What is the white foam that builds up when I make tea? I microwave water in order to make tea. After it is microwaved and I drop the tea bag(green tea) into the water, thick white foam builds up on the top.

What is it and should I worry about drinking it?

When you boil water in a cup in a microwave, it will often boil without forming bubbles, because unlike a kettle with a rough heating element or inner surface, a clean ceramic cup has few nucleation points. Nucleation points allow pockets of gas to form, which become bubbles as the water boils.

When you add the teabag to the hot water, you are essentially introducing thousands of nucleation points very quickly, and so lots bubbles form very quickly - your foam. You should exercise caution when heating water this way prior to adding a teabag, as if you heat it for too long it can superheat, and will boil explosively out of the mug when you add the teabag.

The "white" foam is caused by denatured proteins in the tea leaves when heated.  Same when you boil meat, eggs or fish.


Can half cooked pork chops be cooled then fully cooked later? I started baking pork chops at about 2pm. 30 mins into cooking I had to leave. I turned off oven and left. It's now 640pm and I'm just getting home. The pan is still slightly warm. Are the pork chops still good to continue cooking?

Even though you turned the oven off when you left, there was still likely enough residual heat to continue cooking the chops.  Rather than a half-cooked chop that sat out for 4 hours, you've got mostly or fully-cooked chops that sat in a warm environment for 2-3 hours.  Whether they hit the recommended internal temperature (which is now actually 145F with a 3-minute rest for fresh pork, rather than the 165F quoted in other answers, at least according to the USDA) is anyone's guess.
From a culinary standpoint, since they've been pretty well cooked, baking them back up to that temperature (or more likely to 165F, which is the recommended temp for leftovers) will probably dry them into leathery little pucks.  If you're going to risk re-cooking and eating these, I'd recommend a higher-moisture cooking method like braising; chops stand up pretty well to this treatment.
As mentioned in comments, these have been sitting at near-room temperature for longer than is generally considered safe.  And without knowing what temperature the interior of the chops reached, it's unknown how safe they would have been even if you returned before they cooled into the dreaded "danger zone".  There are a lot of questions here from a safety standpoint.  I'll quote another answer here, as I think this says it best:

The safe limit for raw or cooked food is 2 hours in the danger zone (40-140° F or 4.4-60° C).
If you're a restaurant owner or cook, you must follow this rule [...] If you are not working in a professional capacity then you are not legally required to follow it, but if you are serving guests then it would be irresponsible (and possibly actionable, if someone gets sick) to do otherwise.
If you're an individual serving only yourself, then take whatever liberties and break whatever rules you want; it's your food, and your body.

I personally would probably write these off as a loss, but I tend to be fairly risk-averse.

it's iffy. that pork was sitting in the danger zone(40-140f) for 4 hours, and that's enough time for a LOT of bacteria to grow on it. Still, if you want to chance it, cook the chop to 165F for the best chance of killing any bacteria or microorganisms.


Substitutions for Wheat Flour in Pie Crust I am trying not to use wheat flour in my pie crust but nothing seems to come close to the flaky crust I get with wheat. I tried all oat and cashew flour and the crust was more like a crumbly crust if that makes sense. Like a cookie. Tasted great but not that flaky crust that I want. This morning I am going to try a combo with quinoa flour, oat flour, cashew flour and whatever else I can find in the pantry. The quinoa flour is new to me, can anyone tell me how this might bake up? Flaky, heavy, crumbly? The recipe I use is 2.5 cups flour, 2 sticks butter .5 cup + 3tbs ice water and 1 tsp salt. Or if anyone has a recipe that uses all butter and does not use wheat would you share it? Thank you!!!

I'm going to assume that the primary question is "How can I make a flaky pie crust without wheat flour?" Note that recipe requests are off-topic on this site, but substitution questions are on-topic.

