How to prepare butter for baking when time is limited? From my experience, the best way to use butter when baking is to let it soften to room temperature. However, sometimes one is short on time and must use the microwave to soften the butter. I always felt that cookies are better when the butter is a little firmer. Why is that? Is there a better way? Should I simply defrost the butter in the microwave carefully? Perhaps put it in a closed bag and run it under warm water?

To get your butter up to room temperature faster, you can slice it into very small pieces or grate it with a cheese grater and then leave it out in a single layer. It will get where you want it in around 10 minutes that way.

You cookies taste better with room temperature butter because they have more air in them. When you mix the butter, sugar and eggs in your cookie recipe you're creating an emulsion of oil, proteins and air. Those little air pockets in the cookie dough then help the cookie puff up when it bakes. When the butter is melted all the way before you mix it in, this emulsion has much less air in it than it should, so your cookies' texture isn't as good.

I would put it in the microwave for a few seconds. 5- 10 softens it pretty nice!


Is that bechamel that Gordon Ramsay is adding to the lasagna? In this video, you can see Gordan Ramsay piping a white substance into his lasagna.

Recently saw a post about substitute for ricotta or cottage in a lasagna. Several members agreed that bechamel is traditionally used.

So is that what Ramsay is doing here?

Gordon says "white sauce", which is a simpler term for bechamel-based sauces and is quite common when making lasagna.

Yet the stuff that gets stirred in the bowl looks somewhat "fluffier" than classic bechamel and when it's piped has a "raggedness" that plain bechamel doesn't have, but smoother that pure ricotta.

My conclusion: it's hard to say for certain, but to me it looks like a mixture of both.

It's the same recipe of bechamel, the only difference is that he adds cheddar cheese.


Is my bacon still safe after being left at room temp. for 32 hours? I bought a package of Appleton Farms, hardwood smoked, sugar cured, sliced bacon about 32 hours ago & forgot to put it in the refrigerator. The ingredients state "cured with": water, salt, sugar,sodium phosphate, sodium erythorbate and sodium nitrate. The package is still sealed. Do you think it is safe to eat?

Does the package say it needs to be kept refrigerated?  Did it come from refrigerated storage at the store?  If either of these is true, then you should toss it.

Bacon CAN be heavily smoked and cured for room-temperature storage, but most grocery-store bacon is not this kind.  Due to the nitrates/nitrates and smoking process, normal bacon should be safe at room temperature for longer than the 2 hours we give uncured meats, but 32 hours is simply WAY TOO LONG.

If the package is sealed I would go for it! I doubt there's been any serious bacterial growth with all the preservatives. Besides, you still have to cook it (well), which would kill any bacteria (supposing there are any). That said, the taste/quality might be modified, but nothing to be concerned about (not harmful). If it doesn't taste good, toss it.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm a Biologist and consider myself to know quite a lot about bugs. I would eat it, but do so under your own responsibility.]


Cleaning white bubbles on induction stove I recently moved into an apartment with an induction stove. After the first use with a designated pan, some white bubble marks have appeared. Has anyone had these types of stains? Any suggestions on how to clean it?

I have an induction stove and have had similar marks. I think rumtscho is right; these are mineral deposits from water. Water gets between the surface and the pan, most likely because the base of the pan was initially wet (spillage from the pan will mostly end up beside it, and only areas directly under the pan will get significantly hot), the heat of the pan evaporates the water, leaving dry deposits.

There is some good advice on cleaning glass stovetops from eHow, which suggests leaving a "[vinegar-drenched] paper towel on the stove top for an hour", and using ceramic cooktop cleaner if still present.

But I've found these marks can be mostly prevented by making sure the base of your pan is completely dry before putting it on the stove.

You have a couple of options.

Grade 000 steel wool. I was put onto it by a builder when I was cleaning very dirty windows, we pretty much use it on everything, when its not rusty (throw away when it is) its virtually scratch free for all surfaces but removes tough built on dirt, sopa scum, fades hard water marks and eventually removes them.

You can try a scrapper but you would have to be cautious not to scratch it as this is a possibility. You can also try a product like "Bring it on cleaner" we have used this product and can vouch it is what it says it is. Unfortunately is is pretty costly. Another option is cerium oxide. I wouldn't recommend this option unless you have worked with it before.


Can I use unbleached flour in quickbread? I'm back with another question. I have been baking zucchini bread for a long time. I always used bleached flour. Now that I am trying my hand in yeast breads I use unbleached flour. Can I use unbleached flour in my zucchini bread? I bake at least 100 to 130 loafs of zucchini bread every summer and some in the winter (I freeze some zucchini for the winter) I make basic kind chocolate, lemon, applesauce and carrot it keeps me bizzzzzy My friends and family love them. I hope I can use unbleached I don't have a lot of space for all kinds of flours

EDIT

Cook's Illustrated (America's Test Kitchen) tested bleached versus unbleached flour in baking and in savory sauces.

They found that unbleached flour works pretty much identically to bleached flour in sauces, but they caution that some testers could taste off notes in some baked applications using bleached flour. The difference is more pronounced in applications where the ratio of flour to other ingredients is high.

  In baking tests, bleached flour was criticized for tasting flat or having “off” flavors (texturally, the flours behaved the same). These characteristics, however, were much harder to detect in recipes with a high proportion of ingredients other than flour, such as cornbread or oatmeal cookies.

According to ATK, unbleached flour is preferable to bleached. You may find that you actually like your bread better using unbleached flour.

Interestingly, the link in @dougal 2.0.0's answer directly contradicts ATK. Kitchn prefers bleached flour for quickbreads, claiming that bleached flour is softer.

So, knowledgeable cooks disagree. I will say that I frequently make quick breads including zucchini. I always use unbleached flour, and I've never seen any reason to buy bleached.

Original Answer

To the absolute best of my knowledge, I don't think there is a difference between unbleached and bleached flours in a particular application other than what quickly becomes obvious.

So, if you have used both flours in your bread, I see no reason other than preference or economy to use one or the other.

It only a difference in colors , yes be the answer just add  butter to keep bread from being too tough or hard/ dry.


Slow cooker tips when on high and others remove the lid I cannot use my slow cooker as designed, as I try to cook for my elderly parents. They do not rise before 11a.m., the kitchen is located upstairs with them, so they will hear or feel everything-and waking them at 8a.m. is NOT what I want. I end up preparing a lot of their food AFTER I eat brunch so I am forced to use the high setting.

And then, if I turn my back for a moment to do something else, they take the lid off! Apparently, it just had to be stirred - so I lose a good 1/2 hr. right there - each time! So really, it only slow cooks a couple of hours, in reality.

What can I do the able to use the slow cooker as I want?

Five hours is still a pretty long time for low and slow. Many recipes will work within that time without modification.

For ones that won't, the best way to cut time off is to heat things through in a pot on the stove first. Slow cookers are pretty good at the low and slow part, but that means they're really slow at getting to the point where they're actually cooking. Depending on your recipe, you may be able to skip right past a couple hours of initial heating by bringing things to a simmer/boil before dumping in.

Also, don't worry too much about the lid getting taken off. If it's left off, yeah, that's not great, but if it's just opened to stir and it's full of food/liquid, the temperature is not going to decrease that much.

If after all that, it's still not enough, I'd look to suggestions like those in Kate's answer - sidestep your timing constraints by prepping the night before and finding a better place for the slow cooker so you can start it earlier and avoid the lid getting opened. If you can get a small fridge outside the kitchen, you really could do it all without ever going into the kitchen in the morning.

Put up a sign next to the slow cooker to not open it (explain that there will be a spoilage risk, or risk of damaging this model slow cooker)..

If that doesn't help, secure the slow cooker lid with something that is inconvenient to undo - rubber bands, clothespins, cable ties, a bicycle lock, F clamps... and find an explanation (maybe something about overboiling stuff driving the lid off...)...


Mould in water when making preserved duck eggs We have ducks at home and my wife has been making the Chinese delicacy 咸鸭蛋 preserved duck eggs for about 3 months now.

However in the past week the current batch of eggs has mould in the water.

The weather here is getting warmer as we have just switched to Spring. So we are guessing it might be the extra sunlight or warmth coming into our kitchen.

My wife didn't think we need to put it in the fridge, but is there a suggested temperature?

When my mom made salted eggs, we always put it in the fridge.


What is the difference between milk (simple) and milk drink? Here in Finland I have come across two types of milk. One is simple milk (maito/mjölk) and the other is milk-drink (maitojuoma/mjölkdryck). They also have variations like fat-free, light, whole (hel/täys) and lactose(-free).
Lactose-free whole milkdrink and whole milk, and light milkdrink and light milk have different tastes.
The difference between their ingredients is milk-based mineral preparations, mineral product or mineral preparations
Swedish:

mjölkbaserat mineralpreparat (Milbona)
mineralpreparat (Valio)

Finnish:

maitopohjainen kivennäisvalmiste (Milbona)
maitovalmiste (Valio)

They have different nutrition values but the same mineral value (only compared Milbona whole milk).
And both are placed in refrigerated compartments.
(I found milkdrink's taste slightly better.)
Question:
What is the differences between (simple) milk and milk-drink?

If the milk is modified by removing the lactose, it is no longer considered milk, and must be sold under a different name, such as milkdrink. The fat content can be modified while still considering it milk however.

The swedish FAQ of Valio (the biggest dairy producer in Finland) is very clear on this.

http://www.valio.se/halsa/laktosintolerans/fragor-och-svar

I couldn't however find the same quote in the Finnish FAQ (Via google translate).

http://www.valio.fi/usein-kysytyt-kysymykset/

While the legislation could in theory be different between the two countries, I believe this is probably regulated on EU level.

Wheresas on the other hand milk drink means, it's one kind of mixture which is making by some ingredients like fruits and others. Here I would like to mention that main aim behind making milk drink is provide vitamins and proteins in form of milk so its not too different from milk but its testing quality and other proportions are different from milk.


baking time versus number of items in oven I doubled a recipe for apple cake, and filled two 13x9 pans. Into the 350F wall oven they went. Recipe estimates 50-60 minutes.

