What are good counter-top oven settings to reheat french fries soggy from refrigerating overnight? I have yesterday's French Fries (Chips for those of you across the Pond).
They were stored in a refrigerator overnight and now are cold AND soggy.

What's a good technique to reheat them in a small counter-top electrical oven?
E.g. temperature? bake/broil/convection setting? How long?

Constraints:

I must heat them on a sheet of thin wrapping aluminum foil (over a loose grill, no tray)
I would prefer a method that takes less than 5 minutes, but that's not a cut-off
The main goal is to have them somewhat crispyish on the outside, and tasty (not hard, not soggy) on the inside
The fries/chips size can be either McDonalds size (1/2 cm^2 square cross cut) or slightly larger diner size (~0.5cm x 1 cm cross cut)
The amount is such that - evenly spreading them on an aluminum foil sheet the size of the oven's tray - they cover pretty much the whole sheet, in single layer
this is at work, so I am unlikely to have access to any ingredients (e.g. any answer that starts with "sprinkle with xyz oil" is less desirable.

The fries are fully-cooked, from an order from an eatery, not home-cooked. So while I don't know the ingredients/coating/what they were fried in, a safe assumption is that the fries are either standard McDonalds recipe, or some sort of generic US Diner or midrange restaurant recipe, assuming one is known.

They won't be as good as when fresh (of course) but generally:

You want the oven pretty hot. How hot depends on the oven, size of fry, etc., but a good first guess would be 425°F–450°F. On most toaster ovens I've seen, that'd be as hot as it goes. Let the oven preheat. Unfortunately, heating the oven is going to take longer than your five minutes, probably ten to fifteen... But as long as you stay nearby (just in case) you can do something else while its heating.
Spread the fries evenly on your piece of foil. Fold up the edges of the foil a little to keep them from sliding off when you move it. (Note: A plain, uncoated aluminum quarter sheet pan probably fits in your toaster oven, and can be had for under $10.)
They won't take long. Listen for them to start to sizzle. Once they've sizzled for a little bit (say, 30 seconds) pull them out and flip them. Put them back in and let them sizzle a little longer. Take them out, sample one, put back in if not done yet. I can't give you a time (other than "a few minutes") because it's going to vary a lot based on the fry, and even how much it has dried out in the fridge. Judge when they're ready based on the sound (sizzle), smell, color (browning), and taking one out and tasting it.

Notes:

You may find adding some salt helps them a lot. Same with some finely ground pepper. Or other powdered seasoning mixes like Old Bay.
If the center isn't warm enough by the time the outside is browning, use a lower temperature next time. If the center is overdone (e.g., dried out) before browning sets in, use a higher temperature.

In medium-hot skillet (fry pan) add a little oil. (not cooking spray)

Add fries in serving size batches to hot oil.

Stir & flip often until outside is crunchy & inside is hot, but not over cooked.

Drain on paper towels & salt to taste. (if needed)

I find this works best with room temperature, leftover fast food fries like McDonalds or Burger King fries.


Low Salt Indian Food Indian recipes tastes awful with reduced salt. Can anything be done to make them more palatable? Are there dishes that taste OK even with low salt?

Indian recipes taste fine with reduced salt, as long as you haven't trained your palate to enjoy salty food. This is no different to any other regional cuisine.

I personally cook curries with no added salt at all, a quarter-teaspoon of salt per portion of boiled rice, and minimal salt in breads.

Try reducing saltiness gradually, until your palate no longer demands it.

In the meantime you could use salt substitutes - there are products made with potassium chloride instead of sodium chloride which may be better for you than salt.

About indian food i couldn't say anything. But since you are asking here, I imagine that you can accept different suggests also.

generally the meat does not need salt (if using meat), because it contains enough
get your salade using soy sauce instead of salt
cook the vegetables using extract of meat or vegetables (with a bit of water) instead of salt
use many spices, especially Mediterranean herbs, in cooking, that being the tastiest require less salt or even they can do without.
use as a sauce for spaghetti or rice, tomato sauce with lots of basil, sauce "pesto", tuna and anchovies sauce, dry tomatowes sauce. Those sauces are very tasty, but precisely because of this, it's enough just a very short for season: with a couple of teaspoons you have a great dish
use "strong" vegetables in preparations, such as garlic, onion, celery
prepare many dishes complete, cereals and legumes, such as pasta and beans, rice and peas, pasta and chickpeas, always seasoned with many herbs.

Finally, think that you get used to everything. I know people who could not eat salt for years, and now they find inedible normally savory dishes.


How often should I change oil if reusing daily? At the moment I'm frying chips and protein 3 times a day daily using a fry machine. I'm using sunflower oil though could use others if needed but right now that's easiest to use.

The oil stays in the fry machine, not sure if it's air tight but i dont think it is and it also sits near the window.

I notice food particles in the fryer and fry basket but i guess i could clean that\pull it out with a sieve every 2-3 days.

Considering my heavy usage, how often should i change the oil and how often should I be cleaning the food out, will simply removing with a sieve be enough i still imagine there would be small particles remaining.

Also,  think I read that if it smells of other food you should change it.  However if you cook chicken in it it ay quicly smell of chicken, does it have to be changed in this case or can one just livewith the smell?

Oil does not wear out.  Unless burnt.  Try this. Drain or pour the oil into a coffee filter holder with the fine screen. Warm oil. It will remove most crumbs from the oil. Into a large mouth jar. Put lid on jar.  To supper clean oil run threw the paper filter. But that is slow to do. I do not see in America oil cans. With the filters in them of fine screen like used in small motors. Pour out remaining oil in bottom of fryer last. Wipe clean. The more crumb build up in the bottom the faster your oil turns dark as it burns.  Oil should last 6 months if filtered after use. Crumbs removed. By just adding oil lost.  To remove taste fry potatoes in it last.


Why do so many dessert/biscuit recipes have salt in them? Whilst I can understand salt in the majority of recipes, I never really understood why it is in so many desserts or biscuits.

When I have asked a few friends or family who do a lot of cookery, the vast majority say pretty much the same thing "the salt cuts across the other flavours", or "you always just add it!".

But... So many times, when I eat biscuits, if I chew a lot and then just as I swallow, I can always taste salt... The ones I probably taste salt the most on are (Worst first) : Custard Creams, Digestives, Rich Tea.

In my honest opinion, the salt just isn't needed - I don't think it adds anything, and, it just seems to leave a horrible after taste (I can usually always taste it, but a lot more when I chew a lot).

In particular, now that so many people are on low salt diets and so many people say it is bad for you, I don't understand why it is there!

So, is there a good reason why it is added?

Salt has unique properties in how it interacts with the taste buds. While it has its own "flavor" it also has the ability to enhance some flavors while blocking your ability to experience others.

While I could go on, all I would be doing is repeating much of what I learned watching
The Food Network's Alton Brown. He goes in depth for the episode "The Ballad of Salty and Sweet" which is available on from the Food Network.

There are (of course) other resources, but AB does a really great job of teaching in this episode.

Salt is an unnecessary ingredient in pretty much every recipe. Make recipes with and without it and you'll notice virtually no difference, at all.


Turning a sweet cake into a savoury one: What should I swap in place of sugar? I am looking to turn the following recipe for pumpkin bread into a savoury one. i.e. I want to get rid of sugar (which in this case is maple syrup). I think that sugar will add to the loafiness of the bread. I have thought of using eggs as this might add the extra moist and structure that sugar seems to facilitate - but I might be wrong, and I am still very confused by the research I have done. It also seems that sugar and eggs complement each other, so I am not sure if eggs alone are the solution.

As per above, I don't care about the cake being vegan (just gluten free). So all suggestions are welcome.

On King Arthur's site, they talk about liquid sweeteners.
One of their comparisons between the different forms is water content/acidity.
Maple syrup's water content/acidity: 34%, mildly acidic (less acidic than honey).
This led me to look up water content and acidity impacts on baking.
The Cake blog did a comparison of cakes based on level of acid used. The no acid cake (what I would assume would happen if you removed the maple syrup because it contains malic acid) still worked, it just wasn't as tall or fluffy as the ones with acid.
My suggestion is that if you want a loaf that is more cake-like, you should add a bit of acid (e.g., lemon juice or vinegar) if you remove the maple syrup. If you want a loaf that's denser, you can leave out the maple syrup and don't add in anything else.

That is an interesting "bread" recipe because it doesn't have any flour. It is more of a... torte?

I don't think the maple syrup and honey in the recipe would add "loafiness" because they are liquid and viscous. Omitting them would reduce the overall water in the recipe so it might just be more dense and dry. The maple syrup especially adds a lot of flavor, to offset that you could add some spices.

You could look up recipes for pumpkin gratin such as this one from Jacques Pepin to get some ideas, he adds eggs, cheese, and cream and bakes it. I have made this and it is delicious, but definitely not bread.  If you added eggs to your recipe I bet you would get something that is springy and sliceable.


Why prefer prime-cut sausage over MSM sausage Yesterday I saw a site that claimed their fairly expensive poultry sausages are made of prime cuts (thigh, breast), rather than the usual mechanically separated meat.

Why would one prefer a prime-cut sausage over MSM, as both are ultimately going to be minced into a fine paste and made into a sausage?

It's probably simple marketing.

People like the idea of eating 'prime' meat more than 'scraggy' meat, and tend to assume it makes for a better taste and texture (even when it might not).

This is probably the same principle behind things like high meat and low fat sausages - people buy them because they fear 'mystery meat' and anything with cheap content, even when that cheaper content is better suited - such as fat and rusk keeping sausages moist and soft.