The key thing which wheat flour gives you is gluten. Quinoa is gluten-free, so it's not going to help you much. However, there are ways of making gluten-free breads, cakes, etc. The first hit which Google gives me uses cornstarch, xanthan gum, and gluten-free flours. The second uses arrowroot starch, xanthan, and gluten-free flours. Xanthan isn't the only way of substituting for gluten, but it seems promising.

Use white spelt flour. It comes out flakier than even regular white flour. It’s amazing!


Purpose of condensed milk in mango ice cream? Purchased condensed milk (so expensive!) to make mango ice cream as per this recipe.
After mixing up everything, the mixture seemed a bit softer in texture as compared to my Mom's way of simply mixing mango puree, milk and sugar to make mango ice cream.

Mom saw me making it and said that it's un-necessary to use condensed milk. I couldn't explain to her why it's necessary either, because the recipe doesn't mention it. I thought it was required to prevent crystals from forming in the ice-cream, but Mom says that crystals will form anyway. Even if I take the mixture out of the fridge and whisk it.

So what exactly is the purpose of condensed milk, and how can I prevent those crystals from forming so that my ice-cream is smooth and soft?

The ultimate goal of ice cream is a creamy texture. You could take those same ingredients and freeze them in a paper cup and make a fantastic mango popsicle. Popsicles and slushies are not nearly as magical as ice cream.

Creaminess in ice cream is achieved by keeping the ice crystals as small as possible. The bigger the crystals the more grainy the texture.

There are two good ways to prevent large ice crystals from forming: Reducing the amount of available water and mechanically destroying the crystals. The ice crystals are reduced mechanically by churning or in your recipe by blending- but this is an answer for a different question.

Reduce the amount of available water.
 Many ingredients in ice cream will tie up some of the water and prevent it from coalescing into monolithic crystals.

Alcohol and sugar are used in sorbets
Gums, such as carageenan and xanthan gum, are used in commercial ice cream
Egg custards are used in French style ice cream
Starch gels tie up free water in Italian Gelato
Large quantities of fat

Removing water from the recipe, and sometimes replacing it with fat, will go a long way towards making creamier ice cream.

The condensed milk in your recipe is a convenience. Using milk that has had a lot of the water removed means that there will be more fat and less water in your ice cream. This will make it much easier to make your ice cream creamy.

You could use regular milk but you would be relying on your blender to chop up the large crystals that would inevitably form. If the canned milk is too expensive, and if you have some time, you could reduce your milk yourself and get the same effect.

3 important ingredients why ice cream was creamy and smooth.

It contains : reconstituded milk not evaporated milk.(but some contries incorporate eggyolk,starch, and other thickening agent to bond water and  to avoid crytallazation.
Lastly, cream or heavy cream and condensed milk. Condensed milk (means concentrated milk and sugar)in the other hand lesser concentration of water.
cream (cream is a fat  mixture)helps in aeration and gives body or stabilize the mixture.

My recipe: home made good for 1.5 gal ice cream :

1 cn tall Alpine (available brnd
1 cn condensed milk(larger 1)
1 pouch nestle cream allp 250ml(chilled overnight)

variations:3 pcs cokies and cream, 1 puree mango and etc.

Simple lng ito whip ng hand mixer  mo lng ang cold alpine sa mixing bowl with ice ibba nito amazing mag bubles and double na ang mixture. After you add mo ung cold condensed at chilled cream whip mo until (tremble?) creamy at double size. Color turns dirty white to pure whte means finish and you can add ur favorte flavor.

:I hope it helps..:)  taste was the same with commercial ones.


How do you keep corned beef from falling apart in the crockpot? I cooked 3.5 pounds of corned beef in the crock pot last week with the intentions of making reubens. Taste wise the dish was great, but the corned beef fell apart and I did not get those pretty deli slices I was hoping for. I cooked the beef according to my butcher's recommendation, and verified the cooking time later with an online resource and they were pretty close. Did I miss something in the process or is there a better preparation method other than a crock pot for cooking corned beef?

