crackling or over-drying the meat?

I would recommend separating the crackling from the meat and re-heating both separately. The meat can go into the oven (or the microwave), the crackling can go under the grill (aka broiler).

Is it okay to wash your hands in the same dishwater that you are using to wash the dishes? In other words, Can someone use the kitchen sink filled with soapy dishwater to wash hands after using the restroom? Is it safe or just gross?

No! This risks fecal contamination of the dishes. One of the most common methods for disease to spread is the fecal-oral route. By washing your hands after going to the toilet in the same water as the dishes you're cleaning, you're transferring that fecal contamination to the water and then to all the dishes washed in it, and then to all the food eaten from those dishes.

Basically I boiled a turkey carcass on Thanksgiving night for about an hour. I then turned off the heat and left the lid on (never took it off). Since then it has been sitting on my stove for the last three days. I popped off the lid just now and everything smelled fine. I believe I've heard that food prepared and stored in this manner will keep for quite a while without spoiling. Is this true?

If both foodstuff and cooking vessel are heated fully and tightly sealed, you may sterilize them well enough to delay spoilage. It is not safe to rely on this, because it is easy to compromise the seal. You can't be sure the lid of the pot got hot enough to sterilize it too, and escaping steam will open the lid slightly, allowing outside air in. Once contaminated, warm broth and meat are a perfect growth medium for bacteria. The safer approach is opt for fast cooling in an ice water bath with the lid off to allow steam to escape, followed by prompt refrigeration. This gets the food out of the temperature danger zone (40-140F) where bacteria multiply rapidly, and doesn't rely on maintaining a sterile environment in your pot. Sous vide cooking is an exception: with a sealed bag, you're recreating Louis Pasteur's famous proof of the germ theory. In his experiments, he sealed boiled broth in containers that prevented dust particles (carrying microorganisms) from contaminating them. The sealed containers did not spoil. Of course, this ignores the problem of botulism: the spores aren't killed, even at a full boil, and can then germinate and start to multiply. This (and similar pathogens) are why sous vide foods do not have infinite shelf life in their bags.

What are the technical differences between a soup and a stew. Specifically, I've always had some confusion on the differentation of stew and soup. For the most part, you can tell the difference by visual cues but sometimes some soup or stew looks ambigously in between and i can't tell the difference. For example, wikipedia shows a picture of this as soup: Yet it looks more like a stew to me. And then it shows this as a stew: Yet that looks like a soup to me. So my main question is: What are the technical differences that determine whether it is a soup or a stew.

There really is no practical difference; the dictionary definition of a soup is: a liquid food made by boiling or simmering meat, fish, or vegetables with various added ingredients. Which also applies to any stew you can conceive of. The technical, highly-nuanced difference is that of emphasis and intent. Stewing is a method of cooking the solids (specifically, a slow, moist-heat method). When you make a beef stew, you are stewing the beef, which says nothing about what you're stewing it in. On the other hand, when you make a chicken soup (or a chicken stock or broth which is the base of a chicken soup) then your objective is essentially to make chicken-flavoured liquid - to extract the flavour of the solids into the liquid. If some flavourful solids remain, then that is incidental as opposed to intentional. In practice, some flavour extraction is going to happen with a stew as well, it just so happens that the principal aim is to cook the meat/veggies. A soup is more likely to contain raw or barely-cooked ingredients, and a stew is more likely to preserve the original flavour of the solids and/or liquids, but that's a very broad generalization and what it boils down to (ha ha) in practice seems to be largely dependent on the culture and the dish itself. A stew is not simply a thick or chunky soup, despite the fact that a lot of people think of it that way. As above, that seems to be more common with stews, but it's not part of the definition, and the French have half a dozen categories for thickened soups that could easily be described as having the overall consistency of a "stew".

I was recently helping with some recipes and was instructed to use water for "sauteing" onions, celery, garlic, etc. in place of oil (scare quotes on "saute" since it involves frying in oil or other fat by definition). The technique is meant to parallel sauteing in oil, water is measured by the tablespoon in a large pan, and although you replace water as it evaporates the vegetables are never submerged in water. Only enough water is ever used to inhibit sticking of the vegetables to the pan. The results were good and light but I haven't had much of a chance to push it further and experiment with the upsides and downsides (the three dishes meant to just soften the onions, garlic, celery and I had to follow the directions). Obviously, using oils imparts that flavors that you otherwise won't have present if using water. More importantly though, I would like to know which reactions would be inhibited in some way; for instance, would browning and caramelizing happen at a different rate, or at all? Are there any other preparations that would be impossible without a fat to saute in? What are the limitations when using water to saute?