Darn this sort of thing raises my hackles!
MSM is metely mechanically separated meat.  The reason spent hen is mechanically de-boned is because the carcuss is very slim with little meat.  This is jsut because of the bird's genetics, nothing more.  In other words, this breed tends to be a good deal lighter in muscle.  But Granny made all her soup from spent hen, because it had a bunch more flavour.  And, while it is  not a roaster, it is a "fricasee chicken" which means it is both old and tough, unless one cooks it for a long time.  This is a result of old ligamentous and conne4ctive tissue, wghich is very tough.  But cut it fine enough for sausage and there is no problem.  In fact it superior, more intense flavour is a big plus.  Its all about marketing and the big guys are happy to eliminate at elast one competitor at any time.
geoff


When making lemon/poppy seed icecream, how should I include the poppy seeds? I want to make lemon+poppy ice cream, and I have a bag of preground blue poppy. I’m not following s specific recipe, I just like the flavour combo and had it in icecream from a shop before. Can I add them to the base when it’s hot; when it’s chilled before churning; steep them then strain them out; or do I add them to the finished icecream?

Poppy seeds have a very pleasant aroma and a bit of heat is going to do wonders to extract their flavour and aroma. I would dump them right into the end of the cooking process after you remove your custard from the heat. You don't want to cook them because you'll boil off volatiles and lose some flavour much like vanilla.
I think if you can get some lemon zest to appear in your finished product, or even as a garnish, along with the flecks of poppy it's going to look beautiful if you leave them in. Sort of a more sophisticated vanilla bean ice cream vibe.

I would assume adding seeds would be a lot like adding other things such as cookies, candy, nuts, chocolate, etc. In those cases, I've found that it works better to add them at the end, since they can sometimes be large enough to interfere with the machine's dasher. And for softer things like cookies or brownies, or swirls of things like caramel or jam, you pretty much have to add them at the end to avoid them either disintegrating or just getting lost in the ice cream.
Some recipes say to add extras to the ice cream in the last couple of minutes of freezing in the machine, but I've found that it's better to pre-chill a ceramic bowl and then transfer all the ice cream to the bowl using a pre-chilled spoon before folding in the extras. You don't have to worry about getting the timing just right and it works better for machines where the top is covered and all you have is a small chute.
In the case of poppy seeds, you may find that they're small enough that you can add them at the beginning without interfering with anything but in general I think adding things at the end works better for me. That's the way it's done for commercial ice cream as well, where the extras are dropped into the stream of frozen ice cream as it leaves the machine.


Combine skim milk and cream to substitute for whole? In what ratio would you combine skim milk and higher-fat dairy to reach an equivalent of e.g. whole milk? I ran out of whole the other day making bread, tried to add a splash of half-and-half to 2%, but it didn't come out that well - but it must be possible in the right ratio, yes?

If you want a fat fraction of f, starting from cream with a fat fraction c and milk with a fat fraction of m, then the fraction of cream to use is (f-m)/(c-m).

All you have to do is multiply that by the total volume to get how much cream to use, and then fill in the rest of the total with milk.

For example, if you want to approximate 1 cup of 3.25% whole milk using 36% heavy cream and 0% skim milk, you need (3.25-0)/(36-0) * 1 cup = 0.09 cups of cream, or 1.5 tablespoons. So take 1.5 tablespoons of cream, and add skim milk to reach 1 cup.

Or if you want two cups of 10.5% half and half using 33% whipping cream and 2% milk, you need (10.5-2)/(33-2) * 2 cup = 0.55 cups, or about 1/2 cup + 1 tablespoon of cream. So take 1/2 cup plus 1 tablespoon of cream, and add 2% milk to reach 2 cups.

Unfortunately it's hard to provide a really useful table of examples, because fat content of dairy products varies around from country to country, and even within countries. Probably the most useful single thing to know is that you can use Google, e.g. search for (10.5-2)/(33-2)*2 cups in tablespoons to do the calculation from the previous paragraph.

For example, in the US, I believe:

whole milk - usually 3.25%
half-and-half - usually 10.5% or maybe 12% (can be up to 18%)
light cream - usually 18% (can be up to 30%)
whipping cream - usually 33% (can be 30-36%)
heavy whipping cream - usually 36% (can be higher)

Resources for finding fat contents if not given:

Wikipedia on cream
US/UK conversions (the dairy section)

Derivation is pretty simple. If x is the fraction of cream, then the resulting fat fraction is:

f = x * c + (1-x) * m.

This is simply a weighted average of the component fat ratios: x is the fraction of cream, so 1-x is the fraction of milk. (If you really wanted to convince yourself of this, you could write out the amount of milk in each component and the total, and the volumes of everything, and divide to get this.)

Solving for x yields the formula given at the beginning of the answer.

Simple math
vA is volume of A
fA is fraction of milkfat in A
vB is volume of B
fB is fraction of milkfat in B
fD is the desired fraction

fD must be between fA and fB

fD = (fA*vA + fB*vB) / (vA + vB)
fD*vA + fD*vB  = fA*vA + fB*vB
vA*(fD - fA) = vB*(fB - fD)
vA/vB = (fB - fD) / (fD - fA)

vA/vB is the ratio
So to make .5 from .25 and .75 you should mix 1:1


How can I prevent pastry becoming soggy when it has a filling and is stored overnight? I want to make sausage rolls the night before and store them in the fridge before cooking. I am worried that the sausage meat will make the pastry go soggy. How can I prevent this?

At work the butcher makes 100's of sausage rolls in batches. We then cook 1/4, fridge 1/4 and freeze 1/2. We never have any issue with them being soggy, regardless of storage method. To be honest in a taste test you'd have no idea which was which.

Also once cooked (as long as cooked properly) they don't go soggy for at least 2 days in the fridge.

I'm assuming you will be using puff pastry as per tradition. If so don't forget to allow the rolls to stand at room temp for 15-30min before cooking as it will help with the "puffing".

Honestly they will be best freshly cooked but there are few things you can do.

Make sure they are cooled when you put them in the fridge to reduce condensation. You will want to use the oven not a microwave to re heat for serving.

You could also try par cooking them and finishing them in the oven before serving that would help make sure crust is nice and crispy and still cut down the time needed to cook them when you want to serve them.

My personal though is par cook them, I am not sure how long would be best though.


What are the consequences of infusing a tea bag longer than recommended? I'm a regular consumer of tea (since about 2 years ago), usually from commercial tea bags.

They advise to infuse tea for 3 to 5 minutes, but there is some times that I have left it longer by accident.

So I have been wondering what are the consequences -if any-  of infusing tea bag longer than recommended by sellers (sometimes up to 10 minutes). My question is general, but I'm especially interested in black tea.

The tea will be stronger than you'd like if you steep it for too long. Over-steeping sometimes gives a bitter flavor as well. (I am guilty of frequently over-steeping as I have the attention span of a goldfish. Sometimes I remember to set a timer, sometimes not.)

I tried it for ten minutes. The flavor is much better - deeper more robust.
Try it to see for yourself.

Next time I am going to experiment with longer steeping time.


Why is delivered pizza often oily? Forgive the heresy, but I've recently had some pizza delivered. I noticed it was quite oily, and I have seen and heard horror stories of pizza basically drowning in oil.

This does not happen when I make pizza myself, even with salami on top the amount of oil is small, and certainly not soaking through and through.

Is the oil added intentionally? Some (e.g. Asian) delivered foods are put in oil to keep them hot, but that does not seem to be a viable option for pizzas.

I have had a pizza with a drizzle of olive oil on top (in addition to some basil, pesto, and something else). As best I remember, it did not end up looking, feeling, or tasting particularly "oily", although it was visually apparent (olive-green lines).

However, that was a high-end pizzeria; I've never seen oil on a delivered pizza, at least not any that was intentionally added as a separate ingredient. Oil that is orange or yellow comes out of the cheese (and salami or other fatty ingredients) during cooking. Inexpensive ingredients often have much more grease than higher-quality alternatives.

Overly greasy pizza is caused by baking it too hot too quickly. The high heat makes the butter fat in the cheese melt, causing a moist pizza.


I love the combination of pesto and chicken. Is there a reason traditional Italian cuisine seems to shy away from it? They just seem to go together perfectly without the need to add much more to make a tasty dish. However, for some reason, it doesn't seem to appear in traditional cuisine at all. Is pesto considered exclusively a pasta sauce? Is there a reason why?

I'm assuming you mean basil pesto, although according to an Italian dictionary a pesto is a sauce made by crushing ingredients (pestare is Italian for crushing). Some specific types (like the Genovese one) are protected by law and you can't call something with that denomination unless they have some specific requirements.

As Italian, I've seen basil pesto also as a sandwich sauce together with cold cuts and/or cheese, pizza topping or as lasagna filling as alternative to the ragù (aka Bolognese sauce outside Italy:) I think this answers your first question.

Together with meat, I've never seen it; probably because it can be too strong to cover the meat's flavor. However, a similar preparation with parsley (salsa verde) but probably not as strong usually accompanies the bollito (boiled meat). I'd say the pattern is that we're speaking about not-so-flavorful meats, but here I'm afraid to cross the line and step into speaking about my personal taste.

It simply depends on how much of a traditionalist you want to be.  There are actually a few different types of pestos that originated in Italy, with the most famous being the Ligurian version that includes basil, garlic, pine nuts, olive oil and pecorino. As with many traditional foods in Italy, there is actually an organization (Consorzio del Pesto Genovese) that specifies the exact ingredients (and their source), and the precise process for constructing this version of pesto.  Of course, these days, many Italians, and many people around the world use the ingredients and tools they have on hand to construct a pesto.  While it was originally used, and is today most commonly used, to dress pasta, you can certainly find it in Italy, and worldwide, flavoring meat, pizza, breads, soups, and more.  So, it may not be "traditional", but it does have other uses in Italian cuisine, and there is no reason you shouldn't continue to enjoy your pesto chicken.


how does the poaching eggs recipe scale for different sizes of egg? The recipe for poaching regular chicken eggs states to leave the egg in a pot of simmering water for ~4 minutes (besides of messing with the liquid pH levels).

I was wondering how the temperature, pH and the time would change for eggs of different sizes, e.g. quail and ostrich ?

As stated above in various comments it is a complicated question. I do have some info.

First read khymos I think that the formula they have answers the question :-)
They have a answer in a graph but it is only displayed for a very small range of chicken eggs.