Did you let the meat cool completely before attempting to slice it? Even meat that is completely-fall-apart tender straight out of the (crock)pot will firm up quite a bit when cooled.

You could try wrapping it in Caul or something similar, which will help keep it in once piece.


Why is there a fluid ounce? My wife and I have noticed that a lot of the drinks or liquids we buy have a measurement of "fl oz".

I was surprised to ascertain that fl oz. is indeed a measure of volume.  I might be a little dense here but why the hell do I need the "fl"?  Does this provide us with any more information?

Also for "heavier" liquids couldn't fl oz be different from oz?  So if a recipe asked for 10 oz of gravy and I have a jar that is 10 fl oz, what if they gravy is 11 oz?  Serenity now!

Because a fluid ounce and a dry measure ounce (both volume measurements) are about 20% different, though "dry measures" (other than the measuring scoops and spoons in a USA kitchen) have become far less common as most product is now marketed by weight, not volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_measure

A US dry quart is 1101 cc, while a US liquid quart is 946.4 cc (and an imperial quart is 1137 cc either way, since they evidently didn't have the bifurcation.)

A fluid ounce (volume) of water weighs about an ounce (weight) - a jar that is 10 fl ounces is a volumetric measure and can weigh whatever it likes - more for mercury (or syrup, for a less toxic and more food example) and less for ethanol. The continued use of fl mostly helps to distinguish volume from weight in current labeling, practically speaking.

Actually a US Tbsp is aprox.14.78 ml, 1 ml of butter weigh 0.959 gr
1 U.S.tbs=0.5 fluid oz
then 0.959*14.78*32=454 gr=1 pound=16 fluid oz
JF


Frying chicken wings all the way through I have tried deep frying chicken wings few times.
The first time I tried it, the oil was heated a lot and I continued Frying it until it was crisp outside,but when ate it, it was not cooked all the way through, it was pink and the joints of the wings still had blood.
Second time, because I thought it was because I cooked the wings on high heat, it was burned on the outside but still not cooked inside, I tried Frying the wings in low heat, but the result was the same, undercooked bloody joints in the wings and burned skin.
So how do I deep fry the chicken wings so that it is cooked all the way through?
Do I boil it in water before i deep fry?

It sounds like your temperature is way too hot. You need a thermometer as there's no reliable way to tell the temperature of your oil without one. A simple method is 190C for 10-15 minutes depending on the size of the wings, that's from refrigerator temperature.

Serious eats has a page on wings here if you want to get more complex.

Don't parboil or boil the chicken wings first!!!  That is a no-no. Simply wash, pat dry, and season to your liking.  Next, make sure the oil in your frying pan (4qt. pot if cooking a bunch)is enough to cover your chicken.  Heat on medium-high heat, covering with a top during the first side of frying.About 5 minutes or so. Once you have a golden coating, turn chicken over, ****leave off the top ***, and continue to cook for approx. 10 to 12 minutes. NOTE: With the top on the first side of cooking, the contained heat will cook the meat to the bone.


Why do Duck eggs have longer expiry than Chicken Eggs? Duck eggs seem to get about a 6-week extension on their expiry date over chicken eggs. The latest pack I bought yesterday (Mar 19) expire May 25th, whereas the chicken eggs, at best, expire mid-April).

Why is this? Is the structure of the shell or does it have to do with the protein structure of the egg whites? I have seen the same thing with quail eggs as well they also get a long away expiry date.

First of all, eggs are generally much more robust than commonly thought. Food safety advices for eggs vary a lot, but healthy (chicken) eggs can stay good for many months. If the eggs are contaminated with bacteria when laid or during processing, they can of course spoil or rot before their "best before" date as well. I didn't find any publications, but in this interview, a researcher from Nofima (a Norwegian food research institute) tells that they were not able to find any harmful bacteria in 7 months old eggs and even after 12 months, eggs are usually edible.