60 minutes later, probe comes out pretty damp, and cakes are more than a bit jiggly. Easy enough, bake a little longer.

What's going on here? Do two room temperature cakes depress the initial temperature for a lot longer than one?

p.s. Oven calibration recently checked, so it's not that.

I was baking these cakes one atop the other, with a few inches between, in an electric oven. I did not have convection turned on.

(1) Are you baking them upper/lower or side-by-side?,  (2) Is your oven's outside width 24" or 30"?,  & (3) Gas or electric?

My guess would be that either you have a 24" oven and you're baking upper/lower or you have a 30" oven and you're baking side-by-side.  Either way, I think the ultimate culprit is heat circulation - certainly you wouldn't be having this problem in a convection oven, right?

If you're baking them upper/lower in a small oven, I believe that heat absorption would probably create areas of lower temperature above both pans that wouldn't even out well without convection.  If you're baking side-by-side in a larger oven, I believe that the total area of your pans would create a heat block and a temperature differential between the top and bottom of your oven that would not dissipate well without convection.  And while I think the circulation problem would be less of a problem with gas, I'm pretty sure it's going to present a problem in either type of oven you use.

Being the owner of a 24" electric oven myself (so the interior of my oven is 18" x 18", not including the ribs that support the racks), I can't even bake two 9" circular cake layers at the same time (either diagonally or upper and lower) without grotesque deformations in the tops of my cakes. And two 9" round pans with a thin layer of cake batter are going to be less of a heat magnet and obstruction than a thick layer of apple cake batter in two 9" x 13" pans.

Ultimately I think the problem is not one of time but of maintaining temperatures above and below your pans - and adding time to the bake won't resolve the problems caused by such a differential.  Alas, I believe that your best option is to give each cake its own space and time in the oven.  Whether it's a heat conduction issue or a circulation issue or some combination of both, I think the variables involved are WAY too complicated to ever lead to a general baking time extension guideline when doubling-up a recipe.

Bake them separately - and, yes, I realize that's not a very satisfying recommendation.

You should  never cook 2 cakes same oven, same time=problem! Easy fix, cook seperately!


Recovering from Over Salted Sauerkraut I recently finished my first batch of sauerkraut and tasted it only to find that it's way too salty. In referencing the original recipe, I realized that I used the amount of salt recommended for 5lbs of cabbage but I only had 2.5lbs.

What, if anything, can I do to salvage the sauerkraut? Because of the way it's made, I wasn't sure that just adding the missing cabbage is a viable solution and part of me wonders if the salt is just part of the food now.

Rinsing the sauerkraut absolutely does work - we do it all the time, both with store-bought and homemade sauerkraut. Every batch of sauerkraut is different, so rinsing & tasting is the only way to ensure that your dishes turn out appropriately salted. Yes, some of the salt has entered the cabbage itself, but most of it will be in the brine/on the surface.

If rinsing in a colander isn't enough (and if you used twice the recommended amount of salt it's likely not to be), then you can drain the liquid as best you can, then add clean water to cover, and let it soak. Rinse and repeat until the salt level tastes more acceptable.

Adding more cabbage and letting it ferment some more is also an option, although the twice-fermented parts can end up rather mushy.

I dechlorinated a small pot of tap water by boiling for 20 minutes, let cool and added enough to double up the amount of brine above the kraut once weighted down. I massaged the solution into the kraut then let it sit.
It was 2 weeks until I noticed I'd doubled the amount of salt and 2 weeks until I checked it and I found it still a bit salty but I'm leaving it because it  was good and I think the fermentation has slowed but not stopped. I don't see bubbling anymore, but I think it's still working... time will tell!


What exactly is a chowder? Are there other names which mean essentially the same thing. If there is a univeral process that goes into the making of a chowder that distinguishes a chowder, what is it? Are there some sorts of food produce conducive to "chowdering" and others that are not? Is there a list of chowder types somewhere? I ask because I sense that all of those elements would go into a good definition--not just a dictionary definition--of what makes for good chowders.

According to Food Network and chowhound.com, chowders are thick, usually cream- or milk-based soups with chunks of vegetables and/or fish. A cream soup is generally pureed, a thinner consistency and smooth, with no chunks of food.
Food Network also notes the regional aspects, in that the Northeast seafood-based chowders are more common, while further inland meat-based soups are more prevalent.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/how-to/chowder-and-soup/index.html

Chowder's roots are in the Northeast, with the most popular being New
England Clam Chowder. It has been said that the soup took its name
from a type of French cooking vessel, the chaudiere. But the French
can't claim responsibility for this truly is an American tradition.
Customarily, chowder included onion, potatoes, and cream. Nowadays,
not all chowders adhere to these guidelines. New England Clam Chowder
is sometimes made with milk, and Manhattan Clam Chowder doesn't have
any milk or cream, but has a tomato base instead. As chowders pop up
across the country, they have taken on many different ingredients but
most people still expect a chunky, creamy soup. So whether it's corn
chowder or seafood chowder, it will not be a smooth puree and it will
not be thin and wimpy.

PreparedPantry.com describes chowder attributes:

A chowder is a thick, rich, chunky soup usually made with a white
sauce base though Manhattan chowders have a tomato base.  Originally,
it was a fishermen’s stew made with seafood but today, vegetable
chowders are common such as corn chowder and potato chowder.
Chowders typically have five parts:
The vegetables or seafood, the focal ingredient of the soup.
Ancillary ingredients which may include cream, diced onions, bacon, or herbs.
The cooking liquid—usually broth or stock.
A thickening agent—usually cornstarch, flour, or potatoes.
Seasonings including salt and pepper.

http://www.preparedpantry.com/Recipes/How-to-Make-Chowder.htm

I’m 68 and I’ve been cooking since I was 3. From everything I've learned to answer your question. Quite simply chowders are made with heavy cream, or flour based roux. Where soups are made with milk and no roux.  Hope this actually answered the question you actually asked.


What kind of rice is used in Chinese cooking? I love the Chinese food we get from takeaway shops, and often to save on the cost we will cook our own rice at home. This is good, but the rice never seems to have the same texture as takeaway rice - it's less sticky, and much harder to eat with chopsticks. I usually use plain long grain rice as that's what I have in the cupboard. Does anyone know what kind they would use in a Chinese restaurant or takeaway?

Also, out of interest, what kind is used in authentic Chinese cooking? (I am well aware that this is vastly different from what we eat as "Chinese food" in the West!)

Well in Chinese cooking we use a wide variety actually. Typically speaking...

Medium or Long Grain Rice

White Rice
Fried Rice

Sweet Rice or Glutinous Rice

Sticky Rice (You commonly see this at Dim Sum places in the sticky rice dishes wrapped in lotus leaves, among other places.)

There are others of course, but those are the common ones you'll find since you were asking about Chinese Takeout. The shorter the grain, the more "sticky" it will be. However, that doesn't mean that long grain rice should come out grainy either. I suppose different restaurants will do it differently, around here they generally use long grain rice for "white rice". This is how my mother taught me to make rice:

Wash Rice a few times till there isn't any more murkiness.
Add water till it reaches your first knuckle on your pointer finger when the tip is just barely touching the rice (should generally work for any amount of rice).
Bring to boil, turn to simmer (covered). Check back in 10 to 15 minutes If the water is mostly gone, and it isn't at the texture you like, you can always add a bit more water.
Let it sit for a few minutes after the heat is off.

In China, you'll find all different grains. I've seen both short and long grains, and have seen plain white, long grain rice served as well.

Best Chinese restaurants buy in bulk Basmati rice makes a hell of a differences!


Thicker gelatin layer at the bottom of the dish When I make Jell-O (fruit-flavored gelatin or jelly), I often get a patchy skin of "thicker" gelatin on the bottom of the dish. The color is the same, but the "skin" has less flavor and a much harder texture.

My assumption is that some of the gelatin granules aren't getting completely dissolved; however, I can't see any granules remaining (or I'd keep stirring it). Am I right about the cause? How do I prevent or reduce the problem if there isn't any visual cue?

If you pour jello into dishes while it is still very warm, the mixture has time to start layering and separating a bit, leaving the layer you describe on the bottom of the dish. In my experience, the best way to avoid it is to not pour the mixture into the dish/es until it is cooled to nearly room temperature and considerably thicker. While it's cooling, you can stir it periodically to prevent layering, and then it should set quickly enough that it won't separate.

You need to keep stirring for full 3 minutes, as in the instructions. The only time I have the stuff on the bottom is when I don't stir enough.


Can I boil eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else? I know cooking the eggs kills the salmonella and that the risk is small even for raw eggs. However, I stopped boiling the eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else, like potatoes, when I learnt the salmonella is in the shell.

Obviously, I'm not eating the shell and the eggs are washed. I wonder if I can boil everything in the same pot or not.

Salmonella can't survive boiling water, it would get killed at that temperature. It should be fine to boil everything in the same pot.

There's a story that Einstein often ate lunch comprised of hard-boiled eggs & chicken noodle soup, where he cooked them together in the pot to save time. Doesn't seem like he had any problems with it! Boiling water is hot enough to kill germs, and techniques can be altered since the only requirement is to heat the egg to the appropriate temperature. Too bad you have to guess what that temp is.


What ingredients do you add to your meat to help to reduce (bad) bacteria? I've heard that adding lemon juice to your cooked meat can help to reduce bad bacteria. Is that true? What other ingredients that one can add to meat to reduce bacteria?

Meats that have been properly stored (refrigerated for short-term storage of up to several days, frozen or canned for long-term storage) and cooked to safe internal temperatures should be free of harmful levels of bacteria, bacterial toxins, and parasites. From the USDA FS&IS "Is It Done Yet?" brochure:

Cook all raw beef, pork, lamb and veal steaks, chops, and roasts to a minimum internal temperature of 145 °F as measured with a food thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving or consuming. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook meat to higher temperatures.
Cook all raw ground beef, pork, lamb, and veal to an internal temperature of 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer.
Cook all poultry to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165 °F as measured with a food thermometer.