This page in Norwegian gives you a online tool to manipulate the size of the egg and get the cooking time, but it only handles 12 to 17 cm circumference, translation here for the terms here if you need it

It doesn't really scale since the thermodynamics of objects interacting in liquids is a differential equation.  You may be able to make some gross assumptions and use a first order d.e. to estimate, but it wouldn't be an easy scale.  You can get a more clear answer at http://physics.stackexchange.com.

However, the good folks at El Bulli solved this already.

Place the eggs in a Sous Vide bath at exactly 63C 62C.
After 1-hour you're gauranteed to have soft-boiled style eggs (shell or poached)
After 1-day (they said) you'll still have soft-boild eggs.  According to their testimony (it was presented at Harvard), you can run this indefinitely and not ruin the eggs.


Wok: Carbon steel or cast iron? I LOVE stirfrying (I probably do it 4 times a week) and I want to take it to the next level (or 2). I am going to get this burner to cook my stirfry's out on the patio.

I am wondering if I should also get a cast iron wok, or should I just stick with the carbon steel that I have been using?

I have friends from Hong Kong who always use steel woks in their take-away.

A cast-iron wok would require a different technique for stir frying. It would be slower to heat up and retain heat when you didn't want the food to continue cooking.

Stick with the one you have ...

I would definitely recommend Cast Iron. It’s so easy to season it with a little bit of Oil (used olive oil). The Crust you get, & the flavor of your food is so much better. It makes a Huge difference over any other kind of pan.


Why not put knives in the dishwasher? What is it about the dishwasher that harms knives?

The only reasons I've found are:

You could get cut... I personally have a greater change of getting cut by trying to wash them by hand.
The blades can damage the plastic-coated metal shelves... so I put them in the silverware-holder instead of on the rack (it's 100% plastic, no metal).
The blade could get nicked by being knocked into other silverware... so put the blade by itself in a section of the silverware-holder in the DW.

Well even for knives with no wood, a dishwasher is a very hostile environment. The reason is primarily for the blades. If you have quality knives that you care for, and plan to keep for many years, then it's just not worth it. It's just too easy for a knife to be jostled around and bang into other knives or silverware and get nicked.

You mention that you have a greater chance of getting cut when washing by hand. Well, there's a trick to that.

The easiest and safest way to wash a knife by hand is to press it flat against the side of the sink, then use your sponge/scrubber on the exposed side of the knife. Repeat for the other side. This keeps your blade safe, because the edge never touches anything. It also keeps your sponges and hands from being slashed to pieces by the blade.

Dry it immediately with a dish towel, using a pinching swipe from bolster to tip from the back of the knife.

Dishwashers will heat the blade to a temperature that changes the structure of the steel itself so it will not keep a sharp edge.  It only takes one time in the dishwasher for this to happen so if yours has taken that trip through--too late.  If your knife is brand new--just be hyper-vigilant that one ever puts it in.


What is processed meat? 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.

A simple way to think about is: any meat that has been forced/pumped through an opening.  This covers hams, sausages, bacon, etc.  Notice that Smoked Salmon, or Proscuitto are left out.  Generally 'Processed' refers to mechanical or chemical processing of meat.

Your local indie butcher's meat is better because he loses in the game of numbers and you win.

He/she processes a couple of animals a day and doesn't have access to enough filler meat to make a whole product line out of it.
The big plant processes some 300 animals per hour.  So your piece of ham can come from 1000 or so different animals and your odds of seeing animal disease are magnitudes higher than your local butcher.  For this reason, meat plants have very aggressive plans to counter the risk with chemicals.
Your local butcher most likely doesn't even know what the term bliss-point means, let alone gaming your brain for salt, sugar and fat bliss points.  The branded processed meat will almost certainly have more of those three.

As an aside: most processed meats contain nitrites which some consider unhealthy.  See the wiki article about this food additive.  You may find other ailments controversially attributed to it as well if you look around the net.


Best practices to minimize smoke when cooking meat using a cast iron skillet What are the recommendations to minimize the amount of smoke generated when cooking burgers, steaks or other meats in a cast-iron pan?

Do make sure you are using a high quality refined oil that is good for high temperature cooking, and has a high smoke point.  Grapeseed is nearly ideal, although it can be expensive.  I have heard good things about avacado oil, but haven't tried it personally.

You might wish to oil the meat rather than the pan, so that you are not getting smoke from oil away from the food you are cooking, but this unlikely to make a large difference.

Still, if you are searing at high temperatures, some smoke is inevitable.   Of course, lowering the temperature at which you cook can eliminate the smoke, but it also changes the result, sometimes for the worse.

In truth, for high temperature searing, you simply need to have good ventillation.

You might also want to temporarily take the battery out of the kitchen smoke detector—just remember to put it back in when you are done.

Not sure if this is an option for you but if the goal is to reduce the smoke inside the house, you could use a grill outside. Either on a side burner or on the grill itself is something I have done. Then either bring it back inside to finish it in the oven or just keep it in the grill at a lower temp.


How to separate salt from chocolate? For the cake we needed melted chocolate with some extra sugar.
However, instead of sugar we have added salt.
Is there a viable way to separate the salt?

The chocolate has 60% cocoa in it, and there's also some butter in the mixture.

You're going to have to start over with new chocolate. I'm sorry to say it but there's no way to remove the salt from the chocolate.

Since chocolate does not boil (to my knowledge) you could not use distillation.

Chocolate is oil based which is not polar so salt has a low solubility.

Salt is very soluble in water. You could remove it via dialysis (osmotic pressure). Basically salt likes water more than chocolate.

This is a reach. Chocolate and water are not soluble.  Melt the chocolate with like 5x the volume of water on the stove just hot enough to melt the chocolate.  Stir very lightly for like 10 minutes. If it forms an emulsion this will not work. Cool in fridge for the chocolate to solidefy. Pour off the water.  Hopefully the water extracted enough salt.  It will also extract some sugar (if it works).


Artificially marbled beef I was going to buy some supposed 'ribeye' steak today (in Indonesia). However it looked weird. The marbling did not look anything like any ribeye I've ever seen.

I found it was 'Meltique' http://www.meltiquebeef.com.au/, which is some lowgrade cut of beef injected with either canola oil or beef fat. Apparently the halal version (which they had) is canola, for fears about lard or something like that.
Anyway I passed on it.
Can anyone who has bought/cooked this pass comment on the quality of the product? My instincts suggest I'd just buy regular beef without fat injected and cook it some other way. But it seems to sell large volumes in Asia. Is this available in Western countries? I'd kind of expect low-grade restaurants to use something like this to save money? But maybe it really is that disgusting?

I have made my own experiments using Transglutaminase (TG), aka Meat Glue, which is a natural enzyme that has the ability to glue protein-containing foods together.
I have recreated steaks from trim cuts, added to burgers, re-shaped hanger steak into filet mignon "coins".
From everything I've read, there is nothing unhealthy about this process.
As to doing it on a large commercial scale… I don't know if they're doing anything beyond using TG, so might be worth seeking more info.
Also, try the meat. From the photo, it looks fresh and clean. I'm sure it'd taste great.


What type of flour should I feed my starter with? Different sites recommend different flours for the feeding of my established starter, so I suspect it depends on the purpose, but I can't find a definitive answer. Should I be using the  flour I plan to bake with next? Will mixing and matching make a difference? Do certain types produce more activity? Better flavor?

Once my starter was established (started with organic whole wheat flour) I've been feeding it with unbleached AP flour (King Arthur) and that's worked fine. I do this simply because it's the flour I buy in large quantities to stock my pantry, and so it's generally the cheapest flour I have on hand.

If you want to "switch over" to a different flour you can always scoop out a bit of starter a couple days before you bake, and feed it with the different flour. Start with a small amount so you don't have to throw any away; just double the volume with each feeding. I don't usually bother, though.

Whole grain rye flour is best. Because rye is better than wheat, and hole grain is better than ordinary flour. You get a better starter culture faster that way. So it is a good idea to start up with rye, even if you plan to use it for wheat bread later.


Why do some recipes recommend Kosher salt? Is it healthy or more tasty?

As Kosher salt goes there is also a difference in the types.  Many chefs (myself included) recommend and prefer Diamond Crystal brand Kosher salt.  Diamond Crystal (owned by Cargill) uses a patented process of producing salt known as the Alberger Process.  In in the interest of keeping the explanation simple, essentially it creates flat salt crystals with a hollow diamond shape and jagged edges.  The hollow shape provides for quicker dissolution and the jagged edges help it stick to food better rather than bouncing off as is the nature of the cubic structure of basic table salt.  For this reason many seasoning and food manufacturers use Alberger salt as a "dry emulsifier".  I was on a tour with Paul Prudhomme at his seasoning plant near New Orleans and he explained that the jagged edges help to keep it suspended and blended with other seasonings and dry ingredients.

Morton's kosher salt is composed of large crystals that are rolled to flatten them.  They are flat but not hollow so take a bit longer than Diamond Crystal to dissolve.

Morton's Kosher salt also has Yellow Prussiate of Soda added to it as an anti-caking agent ("when it rains it pours") which tends to leave a slight bitter (not as bad as iodine) taste in the back of the throat.  Diamond Crystal brand is simply salt.

Alberger salt has a lighter bulk weight than granulated salt so 1 teaspoon of Diamond Crystal salt is going to be less salt than either table or Morton's kosher salt.  Look at the two packages side by side in the store sometime.  They are both 3# boxes but the Diamond Crystal box is much taller due to the increased volume of the hollow crystals.  Looking at the nutritional information panels you'll also notice the serving size for each is 1/4 teaspoon but the Morton's has 418 gr. sodium per serving vs. about 200 for Diamond crystal (again, due to hollow crystals).  Some people recommend increasing salt by 25% when using Diamond Crystal in recipes.  In cooking you can easily salt to taste and know that since it dissolves more readily you should be able to determine seasoning by taste without oversalting.  In baking I typically use it measure for measure and haven't had any major issues yet.  In yeast doughs however you must be cautious to make sure that the crystals do dissolve in the liquid so as not to cut through the gluten strands during the kneading process (as well as to evenly disperse).