Back to the difference between chicken and duck eggs ... Chicken eggs are good for at least three weeks even without refrigeration. The reason for this is that the eggs contain natural preservatives, which are required for the egg to stay good during the nesting period. The natural purpose of the egg is of course to provide nutrition to the contained chicken, and it would probably not do the chicken any good, if it has to stay with a rotten egg yolk for several weeks. It varies between different duck species, but ducks generally breed their eggs much longer than hens. I am now just assuming, but I suppose that duck eggs have a similar natural protection as well, to keep them good throughout the longer breeding period and that may explain the longer recommended shelf life for duck eggs.

Interesting question, tried to search and it is very hard to find any real answer, I did find
this link which speculates that since duck eggs have thicker shells they have longer shelf life.


What influence does the properties of fat in vegetable oil affect emulsification of oil? I am trying to make vegan mayonnaise. In my first attempt I used soy milk and corn oil as the major ingredients. I tried adding lemon juice instead of vinegar as the emulsifying agent and used the immersion blender to blend. However I could not get the creamy texture. The resultant product tasted like mayonnaise (at least in my imagination) and was white in color (due to soy milk?) but was watery in consistency. The volume did not expand.

Most of the recipes online calls for avacado oil or soy bean oil. I am wondering about the relation between length/saturation of the fatty chain and the ease of emulsification.

Are long chain fatty acids difficult to emulsify as compared to medium chain and short chain fatty acids?
How does the degree of saturation affect emulsification?

Fatty acids are not the emulsifiers here. Long chain fatty acids are excellent for emulsification, if they are deprotonated.  But then they would be called “fatty acid salts”, and their flavor would be soapy - bitter.  If they're neutral fatty acids, they're not ionized enough to retain a sphere of water around the micelle, and block aggregation of the droplets of fat in an emulsion.

Note that the term “fatty acid” is often misused. It is used to describe structural components of triglyceride fats, but in that form they are esterified, and not in their acid forms.  They only become free fatty acids after the saponification (breakdown) of a fat, which can happen when cooking fats at high temperature.  It's convenient to talk about them as fatty acids when they're still inside triglycerides because of their roles in nutrition (saturated vs. unsaturated vs. polyunsaturated, etc.).

An emulsifying agent like lecithin has two non-polar (electrically neutral), lipophilic (fat soluble) “fatty acid” (but still esterified) hydrocarbon chains, and a polar head consisting of a phosphate/choline (-/+) ionic structure that is very hydrophilic (soluble in water) due to having both positive and negative standing charges.  Because of its net electrically neutral structure, the flavor is mild and fatty, not soapy.  Phospholipids like lecithin are available in all cells, since they form the lipid bilayer that defines each cell.

Neither vinegar nor lemon juice would act as an effective emulsifying agent.  Acetic acid, citric acid, etc., are all too water soluble, and wouldn't stick to the surface of the fat droplets in an emulsion. Rather, components of the soy milk, particularly soy lecithin, would fill that role in this recipe for vegan mayonnaise. In traditional mayonnaise, of course, egg yolks are a rich source of lecithin.  The vinegar has little effect other than flavor.

The degree of unsaturation in the non-polar tails of a phospholipid would not significantly affect the stability of an emulsion once formed. Unsaturation of fatty acid esters in triglycerides does affect the texture of a fat, and how it varies with temperature.

One factor not mentioned yet is when emulsifying make sure all the ingredients have sat at the same temperature for a few hours first as it enables all the chemical reactions to occur more evenly.


Is "until juices run clear" a valid test for poultry doneness? Why or why not? I've come across this particular recommendation many times in various recipes and cookbooks and probably even given it out myself once or twice.  Poultry is sufficiently cooked when the juices run clear, not red or pink.

In recent months and years, as I've grown more interested in and knowledgeable about the science of cooking, I've learned to be skeptical of such simplistic claims.  This one is repeated everywhere - even the Ontario Ministry of Health says it - but I've also run across various claims that it is dangerous advice.

What I'd like to know is this:

What does it actually mean - chemically or biologically speaking - when poultry juices run clear?  Is it actually a reliable indicator that the food is safe to eat?