The USDA site has a wealth of information on food safety, including proper storage and special considerations for at-risk populations (e.g., diabetes, cancer, HIIV/AIDS, organ transplant recipients).

Other concerns are probably best addressed with a health-care professional.

As cook (and student/teacher of it) and as a woman who doesn't wish to give bad food to the family.

when fresh meat is green or greenish, be thrown
when it changes smell without changing color, if the smell is not much, you can help by cooking with lemon, vinegar, wine, beer, garlic - these acidic ingredients help to disinfect
the addition of herbs can help to cover the smell, but it does not sanitize the meat (but we do not want to "cover", we also want an improved product)

by shopping

the flesh exposed to the air becomes dark red (it is normal), but must be red (light red) when cut
never buy meat that appears light red on the counter, because it has been treated with chemical additives and dyes
never buy meat that is dark to cut, because it is old (probably already entered into decomposition) (considering that the meat starts to decompose as soon as the animal dies)
never buy meat that, in the box or on the bench, releases water, because it is meat that has been frozen - the water comes from freezing, which separates the molecules of water and thaw for the first
never buy meat in the box, where below shows an absorbent, designed precisely to hide this freezing water
same is for fish

preservation

always buys meat very fresh, as explained above
fill yourself freezing, with the proper system of rapid freezing that now all freezers have
thaws (very slowly) only what you need for the next day, before going to the refrigerator
cook the meat to the maximum within 24 h after thawing
when the meat is well cooked, as soon as it is cold you can refreeze, with the same rules of frozen meat from fresh
if the meat is cooked "rare", with the inside red or pink, you can not refreeze - there are other ways to re-use quickly
if the freezer breaks down and you find yourself with half a ton of meat thawed quickly: you have to roll up their sleeves and cook everything in a flash, all that is not cooked within a few hours should be thrown away

canned

make canned meat (or under glass) home is very difficult, you have to have safe meat and jars disinfected with care, sterilization safe and carefully executed.

even if everything is done perfectly, it can happen a fermentation

The good cans of meat should do ("flushhhh") when you open it, because air enters
Never use food in cans that have swollen the lid = this means that there is fermentation with gas production: Throw everything without regret.

cooking

cook red meat with blood, if you like, but should be eaten within a few hours
well-done red meat should be eaten within 24 hours
cook the fish well but not too much otherwise it becomes hard
cook the white meat (veal) very well, but not too much otherwise it becomes hard
Cook the chicken very well to avoid viruses (H5N1, H7N9)
Cook the pork very, very well, to avoid the pork tapeworm (tenia solium)

It is obvious that a family mother can not live with the microscope in hand, on the other side she would not be able to use.
The above rules are not few but can be followed easily by anyone to avoid unnecessary risks.

Remember that most of bacteria are living in our body yet, so doesn't need to be too fearful.

(sorry for my english)


What's the key to making thick soups? I looove soups, but I mainly eat vegetables and I do not use any store-bought spice mixes or "stocks". I also do not eat dairy for other reasons. And I also do not fry things.

I remember my grandma making nice, thick soups, ones that are not so watery... But I really don't know how to make them! My soups are either watery or they're overcooked.

So what is the key to making a soup that is thick and isn't overcooked? Or is there no key, it just depends? If that is so, then I want to know what it depends on. :-)

Make your favorite vegetable soup.  Remove 1/4 and puree in blender.  Return to the rest of the soup.  If it is not yet think enough, increase the amount you remove and puree until you find the consistency you are looking for.  If you don't have a blender, you can use an immersion "stick" blender, or even a hand cranked food mill. Alternately, if you have none of these devices, simply put the veg. in a bowl and mash with a potato masher.

Okra added, chicken feet & heads added, or shark fin. Will thicken soup.  More American. Corn starch or flour. European. Crushed lentils or peas.


Gas leak (and flames) around burner intake I've been reassembling a friend's old BBQ and one of the three burners seems to be leaking gas where it connects with the gas intake. When I turn it on, there's a flame and I can see/smell something burning inside, so I turn it off immediately. Anyone know why, and how to fix?

Here's what it looks like in action https://imgur.com/BcrmBYF, and here's the inside https://imgur.com/a/tZAMwhE

It looks like the burner tube is not sliding back far enough onto the gas outlet on the control valve. Then some gas leaks there instead of going into the burner. All the gas should go into the burner tube. The gas will aspirate air into the the tube, mix with the air and give blue flames at the little holes. If there is orange flame, the adjusting collar on the tube needs to be rotated. Your problem should be a simple fix of sliding the burner tube tight against the valve. It is a pretty forgiving system: I have a 20 year old grill that is on about the 5th set of burners, not made for the specific grill and have not had a problem. (I use the grill a lot). At the end of season I buy whatever burners are on sale, they have all worked so far.

Yellow flames mean that the gas it not mixed with enough air before combusting. If I understand correctly, there is a nozzle that injects gas into the tube-like burner. Around the nozzle there is probably a small gap to allow the gas to mix with air (like the bunsen burner you may remember from high school).

When the flame ignites in the video (around 5 seconds in), you only see blue flames along the first few centimeters of the burner. I suspect it might be clogged at that point, causing the gas to flow back out of the air intake.


Can I freeze undercooked (pink) chicken to finish cooking later on? Cooked chicken breasts, thermometer was not working properly, so I thought they were done. Took out, let sit few minutes, cut open to discover most of the meat was slightly pink. I cut it up and froze it in small batches to use in the the next week or two. I had second thoughts about freezing in the first place but could not find any answers. Can you help?

It is entirely fine! The only thing I would worry about is when you are re-cooking them. Let them come down to room temperature before you throw them on the heat, otherwise, you'll get overcooked/burnt edges and a barely cooked centre. I would just be wary about keeping them in the freezer for over two weeks, not for health and safety, but just for taste and culinary standards.

For when you take them out for your meal; enjoy!


Does ginger have to be peeled? If so how? I noticed that many recipes that call for ginger explicitly call for peeled ginger.

When I use ginger I don't bother to peel it. As it is almost always minced fine the tiny bits of papery peel are almost undetectable.

Is there some reason that I should start peeling my ginger? Are there some dishes that are better served by using ginger that has been peeled?

Ginger is knobbier than a potato. Is there a better way to peel them than to just take a vegetable peeler to it?

FWIW- The recipe that provoked this question can be found here.

There's no reason to peel besides the aesthetics of it. There's no major flavor or nutritional difference either way. If the ginger is going to be seen then peel it, if not don't bother.

The best way to peel ginger is to use the edge of a small spoon to rub it off, it works really well, takes seconds, and doesn't waste as much as using a knife or peeler.

You need not to add ginger directly in any recipe , Just Ginger+Garlic(peel the garlic) mix it and grind it then add it..(Indian recipes will follow this)..


What exact temperature allows me to store frozen products really long? For as long as I remember, I was always told (and I was always so sure), that minus 18 degrees Celsius is an optimal temperature for storing frozen products  for really, really long. Months usually and in case of certain types of meat and fish, even up to one year.

Some other sources, that I recall, but can't cite right now, said that in minus 18 degrees Celsius most (if not all) products can be kept until at least "best before" date.

Some time ago I went to a one of Polish shops around me and I was shocked to find this infobox:

It basically says, that in minus 18 degrees Celsius I can store all products up to one month (so not "many months" and not "really long"), with exception of ice cream (which even at this temperature can't be stored for longer than a week+).

And minus 24 degrees Celsius* I can store most frozen products "many weeks". Which leads me to a conclusion that under no home-applicable* circumstances I'm not allowed to store frozen food for "many months" or "really long".

What am I missing? Is above presented table correct?

* not mentioning, that none of fridges / freezers, that I use is able to run at minus 24 degrees Celsius temperature and to be honest -- I have never heard about any home-targeted device, that is able to achieve this temperature.

-24°C will usually be chest freezers, not uprights.

-18°C seems to be generally considered to be cold enough that even new-old-stock mammoth would still be safe, albeit a little dry. The only caveat is auto-defrosting systems in some freezers, they raise the temperature periodically (check the documentation for your model of freezer).

Not today,  you probably will not find a freezer that will achieve -25 C. Most all freezers now are self defrosting which means they go thru a thaw cycle several times a month that raises the temperature above freezing for a short period of time to defrost the refrigeration coils. This process warms the air inside the freezer and increases temperatures of the outside of frozen product enough to cause deterioration or freezer burn after the product refreezes.
You are right in saying there are not any modern home freezers that can do this. Probably because most all of them are self defrosting except some chest type.
I have a RCA Whirlpool chest type freezer that is over 40 years old and has been freezing at -20 below zero Fahrenheit which is about - 30 Celsius  since it was new and is still working great. They do not make things like they used to.
Bottom line is if you want to keep food for long periods of time,  the colder the temp and not using  a self defrost unit is the best way. Putting it in vacuum seal bags also keeps it better and fresher even longer.


Should I refrigerate eggs? I've read a lot of conflicting advice on whether it's advisable to store eggs in the refrigerator. The case against seems twofold: (1) that eggshells are porous, and eggs can take on unwelcome flavours, or even spoil faster in the fridge, and (2) that cooking with cold eggs can be problematic. But lots of people refrigerate eggs through perceived necessity.

Do eggs last longer in the fridge, and is the shelf life gain worth it? Or should I just stick them in the cupboard?

The exterior coating on an egg is known as the "cuticle".  It helps to protect the (porous) shell and minimize moisture loss, but it eventually breaks down as the chick matures and prepares to hatch.

The reason that eggs in the US are typically sold under refrigeration is because they are washed with warm water and detergent to remove the large amount of bacteria that are deposited on the shell while being laid.  Once the cuticle is removed the egg becomes more porous.

Most bakeries that are using whole eggs will typically keep several flats out at all times to have them at room temperature.  Eggs will store better and longer in the refrigerator but if being used frequently and fairly quickly, they can also be left at room temperature.  Howard McGee in On Food & Cooking says that egg quality deteriorates as much in one day at room temperature as it does four days under refrigeration.