I've long suspected it's merely a fad.

However, Jeffery Steingarten says he can taste the difference ...


Why do we like some combinations of ingredients, and not others? Are there any general rules? I would like to know how something will taste, before cooking and trying it.
Is it possible? Sometimes ingredients are too expensive for experimenting.

You have two fairly different questions here: flavor pairing (what combinations taste good), and prediction of flavors.

Prediction

Eat as diversely as possible. Try things with different ingredients and combinations of ingredients. It's best if it's something you've cooked, so you know exactly what goes into it, but even eating in restaurants helps, especially if you look carefully at menus and at what you're eating. Eventually you'll learn your personal preferences better, and develop intuition for what everything tastes like.

There's really no substitute for this in the end, because everyone has different preferences, so ingredients and combinations that taste good to you might not quite line up with what others like. And besides, it's not really possible to describe flavors meaningfully, so even if someone tells you "you'll love strawberry and vanilla together", you ultimately have to just learn the flavors to be able to predict how it'll taste to you.

Pairing

Specifically on combinations, see this previous canonical question. The summary is that again, this can be pretty personal, but insofar as there are common preferences, it's difficult to generalize. Most useful resources end up being long lists of pairings you might like, just slightly more general than looking for recipes that contain one of the ingredients and seeing what else is in them.

I don't know of master list.  You pretty much can't know how it will taste before cooking.

Follow recipes and develop a pallet.

If you would like to add something to a recipe next time you cook it pull a small amount to the side and add what you would like to try.

If it is a whole new recipe then just make a small amount.

Onion should not take over a dish unless it is the dish.  Onion adds to many dishes but you need to adjust how much you used and how much you cook the onions.

Tomato is pretty powerful.  I would not use it with light fish but some people do.  I would not think the tomato and cucumber would work together but they do.

I use hot peppers with a lot of dishes including tomato sauce.  But I would pretty much never use it with meat, fish, or poultry.

As you get along you can try some weird paring. At the high end you are expected to have some contrasting flavors.  But this is more for high end cooks.  On Master Chef the panel often says I don't know how they are going to make that work and it often does come out great.


Can you eat the head and guts of anchovies? I read that you shouldn't eat fish guts and other parts because
(a) fish guts have the fish stool, maybe poisonous, and (b) fish guts can affect the flavour.

I bought some dried small anchovies and some slightly bigger ones (though still small compared to most fish). The small ones are in the top right of the pic, and the larger ones on the bottom shelf:

I notice that if I break the small ones there are some black things inside (I'm guessing it's the stomach). It's all very small and I'm not sure how I'd go about removing the stomach.

Should the small ones be eaten with the stomach or is there some way to remove it? Does the same apply to the slightly bigger ones?

Just eat them
No need to do anything special with them, they're a tasty snack.  Heads, bones, fins, all is good.  They wouldn't be sold as snack foods if they weren't fully fit for consumption.
How do you use Asian dried anchovies?

They're fine to eat. In fact, we often go overboard when it comes to what is fit to eat and what is not, to the detriment of nutrition: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/study-ikan-bilis-is-good-for-you-but-dont-clean-them#5qBsLwP31ZUFVi0r.97


What temperature does the Maillard reaction occur? There seems to be a lot of disagreement about the temperatures and conditions under which the Maillard reaction can occur.  Cooking professionals reference all sorts of "minimum temperatures" -- I've seen sources say 350°F (175°C), 310°F (155°C), 300°F (150°C), 250°F (120°C), 230°F (110°C), and boiling (212°F/100°C) all given as a minimum.  Many sources say it cannot occur in the presence of water.

Previous questions on this forum that have discussed the Maillard reaction have also included statements about temperatures, often in disagreement with each other.  (See, for example, here, here, and here.)  Many answers and comments on answers also have conflicting information.

It's clear that the Maillard reaction requires proteins and a reducing sugar.  It is also clear that it will happen at neutral pH or higher, but acidic conditions will significantly inhibit it.

But what temperatures can it actually occur at?  Are there examples of the Maillard reaction occurring at lower temperatures?

(I will offer my own answer, but I would certainly be interested in hearing of other examples and information.)

The Maillard reaction can occur at a wide range of temperatures, but the lower limit is not well-defined.  It can even occur at room temperature, providing some flavoring components (for example) to ripening cheeses and Seranno ham.  At high temperatures (over 300°F/150°C), it will noticeably occur on many foods in a matter of minutes, so you can actually watch things "brown."  At lower temperatures, it may take hours, days, or even years for the effects to be noticeable.  Water inhibits the faster reactions, but at lower temperatures it actually can help the reaction by allowing proteins and sugars more freedom to circulate.

In Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking (revised ed.), he states (p. 779):

  There are exceptions to the rule that browning reactions require temperatures above the boil.  Alkaline conditions, concentrated solutions of carbohydrates and amino acids, and prolonged cooking times can all generate Maillard colors and aromas in moist foods.  For example, alkaline egg whites, rich in protein, with a trace of glucose, but 90% water, will become tan-colored when simmered for 12 hours.  The base liquid for brewing beer, a water extract of barley malt that contains reactive sugars and amino acids from the germinated grains, deepens in color and flavor with several hours of boiling.  Watery meat or chicken stock will do the same as it's boiled down to make a concentrated demiglace.  Persimmon pudding turns nearly black thanks to its combination of reactive glucose, alkaline baking soda, and hours of cooking; balsamic vinegar turns nearly black over the course of years!

Note that while alkaline conditions help, they are clearly not necessary (e.g., balsamic vinegar).  Another standard example for non-alkaline conditions is traditional pumpernickel bread, which is steam baked for 12-24 hours usually at oven temperatures ranging around 225-250°F (110-120°C).  The interior of the bread does not get much above normal boiling temperature, but a significant color change can clearly be seen in such a humid, relatively low-temperature environment.

Interestingly, despite the information in many cooking sources, many of the earliest studies of Maillard reactions were in systems varying from room temperature to slightly above body temperature, from the browning reactions that create the color of soil to internal reactions in the human body that are now thought to contribute significantly to the aging process and some diseases.  Maillard reactions also play a role in the natural changes in moist food observed to happen at room temperature when stored over years, like when you discover a jar or can of food in the back of the pantry and find that the food has turned brownish.

At very high or very low temperatures, Maillard reactions are often secondary to other processes such as caramelization and enzymatic browning.

To summarize, here's a helpful poster that shows effects at various temperatures.  Briefly:

Above 400°F (200°C) - mostly caramelization, with the possibility of burning with prolonged heating
~330°-400°F (165-200°C) - increasing caramelization with higher temps, which uses up sugars and thus inhibits Maillard at the high end of this range
~300-330°F (150-165°C) - Maillard progresses at a fast pace, causing browning noticeably within minutes
~212-300°F (100-150°C) - Maillard gets slower as temperature goes lower, generally requiring many hours near the boiling point of water
~130-212°F (55-100°C) - Maillard requires water, high protein, sugar, and alkaline conditions to advance noticeably in a matter of hours; generally can take days
Below 130°F (55°C) - Enzymatic browning is often more significant in many foods than Maillard, but Maillard will still occur over periods from days or months to years, with progressively longer times at lower temperatures

(In some cases, certain reactions can be activated by a short time at a high temperature, which then can lead to faster browning below boiling or even near room temperature.)

One final, but very important, note: the Maillard reaction is a very general process that occurs between all sorts of amino acids and sugars.  It thus also can produce a lot of different flavor components and products, in addition to the browning.  Different reactions between particular amino acids and sugars will also occur at different rates depending on temperature.

This, I think, may be part of the reason for the confusion among various professional cooking sources about the "minimum" temperatures.  Many of the reactions that produce the classic "Maillard taste" and "Maillard smell" components don't really begin to happen appreciably until about 250°F (120°C), and they won't happen fast until 300°F (150°C) or so.  Maillard reactions at lower temperatures produce different taste and smell components, which often could be characterized as more "earthy."  While browning still happens at a slower pace, the results will actually taste different.  But because reaction products will always depend on the exact amino acids and sugars involved, as well as other conditions (moisture, pH), it's difficult to divide temperature ranges into clear flavor zones.

Goodness, What a detailed explanation of simple, settled, and well understood science. Forget food. There is a huge natural world out there which has been explored scientifically. The Millard reaction, although notable as an interesting observation in cuisine, has it roots in chemistry as what is known as oxidation. This is the natural, but sometimes slow decomposition of energetic compounds such as sugars, proteins, etc. oxidation occurs at all temperatures, just as evaporation of water occurs at all ambient temperatures. Just as water cannot be liquid over 100C, some molecules are extremely unstable over other temps. What we think of as Cooking temperatures are not good measures of accurate, scientific representations of temperature because they typically measure the temperature of a specific section of work product what we are interested in (such as the center of a steak). Millard reaction is, as unscientificly defined, as a mild burning, isn't really quantifiable in the sense you are looking for. Proteins, cabrohydrates, and fats oxidize at all temperaturs, but faster at rates above boiling. See: smoking points of fats. Sorry.


If bacon tastes like fish, is it still good to eat? I've had some bacon in the freezer for a few weeks, got it out and fried it up today, and it tastes like fish.

Is it still good to eat?

No, there was no fish in the freezer
No, there was no fish cooked on the frying pan previouslyl

I raise my own pigs and don't feed them any fish. I feed all kinds of fruit, avos, eggs, acacia tree leaves, red apple succulent etc. All past pigs were excellent and not fishy. I never had the fish taste problem before this"girl" pig. It tastes like fish when cooked. It is like fresh fish, not fishy bad fish. It does not smell like fish or good or bad. I was wondering if it had to do with her having had a hip injury when she was young. She limped and did not run around much. Some other parts do not taste like fish. I keep it in the deep freezer well wrapped with no fish. I ate it and it seems fine.

its because the pigs are fed with fish. if you get bacon from a good organic supplier [rmember fish is organic] they don't feed pigs with fish products


Why condiments expiry date is rounded? Many condiments such as katchup, mayonnaise and mustard (where I live at least) seem to love rounding all of their expiry dates to "60 days after opened".