The big difference is that oil can get to a higher temperature than water can. Water turns to steam at 212F, while most oils won't start smoking until 300-400F. Caramelization doesn't happen until 320F (for sucrose and glucose, 230F for fructose), while browning (the Maillard reaction, to be specific) doesn't happen until 375F. Now when you "saute" like that in water, you'll also be using the steam to cook, and the steam will be somewhat hotter than 212F, but probably not enough hotter (or in enough quantity) to get to those reaction temperatures. You might get high enough temperatures via direct contact with the bottom of the pan, but that's a recipe for uneven cooking, as the part of the food actually in direct contact are likely to be quite small.

Mountain Dew is often described as 'citrus' flavor but that is a broad range of fruits with infinite possible combinations. It does have orange juice in the ingredients, but also "natural flavor". How can I recreate the flavor of Mountain Dew using ingredients available to me, such as fruit juices, with no added sugar or caffeine?

OK, this is dangerously close to a recipe request, but far enough away that I feel OK to answer. Use the rule of two. 2 cups of sugar 2 two oranges 2 limes 2 lemons Juice and zest the whole fruit. Strain and and fill to 1 gallon with water. Filter if you want it to be clear. Carbonate using whatever technique you normally use whether that's a Cornelius keg or soda stream.

I have been reprimanded at work for de-shelling egg over an open bin. My hand is not touching the bin, as it is opened via the foot pedal. So is it dangerous or unhygienic to deshell an egg over the bin? Anything in a hygiene hand book?

Not aware of anything in the handbook specifically. But the intent and spirit of the handbook is important. While what you've done isn't a kitchen crime. I'd be proud to go to, or work in a kitchen that is this pedantic about safety. here are some points to think of: Generally you want to treat the vicinity of the bin as a one way. Food goes to the bin and doesn't comeback. One issue might be that if you lose the egg, you can't recover and the optics of it is not good. The other problem is that you know there is bacteria in the bin and long past the food safety safe zone. Why hang out there with food to be served and with eggs which bacteria love. Presumably you're standing over the bin and there may be splashback, shrapnel, or other spoilage making into your apron/hands etc. Part of Mise en Place is a clean set up and what you describe isn't exactly Mise en Place.

I have an iron kettle that is pitted with rust in pits. How do I get rid of rust so I can cook chowder in it? We have tried using a wire brush, filled with water and boiled it. Saw vinegar can be used but don't know how long to leave it in kettle or if needs to be diluted.

I'm assuming that you're referring to a cast-iron kettle. One of the common strategies for removing rust from cast-iron is to rub the oxidized areas with steel wool. You'll want to remove as much of the rust as possible that way, and then you can consider using a wire or plastic brush, soap and water. Subsequently, once you're confident you've removed the rust, brushing with food-grade flaxseed oil (or shortening, in a pinch) and heating the pot for a period of time, then letting it cool so that the coating is mostly polymerized, will help reduce the likelihood of future rust development. There is a guide to restoring cast-iron covering roughly the same set of steps. The reason for preferring flaxseed oil is its polymerization properties as noted above, but you may want to see a more detailed explanation.

What works well for storing recipes digitally? Software and web solutions are both welcome. For me, the ideal solution would accept recipes from different sources (copy/paste, or email) in any format, and would automatically generate ingredient lists. It would be available from multiple devices (phone, iPad, computer) and would automatically prepare shopping lists.

My wife and I love http://www.plantoeat.com/ The recipe import is well done and intuitive. The meal planner is easy to use and provides a great view of the week ahead. The grocery list maker is awesome. The Pantry Inventory of the stuff you already have on hand is brilliant! The site looks and works great on an iPhone when shopping. We said "so long" to Grocery Gadget after using it :)

The warning label on each coconut describes how to treat the water within each. The water on the brown coconut is to be discarded; the water on the white coconut is safe for consumption. In what ways is the water from the brown coconut different than that of the white coconut?

I have been in the coconut export business for over 6 years. Coconuts are either 'young' 7-9 months or 'mature' 11-12 months old at the time of harvest. If you want sweet water, the coconut is harvest young, when the sugar content and volume of water are at their peak. As the coconut ages, the water is absorbed as the 'meat' in the coconut grows thicker. The water also looses its sugar content. After husking, young coconut shells are white and quickly turn brown UNLESS treated in chemicals to keep them white for an extended period.. The water in an older, browner, coconuts is still safe to drink, just not as sweet. If the water is rancid, so is the coconut meat.

I recently made some pesto from scratch and my end result, while delicious, was overpowered by a strong garlic flavor, and not entirely in a good way. I'm talking about that sharp, spicy flavor that garlic sometimes imparts. I would have added more basil if I had it on hand, but I used all of my stash in the first go-round. What else could I add to lessen the flavor? Is there a general purpose ingredient for this situation?