Fresh unwashed eggs - a reason to buy locally from a non-commercial seller - are best stored and used  at room temperature. Only exception is in summertime or in warm climates.  True free  range chickens produce the tastiest and most nutritious eggs.


How to clean cauliflower? I have asked many people about "best to way to clean cauliflower" before cooking. I got several answers, like keeping in salt water or add soak in turmeric mixed water.
And also how do you remove worms from cauliflower?

A bucket of salty water is the best way to get rid of bugs. That said, I've never had a problem with bugs in store-bought cauliflower.

You need to completely submerge the head in water, so a bucket that can fit the whole head is best. Add about 2 Tbsp salt per quart warm water to get it nice and salty. Submerge the head, florets down (they float, so a weight to keep it submerged will help). Let sit 5-10 minutes, remove, rinse, and eat as you please.

The salt in the water helps to kill the bugs and encourage them to let go. It also might kill some surface contamination if it exists, but this isn't really the point. You should see bugs either floating or at the bottom when you remove the cauliflower.

If you don't need the head whole when cooking, core and cut into desired size prior to soaking.


Making "long(er)-life" homemade mayonnaise Most recipes I've seen for mayonnaise suggest that homemade mayo should be kept in the fridge for no longer than between 3 and 5 days.

What techniques or ingredients can be used to increase the shelf-life of homemade mayo? It's probably worth mentioning that I'm not after a solution that'll make the mayo last for the same length of time as commercially produced products, a week or two would be nice though!

I make a pretty large quantity of homemade mayo and have never had a problem keeping it longer than that -- Good Eats uses a week for their recipe and for me it lives a month, easy, with no detectable reduction in quality. There really is enough acid and salt to deter most bugs if you like it strongly flavored (and let's be honest, mayo should be strongly flavored because it's a sauce made of fat and you might want to minimize the quantity applied). I'd also take the advice of stilltasty.com that while color, flavor, or texture may change it's generally still safe to eat refrigerated mayo even after it's notional "use-by" date.

In short, I strongly advise more salt and acid if you're worried (and also because it's tasty), but I also strongly advise a lack of worry.

I believe adding a little rosemary would preserve this longer. Rosemary if put in slightly spoiled egg or potato salad can actually reverse the spoilage.


Is Serrano an acceptable substitute for jalapeno I am making butter chicken tonight. My recipe calls for 2 jalapenos, but the store was out and I am too cranky to go across town to another store. Can I substitute a Serrano pepper? I believe Serrano are quite a bit hotter, and I don't want to burn everyone's mouths.

Jalapenos vary widely in heat, but, yes, Serrano is usually thought of as a bit hotter.  If it were me, I would use one.  I would also remove the seeds and the internal membranes to cut the heat further.  Maybe even start with 1/2...you can always add more.

No, it's totally different. Jalapenos are much less spicy and it's also a different feel to it. Try to get jalapenos if you can. If not, try to soak the serrano peppers in vinegar for a few hours after removing the seeds and inside and see if they are a little more appropriate then. Also reduce the amount by 50% even taking that into consideration...


Rice Cookery in water containing sugar versus plain water I need to have a scientific explanation of why rice cooks faster in plain water than water containing sugar.  I know the sugar interferes with the gelatinization of the rice, but I would like a scientific explanation - such as how the elements within the rice respond to the water with sugar in it to interfere with the gelatinization.

I had some fun with this one. To start: Gelatinization is when the intermolecular starch bonds break, see Starch Gelatinization

I originally thought it had to do with the sugar changing the boiling point of the water. I thought this would increase cooking time, but turns out that's wrong. A higher boiling point means the water can get hotter before turning into water vapor. Therefore shortening cooking time. The mystery continues.

Under the last paragraph in section 8.2 of Thermodynamics of Water it talks about impurities.

Shortly after that I found help in this paper Effects of Sugar on Starch Gelatinization. It says that there are two reasons that I'll summarize here. 1) Sugar bonds with the water making it less available to bond with the starch. This makes it so that the water needs to be hotter to bond with the starch. 2) The sugar bonds with the starch holding them together a bit longer.

The rice soaks up the boiling water by transferring water into it's cells and absorbing the moisture into it. We boil it in water so the rice softens and is warm instead of a distasteful cold. The sugar interferes with this process and since it is not water being absorbed into the rice and a more dense fluid being absorbed by said rice then takes longer.


Is my Anchor Hocking Oven Basics glass measuring cup inaccurate? For measuring I usually use my red plastic Betty Crocker cups.
While rearranging some dishes, I noticed the 1 cup line on the 2 cup Anchor H one looked off - greater than one cup. I poured one cup from the plastic one into the 2cup Anchor Hocking one and there was a discrepancy. See photo. Also true of the glass 1 cup AH one.
This seems enough to make a difference in some recipes and general measuring. I appreciate any thoughts.

I'd get a third measuring tool to see which one is wrong.

One way to test this is to measure by weight (and IMO, all recipes should list ingredients by weight instead of volume)

1 cup of water is about 236ml which is 236g.

Get 1 cup from your red cup and weight it.
Get 1 cup from your glass cup and weight it.

It should tell you which one is right.

And to answer your question, yes, for some recipes, if you add too much or too liltle liquid it will not result in different results (either too dry or too wet).

Pyrex glass measuring cups are for liquids.
Plastic and metal "cups" are for dry ingredients.

It's an old rule of thumb that no one seems to remember...

The issue is a difference in volume.

One half gallon of milk weighs 4#s, contains 8 cups (8x8oz = 64oz/8 = 4#s).
Four pounds (#s) of sugar also contains 64oz.
Weights can be equal, but the mass (or volume) of objects can be different. A pound of feathers still weighs a pound, but it takes more space to hold them (than it does to hold a pound of sugar).


"Post-marinating"? Is it a real term or do my taste buds deceive me? Two nights ago I cooked some chicken on my George Foreman grill, just plain (a bit of non-stick spray but that's it). Then I chopped it up and put it in rice and stuck it in a tupperware for lunch today. I then rummaged my fridge for something to add flavor. Well I had some soy sauce and some teriyaki marinade, so I poured some of both in the tupperware, making sure to mainly coat the chicken with them.

That was two days ago; this morning when I got it out of the fridge before leaving for work, the sauce seemed to have soaked into the chicken, so I wondered if it's any different from marinating before cooking. And just like I thought, I just finished my delicious chicken and rice and if I didn't know better I would swear the chicken was marinated before cooking.

Is there any difference between marinating before or after cooking? I mean obviously if you cook, then marinate, then eat it right away it won't be soaked into the meat at all. But something like this where I cooked it and THEN marinated it, is there any difference? Does the meat marinate just the same, and is there any reason I shouldn't continue to do it this way rather than preparing better next time and making sure to marinate my chicken beforehand as is generally done?

Sorry if I sound completely naive, I am indeed very new to cooking (being a college student and all) and I've just never heard of post-marinating something, so I wonder if it's commonly done.

There are several reasons why you should marinate before cooking:

Many marinades contain raw ingredients that should be cooked along with the food being marinated, such as garlic or ginger.  In some cases this may actually be a health hazard (raw garlic can harbor botulism), in other cases you'll simply end up with an undesirable pungent flavour.
Many marinades also use some amount of acid, which helps to kick-start the process of breaking down the connective tissue and tenderizing the meat.  This is an especially big deal for chicken breast meat and tougher cuts of beef or pork, because most cooking methods (except for slow-cooking) don't do much of this and tend to produce a tougher, chewier end result.  Once the meat has already been cooked, using an acid-based marinade won't give you much more tenderization; you need the combination of acid and heat.
Finally, many spices release most of their flavour when heated (cooked).  Examples are cinnamon, saffron, star anise, and various types of hot pepper or chili powder.  If you marinate after cooking, you won't get much flavour from these.

Of course if you are using a very simple marinade such as soy sauce and are marinating only for flavour purposes, then it might not matter much, but that's the exception rather than the rule.  Marinating afterward can certainly improve the taste, but most of the time you'll end up with better results by marinating beforehand.

When meat is cooked it is left to rest before cutting. Why? Because the meat absorbs the juices into itself. If flavours are added at this point why would they not be absorbed as well?

There is a difference to putting sauce on the product and introducing it to the liquid to be reabsorbed.

Best thing to do is try it and then comment. Not comment without a test.


refrigerating meat after cooking I've heard that you need to let meat cool down after cooking before you store in in refrigeration, something about bacteria building up when you do that. Any idea if that's true?

In an ideal world, you would chill any hot food product rapidly before putting it in the refrigerator.  However, modern refrigerators can handle the load from a mass of hot food, so it is better to put the food in the refrigerator than to hold it at room temperature to cool.

The goal is to minimize the amount of time in the danger zone (40-140 F, 4-60 C) during which pathogens can grow.

See also:

What are some techniques to cool down a dish so that we can store it in the refrigerator safely?
How effective are modern home refrigerators at keeping other foods cool when hot food is introduced to the space?
How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?

There is actually many reasons why you would want to let food cool down before putting in the fridge, as you can see.

Yes, ideally you want the food to cool down as fast as possible. And yes you want to consider things such as bacteria build up, on the food cooling down and any food around it that may warm up.

But one good point that was not made is that, you don't want the excess moisture build up in the container of the food cooling down. When food is cooling down, it releases a lot of energy in the form of moisture which can spoil the food much faster. So it is good practice to cool off food before covering and (unless you have a walk in fridge) before putting in the fridge.


What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't? I have a high-fat cookie dough (see What ingredient changes will make this cookie dough more workable?) which wants to be chilled in the refrigerator overnight before shaping.  I tried to cheat by chilling it for only 4 hours, which I figured would be more than enough time for the dough to get as cold as the fridge could make it.

I was wrong.  When I pulled the dough from the fridge after only 4 hours, it was not nearly as stiff as it needed to be. The next morning, the dough was much stiffer and more workable.