Thing is, I never see any difference after the date, at least with mustard. It's easy to consume katchup or mayo under a couple of months, but I only like mustard for very few things, so I have some black mustard from ~3-4 months that tastes just as good.

What is weird to me is that they round the expiry dates. Are they just lazy and think "nah, nobody takes more than two months and it should last that long"?

Food quality isn't binary; it doesn't go from perfectly good to perfectly bad in an instant. Even if it did, the time it would take depends on the storage temperature. And for non-liquid foods, it's possible that only a part went bad (how well does it mix?).

So, you don't get a precise date, but a rough interval at which time the decay starts to set in. As a result, the manufacturer will just pick a rounded date from that interval.

Example: the engineers might calculate that under reasonable circumstances, the product may start to noticably deteriorate after 52-75 days, and become dangerous after 81-112 days. They manufacturer could then say that the expiry date would be 60 days.

(The other answers explain why you'd use the first interval, but not why they're actually intervals.)

:edit:

The likely reason why they're all the same 60 days is probably also engineering. How much preservative do they use? As noted in the comments, the primary preservatives are the acids, but you need quite some sugar to compensate. It seems 60 days is a commonly accepted balance.

The manufacturer has to test that the expiration date is valid and each tested point has some cost associated with it.  Lets say they test with 100 containers at 60 days, testing an additional 100 containers at 61 days has significant incremental cost but very little incremental value.


At what temp does mayo and salad dressings spoil? My compressor is going out and milk spoils.  The repair man says it will take a week to 10 days to get a new one.  It is still cool in there but not cold.  I just opened a new jar of mayo and some salad dressings. I want to be safe but no wasteful.

I'd throw it out (and everything else that is in the fridge), especially if you know your fridge will be out for days.

Better be safe and loose a few $ than risk of being sick.

"...If you lose electricity, keep refrigerator and freezer doors closed as much as possible. Your refrigerator will keep food cold for about four hours if it's unopened. A full freezer will keep an adequate temperature for about 48 hours if the door remains closed..."

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm093704.htm


First onion or first minced meat? When making e.g. spaghetti sauce, do I:

first sweat the onions and then add the minced meat?
first brown the minced meat and then add the onions?
do both at the same time but in different pans and add them together afterwards?

What are the advantages of preferring one of the options over the others?

In order to develop browning for a good, deep flavor on the meat, you need a high temperature and a long enough time that having the onions in the pan the entire time would leave them  overcooked.  Also, the onions would express water, which would lower the temperature to simmer or steam, preventing the beef from browning.

For these reasons, it is common to sear or brown the ground (minced) meat, and then add the onions to cook through when it is done or nearly done.

You certainly could cook the onions separately, either in the same pan, or in a different pan.   Many people don't consider the extra effort and cleanup to be worth any marginal improvement in results.

Browning the beef first gives you the opportunity to drain and/or rinse it. If you’re using meat with a high fat content, this will help prevent having to deal with greasy sauce.


Trouble frying an egg on a stainless steel pan I recently purchased a stainless steel pan from AllClad, but I'm struggling to use it. Food, and in particular eggs, seem to stick readily to the pan, making it hard to use. There is a question on Seasoned Advice that pertains to cooking an omelette on a stainless steel pan, but I think the challenges of frying an egg are different and more challenging. I've been able to cook an omelette in this pan, but have yet to succeed with a fried egg.

Looking online, I learned that stainless steel pans, like cast-iron, need to be seasoned in order to be non-stick. The process that I followed to season my pan was as follows:

Pour in 1/4 cup walnut oil.
Heat pan on medium heat until the oil begins to smoke.
Turn heat off and let the pan cool completely.
Remove the oil and wipe the pan dry.

I tried this process, but when I try to fry an egg in the pan, it still sticks readily. There is some improvement, but it is still not possible to cook an egg without sticking that destroys the egg in the end.

I'm not sure what I may be doing wrong, or is a stainless steel pan just not something that one can use for frying eggs? Should I just expect that there will be some stick whenever I use this pan?

Update

After watching this short course on pay frying, I tried to pre-heat my pan, using the water-test as a guide, and adding just a bit of oil to the pan before dropping the egg in. The results were the same. The egg stuck to the pan thoroughly. So again I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly. Maybe the oil I'm using isn't right? I've been using ghee.

Update 2:

I've yet to succeed in frying a egg on this pan, but a few additional questions/issues have surfaced:

Some answers here have suggested that despite the presence on the web of tutorials for "seasoning" stainless steel pan this is not necessary and may not be advisable.
The trick may be to fry the egg starting at a much lower heat then you might with something like a piece of meat. For meat, you often encounter the suggestion to use the "water test", but as at least one answer has suggested here that may not work with a fried egg.

These are the possibly insights I've gleaned so far, but I've also yet to succeed, so these may turn out to be wrong as well.

Satisfying Answer (May be others)

The solution that I have settled on here -- i.e. what finally worked for me -- was to work with lower heat than I thought was needed, and not to season the pan. There is definitely a lot of conflicting information out there about stainless steel pans. There are a great number of blog posts and YouTube videos that talk about how to season a pan. Seasoning may still be a useful thing to do, but I was able to fry an egg on an unseasoned pan finally.

The method I used is more or less as follows:

Clean pan thoroughly.
Take egg out of refrigerator and let it sit in warm water for five minutes or so. (This may not be necessary.)
Put pan on stove on medium flame/heat. (I only tried this on a gas stove.)
Let pan pre-heat until it is warm when you hold your hands over the pan. Warm, not hot! This might take 20-30 seconds, maybe less.
Add the oil (1-2 tbsp), and lower the flame to low. Let the oil heat a bit, perhaps another 10-15 seconds, or less.
Crack the egg into the pan. The whites should stay clear, only slowly whitening. If the egg begins to turn white immediately, the pan is too hot. And the egg should also not stick at this point. There may be a bit of sticking, especially around the edges. You can dislodge the sticking gently by hand, but don't mess with the egg too much. Cook until done or ready to flip. Make sure heat stays low. If you see some sticking it may be (I'm not sure about this) because the pan has become too hot.

So that's the best I've been able to do with help from the selected answer.

From your description there are two things that stand out to me:

1) stainless steel pans should NOT be seasoned in a manner similar to cast iron.  These are completely different materials, and if you "seasoned" your stainless pan, such that it has a coating of basically burned oil on it, you have to first clean that pan until it's nice and shiny/bare steel again.

2) using the sizzle test for eggs suggests to me the pan is too hot.  For eggs, you always want to use lower heat to prevent them going dry and sticking (even in a non-stick pan, you will have some sticking if you use high heat for eggs, especially when scrambling)

so try this:  clean your pan.  when ready to cook the egg, heat the pan on medium heat.  to test for hotness, hold your hand close to the surface to see if it feels warm.  obviously, don't burn yourself ;)  add your ghee to the pan and let it heat a little longer until it looks very fluid and shimmery.  swirl the pan to distribute the oil, then add your egg(s) and do your thing

Here’s the best answer, based on decades of cooking at home and decades of life experience and much time spent researching this:
Don’t use stainless steel to cook eggs. At all. No professional chef does this. At all. Use cast iron or nonstick pans for eggs. Period.


What ratio of rice is needed for lentils to be a "complete protein"? From what I understand Lentil needs Rice for the maximum benefit of its high protein quantity, of course that will then increase the carbs. What is the minimum ratio of rice to lentils to maximize protein to carb ratio while making the protein complete?

  Incomplete vs. Complete Protein
  Complete proteins contain all nine essential amino acids. The main sources of complete proteins are from animal based food, such as meat, seafood, eggs and dairy. Soy and quinoa are also complete proteins. Although incomplete proteins sounds like they are lacking and not as nutritious, they just need to be paired with another type of protein. For instance, adding peanut butter to bread creates a complete protein. According to Columbia University, the proteins do not need to be eaten together to receive the health benefits but any time within 24 hours will suffice.

  Lentils and Protein
  Lentils are rich in amino acids and high in protein. However, regular lentils are lacking in two essential amino acids. Because lentils do not have enough of these nutrients, the healthy legumes are an incomplete protein. However, lentils can be sprouted which changes their nutritional components. Sprouted lentils have an increase in all nine amino acids, although the exact increase is variable. To sprout your lentils, soak the seeds in cool water for eight to 12 hours. Rinse the lentils and store in a jar in a cool place for a few days, rinsing every eight hours.

Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/527529-myth-of-lentils-as-an-incomplete-protein/

  Grains
  Grains, such as rice, oats, wheat, rye and corn, can act as complementary proteins for legumes such as lentils. They contain the cysteine and methionine that lentils lack, and lentils provide the lysine that grains do not contain enough of. Whole grains are a more nutritious option than refined grains. Legumes and grains are one of the most common pairings for complementary protein. Indian daal with rice is an example of a lentil and grain dish.

Source: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-mixed-lentils-provide-complete-source-amino-acids-1195.html

Preamble

I will act in the interest of the OP and not close the question. I assume that my premise that the ratio doesn't matter (explained in the answer proper) is an established fact (at least I don't know of any source claiming the opposite). If we find a claim to the contrary, we will have to close the whole question, because it means that there is no undisputed answer even at that very general level, and the question falls completely in the field of "unverifiable" nutrition.

Answer

There is no such ratio, as complete proteins are not about ratios. They are about minimum intake of essential amino acids. This means that, if you would only eat rice and lentils and nothing else (or at least no other sources of protein), there is a minimal amount of rice you have to eat per day to not get deficiency symptoms. If this amount of rice is X gram, then it doesn't matter if you eat X gram of rice and 2X gram of lentils, or X gram of rice and 10X gram of lentils. The ratio of rice to lentils is irrelevant.