I know this is a bit of an old question but I came along it on my own search so thought I'd share my solution. I figured the problem with the excess garlic is that it's raw so I sprinkled some parmesan on top of my pesto and baked it in the oven for 5-10mins. Stirred through the now melted parmesen with the semi-cooked garlic and it tastes so much better. Still a little garlic-y for my liking but hey, we can't all be perfect. Oh, I was making my pesto in a glass mixing bowl so just chucked the whole thing in the oven but make sure whatever you have it in is oven safe before whacking it in. Enjoy!

Below are ingredients for blondies, which I have made several times to pleasing results. I've had a friend ask that I make her a pan of gluten-free blondies but I am not sure how to go about doing that to maintain consistency. I made her a cake once, and the only differences between most cakes were the GF flour, and what seemed to be a larger set of eggs. That cake, by the way, came out dry in my opinion. Could anyone please let me know how I might make this gluten free? Thanks! 2 cups all-purpose flour 1 teaspoon baking powder 1/4 teaspoon baking soda 1 teaspoon salt 3/4 cup butter (solid/chilled; salted or unsalted) 1 cup light brown sugar packed 1/2 cup granulated sugar 2 eggs lightly beaten 2 teaspoons vanilla extract 1/2 C peanut butter

You might want to check out this website: https://glutenfreeonashoestring.com/. The author has lots of recipes (including more than one recipe for blondies) and advice on both commercially made and DIY gluten-free flours. Which GF flour you use matters and different flours are best for different types of baked goods. I've made her GF flaky pie crust a few times and it turns out great. If you are going to convert the recipe above, you'll most likely want to add xantham gum, increase the moisture content slightly, and possibly increase the leavening agents (baking powder and baking soda). Many GF recipes include xantham gum, either in the flour itself or as an additional ingredient if your flour doesn't include it. Xantham gum provides elasticity and stickiness. According to https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/converting-recipes-to-gluten-free/ (and based on your comment about a previous recipe you tried to convert), you should also increase the moisture content, either by adding an egg, full fat milk, or buttermilk, or substituting some of the liquid in the recipe with sour cream or mayonnaise. This site also has some good advice on converting recipes to GF: https://theheritagecook.com/converting-recipe-gluten-free/. For this recipe, there isn't much moisture besides the eggs and peanut butter, so you wouldn't replace any of that with something else. I would add something — maybe 1/4 cup or less of applesauce or apple butter. The flavor would be mild and compatible with the other flavors. Or you could use dark brown sugar (instead of light brown), which will have more moisture content. Another option might be to add a tablespoon of molasses. The last site also suggests increasing the leavening a little. I'm not sure if you'd need to do this with this recipe, though, unless you prefer your blondies to be more cakey than fudgey. Given that there is peanut butter in the recipe already, I'm guessing this is a fudgey blondie. I've never tried to make a change to the leavening in a recipe, so I have no advice on how much you would add.

Being a north Indian, the only onions that I have used and seen others using are red onions. These are used in all Indian traditional dishes. I have seen green onions and white onions in the market sometimes (haven't noticed anyone purchasing them though). How are the green and white ones different from the red onions I'm used to? Are there specific times I should use them instead of red onions, or things I should try them in to be able to tell the difference?

The difference for green onions will be most noticable if you don't cook them. Instead, slice them up and use them for a garnish over the dish. The white portion of the green onion will still be oniony, but not quite as strong as a raw red onion. Slice them thinly and use for garnish if you really want to bring out the onion qualities of them. If you don't want it too strong, then add them when you're cooking. (and you might not want to slice them as thin). The green portion gives a more mild onion taste but also some of the grassy quality that you might get from chives. I treat them like a fresh herb, chop them up, and add in them in the last minute of cooking or I don't cook them at all. As for substitution ... I'd only plan to do it if you were cooking for someone who didn't like onions, as they're milder and come in smaller portions than bulb onions, so it's easier to control amounts without any waste. ... and I'd do it if I had them on hand but didn't have bulb onions around. If you're just looking for a good way to feature the green onions -- grill them. Trim the ends off, clean off any dirt, give them a coat of oil, then toss them on a hot pan or grill. They make a great side dish. Other good uses are to add them into scrambled eggs, green onion pancakes, or press them into naan before cooking it. ... For the white onions, the opposite is true -- they're generally stronger than red onions. Most people don't serve it as a raw garnish unless it's very thinly sliced and used in small amounts. It's still used raw, but it tends to be blended into other things such as pico de gallo, or guacamole, where the pungency of the onion helps to balance out the sweetness of the tomatoes or richness of the avocado. I'm having difficulty thinking of a dish where the qualities of the white onion would stand out, though. My only idea is french onion soup, because it just comes out lacking if you make it with sweeter red or yellow onions ... but unless you made them side by side and compared them, I don't know that you'd see the difference. You might try cooking them slowly over medium heat until they caramelize ... it'd let you feature the onions without them being overwhelming, and it brings out some of their more interesting qualities.