What is it about an overnight (or longer) refrigeration that transforms the dough into something workable?

The rest period hydrates the starches in flour, giving the dough a firmer and more workable texture (there is some very minor gluten development, but its mostly the expansion of the starch bundles with water).  In many cookies, the flavors will also mature and improve, especially with cocoa in the recipe.

In many recipes, the cooling from refrigeration is itself part of the point--doughs may be easier to roll and cut when they are cool due to chilling of the fat.  Most dietary fats are waxy, which means they don't have a single set freezing/melting point, but rather get more viscous or eventually firmer then hard as temperature drops.

For example, linzer cookie dough is very frangible, and the chilling and hydration make rolling and cutting much easier.

Generally, most of this affect is going to happen in the first 8 hours or so.  The overnight thing is simply for convenience in most cases.  In fact, 4 hours is often enough, although obviously not in your case.

If the major effect is chilling in your recipe, by flattening the dough to a disk, or lengthening it to a log (thus increasing surface area) compared to a ball, it will chill more rapidly.   You mentioned this is a high fat recipe--if that fat is butter (as it so often is with cookies), that may help.

I do not know the chemistry involved, but longer dough refrigeration toughens the dough, and makes it more cohesive.  It, like any refrigeration, also changes the texture of the finished product (usually making it chewier).


what to do with fish steaks that still have scales on? I am in Montreal and the Portuguese community here has a few grocery stores; Portuguese frozen fish is also for sale in quite a few places. It's very inexpensive and I think I now know why. I bought a kilo of redfish (with some research I think it's most commonly called ocean perch*).

It's described as bland fish and apparently best to cook in a sauce, but the steaks still have scales on them! I hate scaling, and during scaling the scales get all over the meat, I can't see them and after adding butter and orange juice and poaching the fish in the oven, they made it to the final dish and the sauce.

Obviously, the fish with scales is best to cook whole, but I have the steaks. Any advice on how to cook them unscaled and still use seasoning/sauce?

[*edit] apparently also known as rockfish

Assuming you're cooking the the fish in a sauce, cut the meat away from the skin, liberally (it sounds like you really don't like the scales). Put what remains of the skin in cheese cloth (like a bouquet garni) to get the flavor out of them. The cloth should keep the scales out. You may need to layer the cheesecloth. You can remove it toward the end of cooking.

First cook them flesh side down on a grill. Then finish cooking skin side down. Have the sause as a side dish to dip them in.


Is this canning method safe to use for spaghetti sauce? (Boiling the sauce in the jars in the oven) This technique has been used by my family for decades but I'm wondering how safe it is to kill Botulism spores.

Step 1, cook the spaghetti sauce in a large pot (tomatoes, meat, fruits, vegetables, sugar, spices, etc).  pH unknown.
Step 2, Fill mason jars with water. Bring them to a boil by putting them in the oven.
Step 3, Put the boiling sauce in the jar.
Step 4, Put the mason jar lids on but not fully closed.
Step 5, Put the mason jars in the oven and bring the sauce again to a boil.
Step 6, Close the lids and wait until the lids become sealed.
Step 7, Wait until they cool down before storing them at room temperature.

Thanks in advance!

No, it is not safe. You need a pressure canner. That's what the USDA says about anything containing meat:

  There are no safe options for canning these foods listed below in a boiling water canner.

See http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_04/soups.html for a table of pressures and processing times.

This calls for a more refined answer then yes or no. (and this will no doubt generate some minus votes...but read me out). At the end of this answer you will find a YES, is you use your sauce reheated.

How would you like to answer "is it safe to cross a road?". There is a risk of harm, so: no?

That is the correct answer, but IMHO, not a usefull one.Nothing is 100 percent safe. You want to know the risks.
I have been wrestling with this myself, also because I like to make garlic oil by combining cloves of garlic and oil. Anearobic, alkalic, so ideal for botulism.

These are difficult number to estimate of course, but the incidence of botulism is minute:

In the United States, during 1990–2000, the median number of foodborne botulism cases per year was 23 (range, 17–43 cases) Most cases are sporadic (i.e., they are not part of outbreaks); outbreaks are typically small, involving 2 or 3 persons (see link below).

Now, supposing the ALL these cases come from home canning tomato sauce, and estimating how many americans home can tomatoes, you have an upper range estimate of the risk. I let you do you own estimates. However, the risk is minute, less than 1 in a million is my guess. Your choice.

But there is an even better and hopeful answer. YES, you sauce is perfectly safe to use, if you USE it, that is, reheat it up to minimum 85 degrees. That kills all the TOXINS, not the spores. But spores you will eat when you eat raw food as well, your body can normally easily handle that:

In contrast with the spore, botulinum toxins are temperature sensitive, and all toxins are inactivated by heating to 85°C for 5 min [17].
Conditions in the normal human intestine are not conducive to germination and vegetation of C. botulinum. C. botulinum spores are routinely ingested and excreted by humans without germination, toxin production, or any harm to the person through whom they pass. The exceptions are the small number of infants who develop infant botulism and the handful of adults who develop adult toxemic infectious botulism.

You see, that is why I dont think answers like "NO, because the rules say no and rules are rules" are wrong. Answers like this would deprive you of your sauce thoughtlessly. With my answer you can decide for yourself. Hope this helps.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/8/1167.full


How Do I Fix Curdled Mascarpone Cheese? I made a mascarpone mix for a Jamie Oliver cheesecake and it has curdled.

The ingredients I added to the mixture include:

full cream milk,
vanilla essence,
and icing sugar.

Why would this mixture curdle? There is no acid in any of the ingredients.

And what can I do to fix this curdled mascarpone mixture?

Mascarpone is very prone to curdling in mixtures like this if any of the ingredients are different temperatures. Generally, you whip the cheese to soften it and it warms up a bit in the process, then if the milk you added is colder than the cheese, the fats in the cheese will solidify again, causing it to appear curdled.

The best way to avoid this is to make sure everything is room temperature, and to add the liquids very slowly. To fix it once it has already curdled, generally you would gently heat it over a double boiler (or microwave it a few seconds at a time) while whipping it until you've whipped the lumps out. Once it's smooth, let it cool back to room temperature, stirring regularly, and rewhip it once it's cool.

To uncurdle milk add more milk or to uncurdle cream add more cream .


Why put a stone in the soup? I was surprised by the added stone in the soup of this question:

"Also, for irony, a large (cleaned) stone is always left in the pot"

What would be the reason for this? For the minerals in the stone? As far as I know, minerals do not infuse water directly out of a stone.

There's an old children's story about making Stone Soup. In it, a penniless begger offers to teach people how to make his favorite recipe: soup, made from a stone! He boils some water and drops a stone in, and while it's "cooking", keeps mentioning offhand things like "It'd go great with some carrots" or "Celery would be lovely in this". The townspeople rush off and get celery, carrots, potatoes, onions, and the like to add to the soup, until eventually, they've made proper soup in his pot along with the stone. So basically, the whole "stone soup" thing was a clever con game by which the begger can eat for free (or, in kinder versions than the one I recall, to trick the townspeople into learning a lesson about sharing).

The stone adds nothing to the soup.

I’d guess that a stone, being so much heavier than any other items in the pot, would somehow manage the heat burning and scorching the pot base, potentially preventing burning...? It’s possible, right guys?


Why wooden sticks for ice cream bars? Why are wooden sticks usually used for ice cream bars?

This seems to hold for every commercial ice cream bar I have ever had, yet I can't find the reason... Why not use plastic instead, for example?

I am not an expert, but I presume plastic can be cheaper to manufacture...

In terms of bulk price wood is about 3x cheaper than plastic. (I buy both plastic and wood materials for commercial and residential uses in my profession.) Also, wood is biodegradable which makes it safer for the environment if children toss away the stick after they eat the ice cream.

Because plastic leaves behind toxics, whereas wood doesn't.


How long will previously-frozen vacuum-packed chicken last in the fridge? A similar question about fish was all I found, but fish is not chicken and they have different considerations.

I buy chicken from Whole Foods that comes already sealed, and is labeled as "Air Chilled". It is not frozen when I buy it, although I am not sure if it has ever been frozen and thawed before.

My question is how long will this last in the fridge? I buy them in large quantities and freeze them to be eaten over the course of a couple weeks, occasionally I will thaw one (still sealed) and not eat it for a couple days. Is this safe?

My answer to the other question still applies: vacuum packing will not prevent most foodborne pathogens from multiplying.  In the case of chicken, it will stop campylobacter (which needs small amounts of oxygen) but will not stop salmonella or listeria.

Here's how you can determine if thawed, previously frozen chicken is still safe to eat:

When freezing, marking the freezing date on masking tape and stick it on the package
When thawing, mark the thawing date similarly
To determine if it's still good: subtract the freezing date from the original expiration date, and see if it's been that many days since you thawed it

This method works because spoilage is halted by freezing... but not reversed.  Once you thaw, the process picks back up where it left off.  A few days in the fridge after thawing should be fine, assuming you don't wait until right before expiration to freeze the chicken.

If you do this regularly it seems you ought to know by now. Does it smell funky, get slimy? There are a number of factors at play that no date will tell you.

Was the meat contaminated with salmonella previous to packing? If yes, then zero days is the answer.
Was it frozen, thawed, refrozen? It'll have bad texture, would add more unthawed time to it, wouldn't last as long.
Vacuum sealed in a brine? Is there some clear liquid around it? Then it'll last longer as that usually means a preservative was added.

This question comes up all the time about different meats. It'll vary, often with the same brand it'll be different. But you, as a human, were built with senses to detect spoiled meat. Smell it, feel it. If still in doubt cut off and cook a small piece and taste it, if bad spit it out. Otherwise, there is no magic date, no exact number of days that anyone can tell you absolutely one day or five. Longer if marinated or brined. Only once in ten years has some chicken smelled and felt fine, I made the dish, tasted it and threw it out because it was spoiled. Seeded vegetables are much much more likely to carry salmonella and I don't see many questions about how long people can keep a tomato or cucumber.