The more interesting question for you is probably what is the minimal amount of rice you have to eat per day. There are freely available nutrition value databases such as the one derobert linked. Once you have determined that you want to eat at least Y mg of a given amino acid per day (supposedly it will be an amino acid not contained in lentils), you can use a simple rule of three calculation to find out how much rice you need to eat in order to get Y mg of the amino acid in question.

But how do you decide how much you want to eat? There are government approved RDAs, as well as thousands of sources at all levels of credibility which recommend their own intake levels, usually pointing out that RDAs are intentionally conservative. We cannot help you with that decision. It is completely off topic for us, and it is up to you to find such sources and decide which one to believe. Consulting a nutrition professional is a very good option if you are going on a highly restricted diet; they will probably be able to give you such a value. Personally, I wouldn't trust a number given to me by a stranger on the Internet, and would try to keep in mind that the minimal amount (under which you get deficiency symptoms) and the optimal amount are most likely not the same, but many sources conflate them.

50-50 or 55-45. It doesn't really matter per se, since it depends on the side dish/dishes accompanying, and what one feels(!)


Ridges on knife steel? Is there any functional difference (not related to things like embedded diamond grit) between a smooth-surfaced knife (or honing) steel, and one that has visible ridges?   Would there be any reason to prefer one over the other?

Clarification:  the type of answer I am looking for actually addresses the effect (or lack thereof) of the ridges at the microscopic scale where honing takes place.

I understand that the ridges just make the honing process faster

You can hone a knife with more or less anything. Preferably with material of a similar nature so as not to "grab" the knife edge and pull chunks off it

For a quick test, take a knife that needs honing, and use the back square edge of another knife to hone it with

The square edge bites into the burrs faster than a round edge, but can also "grab" and damage the edge

Honing is a gentle process, you are straightening the edge, and removing burrs, not really grinding the edge

Honing with material that is softer than the knifes edge, will just take longer, but generally produces a better result

The same processes are happening when a barber runs the blade over a honing leather strap, particles in the leather gentle grab the edge, and straighten it out. Any bad burrs will catch on the leather and be torn off

Honing is a process AFTER the Stone has done it's work.

There are around, basically 4 levels of hone.

I use 600 grit Diamond. Followed by a smooth to the touch 15 yr old diamond. by a Ceramic .

I also have a $250 Butchers steel\diamond\?  which is 21 1\2 in wide tapered to the sides and
used. I believe on the long knives.

My first  steel was a "steel" steel with lines all round, down it.
I spent a month with a file then sanding papers than a smooth steel till it was like glass.
Still have it 50 yrs later. and next to my 50 yr old ex army mule strap Strop.
Gives my knives the BEST edge.

If you going to use a steel Use several grades of diamond ones then a ceramic or old leather belt (strop) to finish them off.
Mine get the stone about twice a yr.  Maybe.
The diamonds do a magic job on a GOOD knife. Wustof. Kershaw. Torejo. etc.
I don't know that I'd use them on real Damascus blades though?.

The Japanese blades are that hard they virtually impossible to sharpen with normal gear.


How long should dry beans be soaked before cooking? I'm guessing there are different answers depending on the type of dried bean (pinto, kidney, navy, white, etc.) and I am interested in all of them.

So:  how long should dry beans be soaked?

Should the water be just tap water, or salted?

Should the soaking water be discarded or used later?

Thanks!

Overnight is ideal, but even an hour or two will help. If you don't have much time, you can speed the processs by using hot water. Tap water, and not salted - salt toughens the skin of beans if it used before they are cooked. Most folks discard the soaking water, as it is thought to produce flatulence. Also, if you have a pressure cooker, you can cook dried beans without a pre-soak and get great results.

I short-soak my beans in very hot water for an hour, and then drain completely. Then boil the fresh water with a teaspoon of added baking soda. This softens the "hulls" due to the acid-resistance of some beans; acidic products like tomatoes only prolong the water absorption. Result in simmering is much reduced cooking time. Try checking beans in half the normal time.

Tried only with Pinto and Garbanzo, however.


How well does freshly baked sandwich bread fly? I'm going on vacation soon and wanted to take homemade bread with me, but I'm unsure as to how the bread would last through the long plane flight. How does bread usually fare when flying?

About the same time it fares not flying.  Flying is not something the bread is aware of.

After it is completely cool, wrap it tighly in aluminum foil then wrap tightly in cling wrap. Place in a ziploc baggie and freeze.
If the recipe contains no oil, other fat and/or no sugar, the answer is 'not very well'.
Real French bread will go stale in 24 hours or less


What can I make with the broken corn chips at the bottom of the bag? Once I've eaten all the biggish chips with salsa, there are a bunch of small-to-crumb sized corn chips left. I always think I'll eat them plain later, but I happen to want more salsa now...and they sit until they get stale. But they're so delicious (so full of fat and salt!), it seems to me I ought to be able to incorporate them into a dish. But what?

They're generally good for adding some crunch, too, not just the flavor. A few things that come to mind:

on top of a salad - my family does a roasted corn and black bean salad; also probably good instead of croutons in salads where they're a better flavor/style fit
garnish on a soup - tortilla soup, sopa de elote...
as part of a breading for fish or chicken (or anything else to bake or fry)

In general, anywhere you would use breadcrumbs, tortilla chip crumbles might find a place. If you're afraid they're too salty, you could always put dump them in a sieve and shake some of the really small bits out, leaving the more sizable bits of chip.

Fun fact: You know how there is always an exact weight on your bag on corn chips, even though corn chips are irregularly sized? You ever wonder how they come to that exact weight, because, legally, if the weight were off they could be sued (for false advertising)?

The answer is salt. They add salt to make up the different in weight.

Now what would you like to do with the stuff at the bottom of the bag?


How can I remove excess fat from stews or soups without refrigerating? I've read that adding cork (from wine bottles) absorbs the fat. I'm not sure if this works or not.

Are there any other ways to remove excess fat without standing there and spooning out or refrigerating and then removing the solidified fat?

If you want to be really lazy about it, just get yourself a fat separator.  Pour in the soup, the fat will rise to the top, and you can do what you want with it (i.e. dump it).

If you're reading this in an emergency, you can do this with just a strainer.  You'll get better results if you chill the strainer before each skim, i.e. by rinsing it with very cold water.  The fat will tend to congeal on the cold strainer the same way it congeals when it's actually chilled.

I've also heard that the fat will cling to certain leafy vegetables, like lettuce.  If you have a lettuce head kicking around, try peeling off a leaf and dusting the top of the pan with it.

Everyone seems to recommend gravy strainers which have a spout at the bottom but any bottle with some form of spout should work if you just turn it upside down... oil will float to the top and you can pour gravy out of the bottom :-)


How do you peel garlic easily? How should I approach peeling a clove of garlic to get the skin off most quickly?  Is it different if I'm doing a bulb whole?

Even with a whole bulb, break it into cloves.

Put clove(s) on a cutting board. I usually cut off the root end of each clove. Lay a large chef's knife flat on the clove, then smack the knife to crush the clove.  This breaks the skin of the clove and makes it much easier to peel.

Break the bulb into cloves, breaking off the bottom and the dry stick that goes up the middle. For each clove, press the ridge that would have been at the centre of the bulb down hard on the chopping board, crushing it. This causes the skin to almost entirely separate from the clove; using a knife at the base it then comes off very easily, you can peel the whole bulb this way in a few tens of seconds.


Made oven ghee - what is the liquid at the top of my cold ghee? Yesterday I made ghee in the oven by cooking sweet butter for 2hrs in the oven at low temp.  I filtered the resulting liquid through cheese cloth and let the resulting clear liquid sit overnight.

Today, the ghee has congealed into a solid, as it should.  However, on top of it is an oily liquid.  I poured some into a glass and added water, and the two liquids don't mix, so it's not water left over from the butter (good news).  Still, I'm confused why I don't end up with a uniform material.

Some butter is mixed with sunflower oil in order to make it more spreadable. Have you checked the ingredients list (if there is one) on the butter?

Whatever it is, it is no good.

Since it is congealed, it should be a snap to remove, allowing you to carry on with your life, your mind at rest.


What other vegetables can be used in cake/muffin baking? Vegetables have been commonly used in baking cakes and muffins. A common one is carrots to make one of my fave - carrot cake. Recently I also found out about adding zucchinis (or courgettes) to brownies and cakes. I also found some recipes advising using beetroot in chocolate cakes.

I am wondering what other vegetables can be used in baking? Is there anything I should watch out for? Does a certain vegetable pair well with another ingredient?

Ah, you missed the obvious: pumpkin!

This is biologically a fruit, actually, as is the zucchini.
Pumpkin loves same spices as carrot. Maybe even rum or butterscotch too.

Now, beetroot is a veg and colors cakes delectably; perhaps why it was originally added when going stingy on the cocoa.

How about parsnip next? Sweet and nutty, I think pistachios would complement it well in a recipe borrowed from zucchini bread.

more veg here:
http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/articles/how-to-make-cakes-from-vegetables

p.s. if you haven't guessed Rabarber is rhubarb

Carrots, broccoli or even pumpkins they are all ideal for cakes, especially pumpkin: it gives a great taste.


Why does Chinese food reheats better on stove than in microwave? Especially when there is sauce in the food. It seems the sauce heats less evenly in the microwave. I suspect the kind of flour used in the sauce is the problem but am not sure.

There are probably several factors which lead to the perception that chinese food heats less evenly in a microwave than on the stove top.

There are lots of types of Chinese food, but due to the mention of sauce on the original question, I am going to assume its a dish with meat and vegetables in a sauce, like (as often available in US Chinese restaurants), Kung Pao chicken or beef with broccoli.  Since the liquid is thickened, and only part of the dish, little convection can occur--transfer of heat within the food itself will be by conduction unless the dish is stirred.

Contributing factors probably include:

Microwaves excite polar (usually water, sugar, and fat) molecules directly, creating heat.  However, the pattern of microwaves inside the oven cavity is not uniform due to wave interference, so different parts of the dish will be heated somewhat unevenly.  This is why modern microwave ovens have rotating platforms.
Fats seem to heat much more quickly than say, plain water, so parts of the dish with more fat (like meat pieces) may seem to heat faster.
Microwaves only penetrate a few centimeters into the dish, heating the food at the outside of the food volume.   The interior of the food, is heated through conduction or convection of heat from the outside of the food.

All of this leads to the main probable cause:  less stirring.  You are probably more likely to be actively stirring the food on the stovetop, where the heat only happens at the bottom, and may burn on the pan, thus distributing the heat throughout the dish.

With the microwave, stirring still is important due to all of the factors listed above, but you have to stop the cooking and open the oven to do it so it possibly doesnt' happen as much.

Truthfully, I find the microwave the superior method for reheating Chinese food.  Try these suggestions to make it successful:

Don't do it at full power for longer.  By lowering the power (which really just does full power a proportion of the time, in very short intervals), you slow down the heating, which gives more time for conduction and convection to move heat through the dish, evening out the cooking.
Reheat the food in a shallow, thin layer (like a wide soup or pasta bowl), rather than a more compact volume.  This will let more of the food be exposed to the microwaves, heating more evenly.
Stir a few times.

I believe it has more to do with HOW a microwave cooks or reheats food vs. the way a conventional stove top does it.

When you put something into a microwave to reheat it, it does not apply heat the way a stove does. Microwaves use their namesakes -microwave radiation- to jostle the molecules contained within the food, causing friction, which in turn causes heat, and heats up the food, from the inside out. This means that food with a higher density, such as meat or veggies, will heat up more quickly than liquids, which are less dense. Also, microwaves don't just heat up the food, but also the container, be it plastic, foam, or the stereotypical white paper boxes. When this happens, the particles within the container (which are being heated) will give off various chemicals, which can alter the taste of food.

When you reheat food on a stove top, you are using a container that is much more resistant to heat (a pan) and you are applying heat evenly, from the outside of the food, regardless of it's density. This means that the pan (90% of the time) will not alter the way your food tastes, and because everything is being heated at the same time and rate, your food tastes more like it did yesterday, or whenever it was that you brought it home.


The art of Sushi: using wasabi to kill parasites I've been to many sushi places and last night I went to a place that I've been to before (not that long ago either). When the sushi came, we noticed that it had wasabi spread on the rice, under the fish.

When we complained we were rudely told that the chef had been doing sushi for 30 years and wasabi is used to kill parasites in the fish.

This is believable since I know in some countries, red peppers are used in foods all the time for the same reason.

However, my understanding of sushi is that the chef is a craftsman who not only picks great fish, but also knows how to find and remove parasites.

My question is, is this normal? Is it proper for the Sushi chef to add wasabi to the sushi to help prevent parasites? If so, how come I've only encountered this practice once out of the many sushi places I've frequented?

This is perfectly normal, however, I find the common claim that "it is to prevent parasites" a bit dubious (I would think that it would have to be uniformly applied to the entire fish to have any measurable effect).  The wasabi is really there to add flavor.  In really high-end sushi restaurants in Japan, for example, it is relatively uncommon for the guest to be served a mound of grated wasabi.  Instead, the chef applies the perfect amount of wasabi to each piece of sushi.  Some chefs will not even serve soy sauce, instead individually brushing on the sauce on each piece.  If wasabi is served separately from the fish, it is generally also considered bad form to mix it with the soy sauce (as is commonly done in the US).

Edit: To answer your question about why you've never seen this practice before, here are some possible explanations:

It takes more time/skill/effort to do it properly.
Many sushi restaurants in the US do not have properly trained sushi chefs.  In fact, in most areas of the country with little or no Japanese population, don't be surprised if your sushi chef is a Salvadorian who learned from the Oaxacan who learned from the Korean owner of the restaurant.  Not that there's anything wrong with that; one of my favorite sushi places is run by an Indonesian.  Just keep in mind that the people making you your sushi may have never experienced the "real thing" themselves.
"Real," fresh wasabi is very rare and expensive.  Most of the stuff that is used in the US is basically horseradish paste plus food coloring.  Restaurants that can both procure and afford to use the real stuff will want to use it sparingly; they wouldn't want to waste it by putting a mound of it on each plate.  Therefore, they might be more inclined to use the "proper" technique.

Edit 2: Here is a video in which you can see famous chef Naomichi Yasuda using wasabi in the sushi.  It all happens very quickly, but you can clearly see him dip into the bin of wasabi, rub it on the underside of the fish, and then apply the fish to the rice.  Here is another video in which Anthony Bourdain explains the "rules" of high-end sushi eating, while dining at the super-famous and super-expensive Sukiyabashi Jiro (the proprietor of which is actually designated as a "living treasure" by the Japanese government).  That second video shows the chef brushing on the soy sauce, and the general lack of both soy and wasabi on the plates.

Actually used to kill strains of bacteria. Most use it to kill ecoli on the preparation items


Can microwave safe glass vessels be used in an electric oven? Can microwave safe glass vessels be used in an electric oven?
I have this oven: http://www.cromaretail.com/Bajaj-28-Litres-2800TMC-Oven-Toaster-Grill-%28White%29-pc-469-468.aspx

I just checked and found the following written on the manual of the glass ware: http://www.borosil.com/products/consumer/storage/

  SUITABLE FOR CONVENTIONAL OVEN
  SUITABLE FOR USE OVER FLAME
  SUITABLE FOR MICROWAVE OVEN

Can it be considered safe (as it says)?

Sometimes. Basically, this is the same as asking if glass is oven safe:

Generally, glass is oven-safe if taken from room temperature and put in a moderate-temperature, preheated oven. The key thing is to avoid temperature shocks (which will cause the glass to shatter). Some glass is specifically designed for oven use (either by being tempered or made of borosilicate glass). Often glassware will say if it is safe for oven use or not, and under what conditions—check the packaging or instructions it came with.

You also need to take precautions when removing glass from the oven. Do not set it on something that'll conduct heat away rapidly, such as a wet countertop.

Before heating glassware, inspect it for damage. Scratches, chips, etc. make failure much more likely. This applies to the microwave as well.

Note that non-glass parts of microwave-safe glassware may not be oven safe. For example, if it has a plastic lid, that should generally not be used in the oven (even though its OK in the microwave).

edit:

In response to your update, that oven is what would often be called a toaster or countertop oven. Those change temperature much more rapidly than a larger oven (which can be electric as well). So, generally, you'd avoid glass in them.

But, your glass says it can be used over a flame, from the freezer. So it's clearly one of the very shock-resistant ones, possibly borosilicate. I wouldn't expect it to be a problem. Just make sure to preheat the oven.

Also, since you know who made it, you can of course contact the manufacturer to confirm.

Yes, they can be used

No, it's not a good idea. It's just too easy to make one small mistake which will result in at least a ruined dish, and at worst case glass shattering into your face

It's not worth the risk. What gain is there in using glass in an oven?

Even glass in the microwave can get so hot that it will crack/explode if put onto a surface with uneven heat (e.g. a single water drop on your work surface)


Is it safe to roast marshmallows over a sterno flame? It's become common practice around my apartment to use a sterno to roast marshmallows because it's easy, cheap and (primarily) because we can't have a campfire in my living room.

Is this dangerous?

After contacting Sterno with the same question, they indicated that the only safe gel product for direct food heating is marked “ethanol” on the canister. Those marked “methanol” are not meant for direct food heating.

Look at the bottom of a water pan and the carbon that collects there and you will have your answer.

Also, there is no assurance of level of methanol to ethanol


Slow cooking without a slow cooker I frequently hear people telling me about how wonderful their slow cookers (AKA "crock pot") are.  In many cases they're right - meat that tends to come out tough in normal cooking comes out very tender from a slow cooker.

But do I really need a slow cooker to pull this off?  It seems like such a basic concept - simmer and/or steam at low heat.  What's so special about these devices?  For kitchens with very limited space, can a slow cooker be "synthesized" from other cooking implements, or is there really no substitute?

Your best bet would be a dutch oven on a low to medium low heat in the oven. You could use a regular pot in the oven, but you'd need to stir it regularly (maybe every hour) to stop everything from sticking to the sides and burning.

the short answer is you don't have to.

if you use a gas stove to simulate these slow cookers you need to have a really small fire (sometimes, even the smallest inner ring is too much for the food) and eventually you will be using more money for the heating. sometimes you can't easily cook thing without boiling when using gas stove which you can easily with the temperature regulated cookers.

plus there is less fire hazard associated with it.


Is there a website on how to store specific foods? I ask if there are websites which explain how to store/preserve (in the fridge, freezer, out) all kind of foodstuff.   Examples: eggs, milk, meat, specific fruits, specific vegetables, etc.
This book provides such descriptions.

The resource we generally use here on Seasoned Advice is stilltasty.com.

Feel free to edit this answer to include other resources.

I've done a lot of searching over the years, but I've never been able to find a single website that has everything. Whenever I have a question I just use a search engine and use whatever method seems most popular in the search results.


Soda from fridge to room temperature Does taking an unopened can of soda out of the refrigerator and leaving at room temperature compromise the taste, flavor, or carbonation of the unopened soda can?

In order to create sparkling beverages, a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2) is dissolved in them, a process that goes under the name of carbonation.

When dissolved in water, CO2 becomes carbonic acid (H2CO3), following the reaction:

 CO2 (g) + H2O <-> H2CO3    (1)

The double arrow means that the reaction is reversible, that is, you can go from left to right as well as from right to left. So, essentially you have two reactions going on at the same time:

 CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3          (2)

and

 H2CO3 -> CO2 + H2O          (3)

However (and here's the trick) the g next to CO2 means that it is a gas and, as such, is volatile and will leave the water when it is formed (that is why you see bubbles coming out of your soda).

There is a very important law of chemistry called Le Chatelier's principle which states that:

  If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.