What is the function of salt in chocolate? Iv'e recently seen, for the first time, chocolate coins filled with caramel and "Atlantic salt". I did a bit of searching and found some more of these types of sweets:

To the food simpleton that I am, adding salt to chocolate and caramel seems counter-intuitive. I realize that these are small amounts of salt (at least compared to the sugar). What is the idea behind this practice?

Also, what is "Atlantic salt"? Salt from the Atlantic ocean? Does it really make a difference which salt is used?

Salt tends to enhance tastes, and make flavors pop, and is used in many foods for this purpose.  Even most sweet foods, desserts or baked goods, will have some amounts of salt added for this purpose.  Some certain kinds of salts - including many kinds of sea salt - are also called out for additional tastes or textures, caused by trace minerals or crystallization patterns - such are usually known as finishing salts, since dissolving looses many properties (including texture, and some elements of taste which are easier distinguished in concentration).  I would assume Atlantic salt is one of these finishing sea salts.

Also, contrasting flavors and/or textures are fairly common in cooking - in this case, sweet and salty.  This often seen in savory dishes (sauces for meats, for example) where sweetness is added - sometimes quite a bit - even though the resulting dishes are generally considered savory.  And while such foods quite different from foods without that added sweetness, if well balanced they can be well received.

A sweet-with-salt, like salted chocolates, or salted caramels, is very different from a pure sweet taste.  It isn't inherently better or worse, just different.  Too much sweet can overwhelm the tongue (one reason milk, rather than juice, is favored with many kinds of desserts), and adding salt to that sweet cuts the sweetness, adds flavor and contrast, and also adds texture as large grains of finishing salt, often sea salt, are used rather than fine dissolved salt.  The result can be very pleasant to some.

Also, while your example is a sweet with salt added for contrast, it may be worth noting that chocolate is not itself inherently sweet, but generally has a more bitter flavor profile (unsweetened chocolate) and so can be easily used in savory dishes - for example, Mexican mole sauces.  Sweet chocolate is very common, yes, and tastes very good, but the base flavor can certainly take salt without trouble - and the less usual pairing can increase the novelty factor and the pleasure one takes in the salt and chocolate pairing.

I think it serves as more of a psychological or marketing gimmick than any real food-chemistry function. It seems to be a current fad to add salt to sweets. Maybe the idea is to satisfy two of our instinctive cravings -- sugar and salt -- at the same time.

"Salty caramel", especially seems to be all the rage these days (ice cream flavor, cake frosting, also: filling for chocolates...)  I guess it is particularly tempting to add salt to caramel, because it ups the butteriness of the caramel since we commonly associate salt with butter.

You know it's cool and up-to-date too, because they didn't just add "salt", but "Atlantic salt". And no, it doesn't make a difference which salt is used. [...Sorry; I almost ranted]


How do I substitute skim milk for dry milk in a muffin recipe? My muffin recipe calls for 1 1/3 cups of nonfat dry milk. Other than the 4 eggs, there is no other liquid. How much skim milk would I substitute for the dry milk?

You don't, it will not work.

You want to substitute liquid milk for dried milk.

What you don't realise is that the dried milk in such a recipe is acting as a bulking agent, ie. the dried milk is already substituting for some flour.

If you don't have dried milk, you should look for another recipe that doesn't use it, if you want to be certain of reliable results.

I have to respectfully dissagree with the above post.  2 cups of water and 1 cup of dry milk gives you 2 cups if milk... it does not add to the bulk.  You can however, substitute scalded milk for powdered milk.  Powedered milk is called for generalky when regular milk enzymes will react with your ingredients and make an inferior product, especialky in bread making.  Scalding the milk removes the enzymes.


Can I re-cook a ham that was left out overnight? I left a fully cooked ham in a bag out overnight. It was refrigerator temperature when I took it out at 9pm. Our Seattle home was not heated; it was about 50 degrees last night. I found it at 6am and threw it back in the fridge, in case it was still good. I would cook it again and then use it with eggs or sandwiches. Would this be ok?

It's probably even safe to eat without cooking again; the refrigerator is likely only about 10 degrees colder, and that generally translates to accelerating rates of spoilage (mostly growth of pathogens) by a factor of 3-5 or so.  For example. at 10C (50F), E. coli only manages to divide once every 8 hours or so (see Ratkowsky et al., "Relationship Between Temperature and Growth Rate of Bacterial Cultures", J. Bacteriology, vol 169, p. 1 (1982) for a not-very-clear example of growth curves--I've seen these curves online, but unfortunately I tried and failed to find an easily accessible one this time).

It's almost certainly safe to eat with cooking (fully, to at least ~160 at the center), which would kill anything that managed to grow on the ham.  The only thing to worry about with well-cooked food is whether bacteria or fungi have managed to produce so many toxic chemicals that the food will make you ill--and in this case, it's been too cold.  (At those temperatures, not only is growth slow, but most anything is slow, including production of anything toxic.)

So I'd say--cook away, enjoy, and don't worry about it.

P.S. I have in practice eaten ham left out at warmer temperatures for longer.

Edit: In response to a comment about bacterial toxin production, I want to reiterate that colder temperatures slow down metabolism of just about everything, including toxin production.  This is because, at a basic physical level, reaction rates are governed by the Arrhenius equation which translates, for simple reactions, to a doubling of reaction rates for ~10C increase in temperature.  Of course, organisms like bacteria have more complex interactions, but this still gives an order of magnitude estimate.  Furthermore, research has been done on production of bacterial toxins.  For example, Skinner & Larkin (J. Food Protection vol 61 p. 1154 (1998)) wrote a paper called "Conservative Prediction of Time to Clostridium botulinum Toxin Formation for Use with Time-Temperature Indicators To Ensure the Safety of Foods", which gives, for food innoculated with the bacteria, a time-to-detection-of-toxin of 2-3 days at 10C.  In fact, they did the research because food storage at open-face refigerators in stores often allows products to get up to as high as 10C (at least as of 1998).

Similarly, in Bonventre and Kempe ("Physiology of Toxin Production by Clostridium botulinum Types A and B, III"), their 10-18C toxin line is flat for 24 hours at the baseline level before creeping up by a factor of 3 or so between 24 and 48 hours (figure 4).

These are just examples, but you find the same general trends everywhere because of the fundamental physical relationship between reaction rates and temperature.

Do not eat it. It will most likely have bacteria in it, making unsafe to eat.


Vacuum-packed (or not?) bacon, safe to use? I purchased a 3-pack of bacon a week ago, basically 3 vacuum packed (is that the right word for this?) bacon, stripped together (probably made together, seems like the plastic was just sealed between three clusters of bacon.)

I have discovered that one of the packages is not void of air, but it is apparently airtight, I can squeeze on the package and it doesn't give in or seem to vent any air, it just contains air, whereas the other package (I have already used one) is void of air, which is what I expected it to be.

So my question is, is the package that contains air safe to use?

The expiration date on the packages are middle of next month, so they're well within their intended usage, but I'm just not sure about the air.

Does anyone know?

Considering they were cheap packages, I will probably just toss it, but since I planned on using the packages for dinner today, I probably need to come up with a backup plan, unless, of course, it is entirely safe to eat.

So what's the verdict?

The existence of gas in a vacuum-sealed environment could be a sign of microbial activity.  I would assume that, since the package appears to be sealed, that the gases in it were introduced from within.  I would toss that one and feel OK using the other two.

Bacon keeps for weeks even if not sealed as long as it is kept refrigerated. It contains salt which preserves it.


Can store bought salmon be used for sashimi? Is it safe to consume raw fish purchased at the fish counter of a typical suburban grocery store? If not, do you have any tips for finding sushi grade fish. Also, are there requirements for safe sushi/sashimi beyond the use of safe fish?

Not being aware of your location, some general tips:

Buy your fish from a fishmonger, and tell him/her what you are using it for.  You want to do business with somebody whose business is selling fish and only selling fish.  They are going to know what's been stored to eaten raw standards in a way that the just above minimum wage fish guy at your grocery store doesn't.
Don't buy it early.  Buy it the day you mean to consume it or the day that you are going to prepare it. This question can help walk you through that.
Take a cooler to get your fish. You have to maintain the freshness, that means not allowing it raise in temperature anymore than you have to.

I've used "regular" salmon for sushi once or twice, but the advice I received was to either buy it frozen or freeze it yourself to kill off any parasites.


Why is 180 degrees C so common in recipes? Is there any particular reason 180 degrees Celsius is so commonly called for in baking, roasting, deep frying?

Ovens are by their nature a high-heat cooking method, and thus create a temperature gradient in the food.  The outside of the item is the hottest, because it is in contact with the hot air, and exposed to the radiant (infrared) heat coming from the oven walls, ceiling and floor.

Heat from the outside then conducts into the inside overtime.  The effect of this is that the surface of the food will be the hottest, and the center the coolest.,

180 C (350 F) is a moderate oven.  It balances:

Cooking the food through
Overcooking the outside

It is suitable for a wide range of baked goods and other dishes, although often within limits (especially for non-baked goods) you can trade temperature and time off.

Note that a single oven can only have one temperature, and a moderate oven is good for many cakes and cookies; for baking and heating through casseroles; for roasting root vegetables; for maintaining a braise; and for roasting many meats; and many other tasks.  If you want to have multiple items in the oven at the same time, it is a good temperature to choose that will give good results for a wide variety of items, even if it is not ideal for every item.

Still, it is not ideal for every cooking technique and food item.  Low and slow roasting (for tremendously succulent pulled pork, brisket, and so on) is done as low as 200 F (93 C); some people favor high temperature roasting of certain meats to get a crispy exterior while maintaining a rare interior with temperatures of 450 F (232 C), or even higher.

Many breads are baked at higher temperatures--and of course, pizza infamously is ideally done at temperatures home ovens cannot even achieve, so at home they are often baked at the maximum oven setting around 550 F (280 C).

Deep frying is a separate matter, and it is a complete coincidence that the ideal temperature for deep frying matches that of roasting.

The way deep frying works is that the heat of the oil heats the outside of the food, but it is hot enough to nearly instantly vaporize the water at the surface of the food.  This water creates a small pocket of vapor around the food, preventing the oil from entering and making the item completely oily.   In order for this effect to happen, the oil must be sufficiently hot which starts around 180 C / 350 F.

On the other hand, again, you don't want the food to burn on the outside before it cooks through, but more importantly, you don't want the oil smoking, and developing off flavors (many culinary fats have a smoke point starting not too far above these temperatures).   For these reasons, frying much above this temperature is generally not a good idea.  Most ideal frying temperatures are somewhere in the 350 F - 365 F (180 C 0 185 C) range.

I suspect many recipes indicate 350 F simply because it has become common and conventional.

180 C is a standard temperature for good roasting and cooking (deep frying) of food in order to allow crispy outcome.


Is my chicken ruined? I put 4 raw chicken breasts is a crock pot in the fridge last night around 9pm. This morning at 6:50, not thinking, I removed the crock pot from the fridge and put it into the cooker. I left it off until 9:00 am and started it for an 8 hour low heat cook. Did that 2 hours ruin the chicken? The heavy ceramic pot was really cold and it was covered. I figured it stayed refrigerator-like cold for most of the morning.

I think you should be much more concerned about what happened after you turned on the heating element.

It's likely that a heavy ceramic liner crock pot fresh out of a (properly kept) refrigerator would keep contained food out of the danger zone for a couple hours.  But once cooking begins, that's a wide temperature range to cross - you have to make it from 40 °F to 140 °F within two hours, regardless of the final temperature you reach or how long you hold the food on either end.  At low most crock pots don't put out very much heat, and you had a cold starting temperature for a thick, absorptive cooking vessel, so it may have struggled to bring the chicken up to temperature in sufficient time.

Unfortunately, without having monitored the temperature, there's really no way to know if this would be considered safe by the typical guidelines informed by food safety agencies.  I would consider it suspect at best, but you must make your own decision about whether that's an acceptable risk to you.

However, we tend to lean pretty conservatively about food safety advice around here, because while there are always anecdotes and opinions, much smarter experts than we have set a high bar for safety standards and acceptable risk.  As always: when in doubt, throw it out.

Believe it or not, you're not only fine, but allowing the chicken to come down to room temperature is actually GOOD for the chicken. Many people make the mistake of cooking chicken directly from the fridge which often can result in a dry cook, no matter the process. Always try to let chicken come down a bit before cooking, and again, in your case, you'll be just fine :)


Pie VS Tart VS Quiche Pi day is coming up quickly!  What are the technical differences between pie, tart and quiche?  Tarts are sweet.  Here are my observation so far:

Pies can be either sweet or savoury.
Quiches must be savoury.
A pie can be with and without a lid.  Tarts and quiches don't have lids.  (See “Pie” vs “Tart”?)
Tarts can be small.  Quiches and pies are cut up and shared.
Both pies and tarts can contain fruits.
All have a pastry bottom.
All may be served hot or cold, depending on the filling.
All are rounded.

Please feel free to correct me.  Sorry to be too technical.  I'd like to avoid the embarrassment of bringing a tart or a quiche instead of a pie for Pi day parties.

Pie and tart are regional (North American versus Western European) terms for essentially the same thing.  Some will argue that the pans make the difference (see below), but I don't buy that story.

There are some stylistic differences that appear quite often, but nothing that makes them truly different things:

Pies tend to be deeper, and have more filling
Pies tend to be made in a shallow, sloped sided baking pan called a "pie pan; whereas tarts tend to be made with only a ring, or a tart mold which consists of an outer ring with a removable bottom plate.  Tart pans or rings tend to have vertical sides, not sloped ones.
Tarts usually only have a bottom crust
If the recipe is from France or cooks of a French cooking tradition, it tends to be called a tart; if it is from North America, it tends to be called a pie
Pies often feature a flakey short crust, or a crumb type crust, whereas tarts often feature a pate sucre type crust, but again this is far from universal
Pies are usually served from their pan, where tarts are almost never served from their ring—this may be as close to a defining difference as there is!

Both tarts and pies can be made in a variety of sizes, including appetizer or finger food sized, personally sized, or family sized.

In North America, sometimes a turnover (like an empanada or pastie, but hand-sized) which is baked or fried is also sometimes called a pie, hand pie, or even fried pie.

The word pie is also used in England and North America for a class of casseroles made with a top crust, such as shepherd's pie (mashed potato crust), steak and kidney pie, or chicken pot pie.

There is also the gallette which is a pastry made free form without a pan or mold, by making a crust, adding filling, and folding the sides partially over towards the center.  This is essentially a free form tart or pie.

Quiches are a savory pie or tart whose filling is based on an egg based custard, often with cheese as well.

Oh... and if it is from New York, made with a yeast raised crust, and covered with cheese and hopefully pepperoni, it is definitely a pie :-)

Tart usually consists of egg yolk and powdered sugar.

Pie usually consists of only castor sugar.

Quiche usually consists of shortening but no sugar.

Tart can be sweet and savoury.

Pie can be sweet which filled with fruit fillings.

Quiche can be savoury only.

All of these pastry can be shaped from small to big.

About the topping, it is up to you.


What's the difference between chutney and relish? I was out last night at a friend's house, they served what I would call chutney. I said, "This chutney is amazing". To which they replied, "Do you mean the relish?"

Awkward!

What is the difference between a chutney and a relish?

It depends on what cuisine it is, though all chutneys and relishes are used as condiments/sides. In European cuisine, chutneys tend to be jammier and involve fruit of some kind. Relishes, like Elendil mentions, are usually made from pickled vegetables. As far as I have experienced, the chutney moniker is used when non traditional ingredients are involved Mango chutney, ginger mint chutney) whereas a relish is used when it is made from slightly more familiar ingredients like dill, cucumber etc (This is with regard to non Indian cuisine).

In Indian cuisine (which is where the chutney moniker originated from), chutneys are thinner and are almost always  savory, even when they involve a fruit(eg., mango chutney will have chillies and salt in it). Indian chutneys involve herbs and chillies and sometimes even nuts/lentils. The texture difference comes from the fact that it is usually blended/pureed and usually water based. But then again, you would not have landed in this situation if the meal was Indian, as there is no concept of a relish there.

It's very simple.....

chutney is Punjabi for relish and relish is English for chutney.


How to prepare mint for use? I have mint growing in the garden, and I'd like to use it in cooking and in drinks (like hot chocolate).  Are you supposed to dry the mint and then crumble/ground it up?

For something like a drink, I generally bruise the mint and use the whole leaves fresh - rub it between your fingers a bit to release the oils and then just drop it in the drink.  The main benefit of this method for me is that a bunch of dry, crumbled mint in a drink is going to make it look very muddled and hard to drink, as you're constantly getting a mouthful of dried leaves (you could get around this by steeping it with the dried herbs and then straining it, but that's too much work!).  As a bonus, fresh picked herbs in a nice glass of lemonade, for example, just looks so fresh and tasty!

If I'm cooking with it and I have a supply of fresh on hand, I prefer to use that.  Depending on the dish, it might be whole leaves, but more likely chopped - I actually use kitchen scissors for a lot of fresh herb preparation as it can be easier than a knife in many cases.

You certainly can dry it, especially at the end of season when you need to harvest, and use the dried leaves in place of fresh.  The main benefit to drying is that it stores really well; dry also seems to be a bit more powerful, at least when first dried.  Over time the flavor of dried herbs will degrade.  You usually use a 3 to 1 ratio replacement - if a dish calls for 1 tablespoon of fresh mint, you'd use 1 teaspoon of dried, though as the dried herbs age you'll have to increase the amount used over time.

My mother taught me that mint has one of the highest antioxidant capacities of any food. I often use it in cooking and with drinks. It is very useful for our health. You can always buy fresh mint leaves at marketplaces. I live in Nigeria. I sometimes buy it online here: https://jiji.ng/24-mint-leaves. Also, there are a lot of food delivery services where you can find mint. You can easily freeze it to use all year.


Is there such a thing as a bone cleaver? When I was growing up, my mother had a massive, MASSIVE cleaver that she kept in the kitchen. It was immense and heavy. My father had gotten it when he worked in a butchery. This cleaver has since been lost to us. I would like to find something similar. When I asked her what the specific type of knife was, she said it was a "bone cleaver." It was easily 60 years old when I was little 30 years ago.

For the life of me, I can't find references anywhere to bone cleavers. I can find meat cleavers (but most have warnings not to use them for bone). They're smaller than this was, and also lighter. I can also find references to vegetable cleavers and Asian style cleavers. Again, they're smaller and lighter than this. They're hammers compared to the sledgehammer this thing was.

My mom used to use it expressly for cutting through bone. You'd raise it up, give it a little force to accompany it's natural weight, and it could go through almost anything with relative ease (up to and including femurs).

I know bone saws exist, and usually I just keep a spare blade around for my hacksaw to cut through bone when I break down a carcass. So, is there such a thing as a bone cleaver? Would it be a special order thing these days? I'm wondering if it may have been a custom made knife back then because I have never seen anything else like it.

Absolutely.

I have this one here: J.A. Henckels International Classic 6-inch Cleaver   ... it is billed as being designed "for chopping through joints and bones". These cleavers tend to have good, solid weight and a short blade bevel to give it endurance and power. You would not slice things with this. This is a momentum tool to crash through the target tissues with a confident swing. The hacksaw that you mention offers better control, in general.