If CO2 was not volatile, what would happen is that, at some point, you would reach a chemical equilibrium, that is, the amount of H2CO3 formed by CO2 dissolving in water would be exactly the same as that of H2CO3 decomposing into CO2. But, as we said, CO2 escapes the water in the form of gas... So what happens is that you are always removing CO2 from your reaction and, as Le Chatelier's principle tells us, the system will react to counteract this loss, by decomposing more carbonic acid to forming more CO2.

This is why, if you pour soda in a glass it will slowly become less and less sparkly, as CO2 will leave the water, be substituted by the decomposition of some more H2CO3 and so on, until no H2CO3 is left.

So, why does a closed bottle of soda stay sparkling until you open it? Simply because CO2 has only a small room to escape (the small empty space on top of the liquid). All I said before works also for a closed can/bottle of soda, but at some point the air on top of the liquid becomes saturated with CO2, that is, it cannot make room for any more CO2. This means that the CO2 will restart to go back into the water.

All of these reaction will be influenced by temperature.
Carbonic acid decomposition is much faster at room temperature compared to 4°C, so what happens is that, at room temperature, reaction (3) will be more favoured compared to (2) and when the can will be opened more CO2 will exit the can, giving you a slightly less fizzy drink.

This effect is similar to that of shaking the bottle: in that case you are mechanically promoting the dissociation of carbonic acid and helping CO2 to escape from water.

Finally, carbonic acid is, as you may guess, an acid, albeit a very weak one!

It will therefore contribute to lower the pH of your drink in a more or less strong way, depending on the soda: the pH contribute of H2CO3 will be higher in sparkling water (bringing the pH down from 7 to between 3 and 4) than in Coca Cola, which already contains a strong acid (H3PO4, phosphoric acid) and has a low pH in any case.

I've once experienced freezing a soda, and yes it exploded. As for I am doing a science experiment on "what's the fastest way to cool a soda" and it's pretty simple really and basic. I- in my opinion think whether you freeze the soda, place in a refrigerator, or place in any position the soda will have the same taste to it as long as the soda has not been opened and has had anything accidentally go inside it.


Can I cook hamburgers in the microwave oven? What would be the main differences between frying hamburgers and cooking them in the microwave oven?

I'm stuck in a hostel with only a microwave oven and a water cooker.

In short, kind of, but only with the proper accessories/equipment.  You'll never match a grill or griddle but you can get surprisingly close.

As was mentioned in other answers, what you're going to lose most is the sear.

I was given a Corningware Microwave Browning Dish a while back and found that it actually works pretty well when you're stuck with only a microwave.  They were apparently popular when microwaves were new and exciting, but people didn't know how to use them well and they faded into oblivion.  I've seen them on sale on eBay so you might be able to find a good price there if you're going to be stuck in the hostel for a while.

The basic idea is, there's a special kind of microwave-safe metal inside the base of the casserole.  You heat this with nothing on it for 3 minutes to get it nice and hot.  When you drop the patty on, it immediately sizzles.  You use the microwave function to heat the inside, while the hot surface sears the outside.  Although you're likely not going to get a perfect burger, you do get a real nice Maillard reaction on the outside of both sides (assuming you flip halfway) and if you play with the cooking time and power (to reduce that rubbery texture from overcooking), you can get something that's (in my opinion) a good 75%-quality burger compared to a griddle or grill.  I actually burned pork chops on it once, that's how hot the surface gets.

As a bonus, similar to a nice Boos block, there is a gutter around the outside and the plate is slightly concave, so the juices run off into the reservoir and the burger won't sit in fat during the cooking.

After reading the other answers (ElendilTheTall's specifically), I would think if you combined the steaming method to cook the burgers, with the microwave browning dish to sear, you could probably get a really good result.  If the burgers were fully cooked via steaming you could probably heat the dish and sear the burgers without even turning the microwave on (except to heat the casserole initially).

I believe Alton Brown did an episode where he talked about a specific type of brick that you can find at most hardware stores which is microwave-safe for the same searing purpose, but I can't find that info right now.

Cover it with waxed paper or plastic wrap.  Also, the burger will continue to cook for 1 minute or so after the microwave is done, so keep that in mind to avoid overcooking.


Is it safe to prepare Chicken Tartare? I know that raw chicken generally has a lot of safety concerns. Is there anyway that I can source the chicken to minimize these worries? What are the general concerns? How can I combat them? Are there any other safety concerns I should be worried about?

I'd suggest Consumer Reports as a starting point.  They specifically investigated the food safety of chicken in 2010 and found that (among other things):

Campylobacter was in 62 percent of the chickens, salmonella was in 14 percent, and both bacteria were in 9 percent. Only 34 percent of the birds were clear of both pathogens. That's double the percentage of clean birds we found in our 2007 report but far less than the 51 percent in our 2003 report.

Store-brand organic chickens had no salmonella at all, showing that it's possible for chicken to arrive in stores without that bacterium riding along. But as our tests showed, banishing one bug doesn't mean banishing both: 57 percent of those birds harbored campylobacter.

Among all brands and types of broilers tested, 68 percent of the salmonella and 60 percent of the campylobacter organisms we analyzed showed resistance to one or more antibiotics.

The same issue seems to come up over and over again in food safety questions, and I really can't stress this enough: Salmonella is not the only dangerous bacteria in food. Campylobacter is just one of many others and produces heat-resistant enterotoxins that simply put, can make you very, very sick.  Perfringens is also common, and raw chicken has also been found to harbour Listeria.
I've seen a number of articles and blogs claiming that people "worry too much" and most of them cite Ippuku in SF, which generated quite a stir by serving chicken tartare. It's legal in many countries for a restaurant to serve raw or undercooked food, provided that there is informed consent (the customer is specifically informed or specifically orders that their food be undercooked). However, legal is a very long way from safe, especially when we're talking about raw meat.
Steak tartare is more acceptable because, for some reason, Campylobacter don't like it and the incidence of E.coli is extremely low at only 0.26%.  Raw beef isn't totally safe but most healthy people who eat it will not have complications afterward.
So, to summarize:

Raw chicken: ~20% salmonella (depending on source), ~60% campylobacter (any source)
Raw beef: Less than 0.1% e.coli, ~2% campylobacter (any source)

Conclusion: If you eat raw beef (steak tartare), you're a risk-taker. If you eat raw chicken, you have a death wish. Just say no.
At an absolute minimum, please don't serve this to your dinner guests with assurances that it will be safe. What you do to your own body is your decision to make, but it would be grossly irresponsible to serve anything made with raw chicken to anyone who hasn't been made fully aware of the risks.

P.S. Some of this data may be U.S. specific, but the problem is worldwide. For example:

A New Zealand study showed a 36.7% contamination rate for salmonella and 84.3% for campylobacter,  (thanks TFD!).
A Canadian study showed a 37.5% incidence rate for salmonella and 75% for campylobacter.

So don't expect to be safer simply because you don't live in the U.S. If you're planning on doing this, you should check what your country's regulations and current statistics are regarding salmonella, campylobacter, C. perfringens, and listeria, for farms and plants producing chicken meat. That is your actual risk.
Buying "organic" might help, or might not, since organic is currently not a true legal or regulatory category in most regions.

I read somewhere that one way to kill most bacterias but still leave the meat raw is to boil it for a just a short while. If you look at this picture you see what I mean.


What can I do to help prevent flatulence from beans? I love the feijoada (typical Brazilian recipe). For optimal cooking, beans should be soaked in water for 12 hours, but it seems this is the cause of flatulence.

What is it in beans that causes flatulence and what can I do during cooking to help neutralize it?

In fact, soaking helps reduce the flatulence-causing sugars and starches. See this answer, for example. Soaking alone won't completely neutralize the problem, though. Certain spices may help; according to Wikipedia:

  Many herbal substances have been observered since antiquity for reducing flatulence, particularly gas from eating legumes. Cloves, cinnamon, and garlic are potent in reducing gas. The potency of garlic increases when heated, whereas the potency of cinnamon decreases. Other spices have a smaller effect in reducing gas, including turmeric, black pepper, asafoetida and ginger.

Another possibility is to take an enzyme supplement like beano to break down the starches before they get to the large intestine. See Wikipedia for more info.


What is liquid glucose? Two days ago, I was making ganache as a topping for cupcakes. I needed, as expected, cream and chocolate. But '1 teaspoon of liquid glucose' was also on the list of ingredients (for 12 cupcakes). I didn't think I had that, so I used 'fondant sugar' (powder sugar with a bit of water, described here as poured fondant).

Is liquid glucose something specific you can buy in stores, or is it a collection name for all kinds of sweet, liquid stuff (honey, syrup, fondant etc.)?

If it's something specific, can you make it at home as well?

And yet another question: if I would have added (powdered) sugar to my cream, would I have accomplished ganache as well (after being poured over chocolate), since I think the sugar would dissolve in the cream?

(Just to be complete: my ganache was fine.)

First of all- glucose is a different sugar than table sugar. Corn syrup in the US is similar but has a few extra compounds. As far as I can tell it is used for similar reasons as liquid glucose in the EU.
http://www.ochef.com/784.htm

It is used for a couple reasons:

it is thicker than sugar syrups.
when making candy a little corn syrup can be added to the sugar solution to prevent crystallization.
in the US at least, it is much cheaper than cane sugar.

You can buy it in stores here- I can't say whether you can in Belgium.

I have, on occasion, been forced to use a very thick sugar syrup in place of corn syrup. The recipe used the syrup for reason #1 above and turned out well. If it had been in there for reason #2 it would have been less successful.

In general, if you can find it, it is probably better to buy than to make a substitute because of reason #3.

Liquid Glucose, CAS# 8027-56-3, is an important form of glucose commercially available, available as Thick transparent liquid. Liquid Glucose is also know as glucose syrup, widely used as sweetener in food, beverage and confectionary. Glucose is also available in solid form as Dextrose Anhydrous and Dextrose Monohydrate.