The opposite of this is an Asian style cleaver that is used primarily for vegetables. Lighter, faster blade with a deeper bevel which makes it sharper for slicing but it would wear down faster under the impact of bones/joints.

https://www.amazon.com/Sato-Heavy-Duty-Cleaver-Chopping-Butcher/dp/B016E3RGMQ this can chop bones as it say so in amazon as some already showed you but the link is for amazon if u still wanted to buy one. here are more links to other one
https://www.chefknivestogo.com/cckbonechopper.html

https://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Cleaver-Butcher-Chopper-Carbon/dp/B073JBGQZ5

this one for sure will cop the bone as it did show it doing just that with pigs feet
https://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Cleaver-Stainless-Chopping-Multipurpose/dp/B07QD7CPGT

this last one does not say if it can shop bone. but it look so cool that why i have add a link to it as well.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07L8M41ZG


How to make my graham cracker bites crispy/crunchy? I am attempting to make crunchy graham cracker bites (think granola but made from graham crackers).  I wanted to use the recipe below as a base:

2 1/2 cups graham cracker crumbs
1/3 cup sugar
1/4 cup mashed banana
1/4 cup (1/2 stick) unsalted butter, melted
Preheat oven to 350°F. Stir graham cracker crumbs, sugar, and mashed banana in large bowl to blend. Add unsalted butter and stir to moisten evenly. Press onto bottom and up sides of 10-inch-diameter glass pie dish. Chill until firm, about 30 minutes.
Bake crust until set and pale golden, about 15 minutes. Cool completely.

and then crumble it up.  My problem is that when I used this recipe before the crust came out incredibly hard and almost impossible to eat.
I was contemplating bumping up the heat and cooking it for a shorter amount of time, but this would be total experimentation.
Can anyone suggest any methods for taking the above ingredients and making them into a crispy (but not tough) sheet that can then be crumbled up into granola sized bites?

Two suggestions:

Try making your crumbs larger.
Mix the other ingredients together before adding the crumbs - you want to coat 'em, not soak 'em.

It feels like your getting your crust too hard because your sugar temperature gets too high. There are hundreds of sugar temperature charts on the net, and they will all tell you that 350F is the top end of the "Hard Crack" stage. I suggest you drop your oven temperature to 265F (hard ball stage) and see how it turns out.

If that doesn't work, then try making your caramel seperately. Take it up to the stage you want (which I would imagine is either hard ball or soft crack) then stir your banana and crackers in when the caramel is formed. This is likely to mean that the crackers stay crunchier and you get bits of banana in your mix.

Let us know how you get on :-)


How do you make popcorn with "indian corn" I bought a couple ears of this corn at the farmers market and the woman at the stand said to throw it in the microwave.  Does anybody know how long it should be in the microwave for?

When popcorn pops, it makes a distinctive popping sound (unsurprisingly). I would microwave the ear of corn until the pops come about ten seconds apart - at this point, you're well into the tail of the normal distribution which describes how long it takes each kernel to pop. If the corn doesn't pop after about two minutes, it probably won't pop at all.

First get a decent size iron karai (rounded heavy pan).Now heat up the pan with low fire continously.Get some clear sand on it,heat up the sand.Now pour the corns and stir softly until it gets popcorn.After that get the popcorns


Apple pie: peel or not? Is it okay to leave the skin on the apples when making an apple pie? I'd like to leave them on, but I wonder if there will be chewy strings of peel or if they will cook tender.

Depends on the apple. Apples with softer skins will bake to a more even consistency, but apples with tough skin (the 'shiny' kinds like McIntosh or Red Delicious) tend to get caught in your teeth and throat, and are generally a pain to eat.

If you do make a pie with the skins on, use smaller pieces of apple or slice around the apples to create shorter pieces of peel. These are easier to eat and don't get caught in your mouth as much.

Just ate the worst apple pie ever!

Taste was good, wasn't too sweet, just enough cinnamon and nutmeg, but one bite in and I started to choke...  WHAT?  An apple pie with the peels on??  Sorry, folks but I don't care if the apples are organic or not - apples should be peeled.  If you are so worried about what to do with the peels, cooks them up, cores and all, to make apple sauce - when soft, put the cooked apples through a food mill and enjoy fresh apple sauce!


Difference between soup and stew What are the technical differences between a soup and a stew.

Specifically, I've always had some confusion on the differentation of stew and soup. For the most part, you can tell the difference by visual cues but sometimes some soup or stew looks ambigously in between and i can't tell the difference.  For example, wikipedia shows a picture of this as soup:

Yet it looks more like a stew to me. And then it shows this as a stew:

Yet that looks like a soup to me. So my main question is: What are the technical differences that determine whether it is a soup or a stew.

There really is no practical difference; the dictionary definition of a soup is:

  a liquid food made by boiling or simmering meat, fish, or vegetables with various added ingredients.

Which also applies to any stew you can conceive of.

The technical, highly-nuanced difference is that of emphasis and intent. Stewing is a method of cooking the solids (specifically, a slow, moist-heat method). When you make a beef stew, you are stewing the beef, which says nothing about what you're stewing it in. On the other hand, when you make a chicken soup (or a chicken stock or broth which is the base of a chicken soup) then your objective is essentially to make chicken-flavoured liquid - to extract the flavour of the solids into the liquid. If some flavourful solids remain, then that is incidental as opposed to intentional.

In practice, some flavour extraction is going to happen with a stew as well, it just so happens that the principal aim is to cook the meat/veggies. A soup is more likely to contain raw or barely-cooked ingredients, and a stew is more likely to preserve the original flavour of the solids and/or liquids, but that's a very broad generalization and what it boils down to (ha ha) in practice seems to be largely dependent on the culture and the dish itself.

A stew is not simply a thick or chunky soup, despite the fact that a lot of people think of it that way. As above, that seems to be more common with stews, but it's not part of the definition, and the French have half a dozen categories for thickened soups that could easily be described as having the overall consistency of a "stew".

stew has gravy in it and soup has water. you eat soup out of a bowl and stew on a plate with rice or mashed potato.


What oil to use when cooking steak, and what difference does it make? When cooking steak, I have always been told groundnut oil is the best to use. But what difference does it make? Is it the best? And if it is the best, what's the next best?

For steaks I really prefer cooking butter instead of oils, I find that the flavor fits the meat better.

Personally, I like refined peanut oil for searing steaks.

Here is a list of smoke points for various oils: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/collectedinfo/oilsmokepoints.htm


Shallower bowl or longer dough hook for Kitchen Aid 7qt Stand Mixer? I have a 7qt lifter style kitchen aid stand mixer and use it often to make bread and pizza doughs.

Generally works great for very large batches, but I find that either the 7qt bowl is too deep or the dough hook isn't quite long enough and smaller batches end up with more than half of the ingredients hanging out below the hook.

Are the 6 qt bowls compatible, but shallower?   Is there a longer dough hook available?   Any suggestions?

It is most likely that your bowl is simply too big for the recipe batch size.
I habe a 5qt KA Pro Model lift bowl style.

For Easter 2018 I made half a batch of my buttorn roll recipe. That size batch called for only 1-1/4 cups of A-P flour and I quickly learned that I was going to make those for dinner, I was going to have to mix then knead the dough the old-fashioned way = by hand.

Turned out great and added a note in my cookbook to avoid the extra cleanup.


How long can savory cream cheese dishes last? I made this recipe here and have some of the black bean, onion, cream cheese mixture left.  My question is .. how long will this last?  For some reason, the thought of heating down the cream cheese to become a sauce will not last very long..

Thanks for any recommendation!

According to North Dakota State University, cream cheese, opened should last about two weeks between 32'f and 40'f. For the cheese itself, unopened, they recommend to "Use within one week of the 'best when purchased by' date". Unfortunately, in this situation, you cannot simply cut away the mold from the cheese since it is a mixed dish.

When you factor in the fact that the cheese was not only unwrapped, but heated along with other components, and likely sat out for some time on the counter in addition to in the pan, with added protein (the black beans especially), the math for how long cream cheese can last in your fridge shrinks and shrinks.

Personally, I would follow the cooked meat guidelines to be on the safe side. This means that well-wrapped leftovers, quickly taken out of the danger zone range of temps (40'f - 140'f), should last for 3-4 days after cooking.

If there is no sensible data to support your question - I would just handle Cream cheese as if uncooked.  So if cooked before it's expiry date - treat it as if it will last until it's expiry date.

Cooking takes the cheese back to "square one" where the product is considered less enticing to bugs and bacteria.  There is no data to support this guess, thus I would just adhere to the expiry date of the cheese - regardless what you do to the cheese.


Modernist / molecular cuisine with a microwave? The microwave is usually frowned upon by ambitious chefs. It provides a convenient way to quickly heat ready made meals or the leftovers from the day before, but it is usually not regarded as a serious kitchen utensil (as is testified by one of the answers below).

However, it seems to me that the unique way in which a microwave delivers heat should open up possibilities for food preparation that simply did not exist before the introduction of this device.

Not being an experienced "microwave chef" myself (in fact I never had access to one until very recently) I ask myself:

Aren't there any crazy avantgardistic or molecular cuisine type ways of preparing food that exploit the specifics of a microwave oven in an unconventional way?

One creative invention that requires the use of a microwave oven is the Frozen Florida - a reverse Baked Alaska. And seeing as this was invented by Nicholas Kurti, it surely counts as Molecular Cuisine. (see https://blog.khymos.org/molecular-gastronomy/history/ )

  The inverted baked Alaska, described as a Frozen Florida, consists of a container made out of meringue. The container is filled with an alcoholic liquor and put in the freezer. After a couple of hours, the container is taken from the freezer and put into a microwave oven. The result is a dessert which is hot inside, but remains cold on the outside

I just found something else - a Vacquelin is an egg-white foam stabilized in the microwave oven. I haven't tried it, but it sounds a bit like a cross between warm ice-cream and meringue.

No, a microwave is not a cooking tool. It destroys food. A microwave is a convenience when needing to warm something quickly, it doesn't heat uniformly, when food starts to dry out and burn it does it quickly while another part of the food is still icy cold.

Use the microwave for what it is good for, softening butter (3 times at 8-10 seconds a pop usually works well), TV dinners (which are still better if you take the time to bake them), or softening up some bread.

I use the microwave when I don't have time to cook properly or to warm something up conventionally. That's what it is good for. Warming and reheating leftovers faster than usual.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently there may be something avante-guard about something cooked on the edges but still cold in the middle, but we aren't talking black and blue here.