P.S. I am quite well aware that the way one is supposed to test for doneness is to use a thermometer and ensure that the internal temperature has reached 165° F / 74° C.  I always do this, but thermometers can break, run out of battery, etc., so I think it is still helpful to know if the juice test is ever a viable alternative.  But most importantly I am interested in understanding what is happening to the meat that causes the juices to change colour, and under what other conditions this can happen.

Chicken juices contain a soupy mix of proteins including haemoglobin (which gives blood its red colour when mixed with oxygen), and some myoglobin (which gives red meat its red colour when mixed with oxygen). Up to about 140F, they are unchanged, but heat them to between 140F and 160F and they lose their ability to bind oxygen and so their colours change. So if your juices are running clear, you know the temperature is at least higher then 140F and probably closer to 160F if they are indeed clear.

The question of what is 'doneness' is an interesting one. For most foods, doneness is a question of taste. After years of eating my chicken at 'at least 140F', I really like that taste. We usually cook foods to improve their taste, texture, nutritional value; very few foods traditionally kill or harm us if they are not cooked (cassava, certain beans are notable exceptions). Heating to 165F is recommended not for taste but to kill organisms such as salmonella - a tricky blighter that lives inside the cells of some other creatures and so can't be washed or peeled off.

I'm pretty sure that I'm the first generation cook in my family to own an instant-read probe digital food thermometer, so why is this now necessary? Well I may also be the first generation where salmonella in store-bought chicken is considered a saleable product and something to be cooked out by heat, rather than designed out by good farming and food handling practice. The 165F statement from food safety bodies was brought in to deal with such issues.

In France, there are still plenty of people who like their chicken very pink. With my own grown chickens, I will cook them till a skewer pierced into the deepest part of the thigh (but not near the bone), shows clear juices and on deep-breasted old breeds that can leave a tinge of pink towards the bottom of a (deliciously juicy) breast. I'm personally comfortable with that particular risk/reward balance.

But store-bought chicken? From an unattributed source? At $1:15/lb? Pass me the probe, please.

Hemoglobin is concentrated inside red blood cells and gives them the red colour. If the heat is high enough red and other cells, including bacteria, are destroyed. The red juices contain intact red blood cells and turn clear as the haemoglobin spills out of the destroyed cells and is diluted by the other juices. If you can destroy all red blood cells it is assumed you are also destroying the bacterial cells.


Is it really necessary to wash a skillet that will be heated up again soon? I made some eggs in a cast iron skillet yesterday and didn't wash the skillet.  Today I want to make eggs again.

Is it really necessary for me to wash the skillet before making more eggs?  It would seem to me that heating it up would kill germs that had accumulated in the day since I used it.

Is it just breaking the social norm that is the problem or is there really danger here?

Seems almost every question about bacteria seems to bring about both the bacteriophobes and the cavalier.  In this case, the cavalier are probably closer to being right, but I'll try to present the facts so that you can decide for yourself.

The most common microbe groups responsible for household food poisoning are:

Salmonella, found in poultry, produces the CdtB toxin. CDT can be denatured (technically, "heat-labile") but is one of the most resistant toxins, taking 30 minutes at 70° C to destroy. This type of bacteria isn't normally associated with eggs, but since chicken eggs and other poultry products may be handled in the same area, it's not unthinkable that the shells could become contaminated - and depending on how you handle the eggs, so could the frying pan.
E.Coli is normally associated with beef but is also known to be found on egg shells.  It's improbable, but not impossible for it to be found in yolks as well.  This is a bit of a weird one because egg yolks also have immunization properties against e.coli, but not in the yolk itself or the frying pan. The strains of e.coli associated with food poisoning encode Shiga-Like Toxin (SLT) and also Enterotoxins, the latter of which are often heat stable. I'm not sure about SLT, but the STs can withstand boiling for 30 minutes.
Campylobacter (causing Campylobacteriosis) produces certain enterotoxins and also CDT.  As above, these tend to be heat-resistant.
C.botulinum is responsible for for botulism and is ubiquitous.  The spores are incredibly difficult to kill but they are also only harmful to infants and the immunodepressed.  More importantly, the bacteria are killed by heating to 85° C for 5 minutes and are also anaerobic - meaning they can only grow when they are not exposed to air.  In other words, these may be present, but won't grow and produce toxins on a reasonably clean pan.
C.perfringens is one of the most common sources of food poisoning, and I believe is actually what drives a lot of the specific food safety/food inspection rules.  The spores are very heat resistant (can survive boiling for a full hour), and even though it is anaerobic, it is also aerotolerant.  It can grow on a pan - just more slowly than it would grow in an enclosed container or in raw/fresh food.
S.Aureus causes staph infections but also produces heat-resistant enterotoxins. It doesn't generally come from food, but more than 20% of humans are carriers, and also many pets (cats and dogs), so it is very likely in your household somewhere and can easily get on your frying pan and multiply on leftover food bits.
B.cereus is less common but very resilient (they're known for "fried rice syndrome" because they can survive steaming) and afterward produce spores and heat-resistant enterotoxins. Important to note that many strains of this are harmless - but not all.
V.cholerae causes (as you may have guessed) cholera symptoms which come from CTX and TCP toxins.  Both of these are heat-labile although I wasn't able to find a time/temperature data point.

Chances are, you have at least one these friends in your kitchen.  Chances are, you have several.  The question is, did enough of them manage to get onto your frying pan after your last meal to produce dangerous levels of toxins?

Probably not. It's really very unlikely.  But it is possible, and you're taking a chance if you don't wash your dishes.

In fact, it's probably more dangerous with eggs, because typically you'd cook eggs only up to a temperature of around 70° C, at most (63° is the temperature at which they set).  So day after day you're bringing all those lovely bacteria right into the danger zone for several minutes and not staying above it for very long at all!

Doing this one time... really not a big deal.  Bacteria don't get to multiply much in the 5 minutes (or less) it takes to fry an egg, and most eggs aren't even contaminated to begin with, although there have been small outbreaks.

But doing this several times, day after day - you're increasing your risk each day because the pan may never get hot enough, long enough, to kill all of the new bacteria from the day before.

I would strongly recommend that you wash your pans after use.  You don't need to use soap if they're cast-iron; a good scrub with salt and hot water is fine.  But please - especially if you're going to be cooking for guests - don't just leave the dirty pans sitting there and use them again the next day without washing them first.  It's not safe.

P.S. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that of all of the items in the list above, botulism, despite having some of the worst symptoms, is generally the least of your worries. Both the bacteria and the toxin are easy to kill, and the spores are harmless to healthy adults. So if you hear people on this site or any site talk about food safety entirely in terms of botulism and the temperatures required to kill/inactivate the bacteria/toxin, ignore them, because they haven't done their homework.

Wow. Do you wash your barbecue grill between uses, or just scrape it clean and cleanse by fire? The idea of washing cast iron pans strikes me as funny. I have three that I've used for decades, as have my mother and grandmother. The smallest and largest I don't use so often, so I after use I wipe with table salt to get rid of excess grease and anything stuck. The medium size pan is near-daily use and NEVER gets washed. Could I look up a list of rare bacteria and imagine how they might survive frying and hang out in my salty bacon grease? Sure, but in daily activity we accept so many higher risks that this is a pretty silly one to worry about.


Dehydrating fruit/veg, temperature, and safety I have a food dehydrator, which I've used in the past for chillies, apples and herbs.  I intend to dry some tomatoes with it soon, a process that apparently takes about 8 hours at 60°C (140°F) (it actually took considerably longer in my case).  This temperature is exactly at the top of the US FDA's danger zone and is unlikely to be maintained in an entire dehydrator with a thermostat in the air stream.  Dehydrators also allow lower temperatures to be used (mine does 35–70°C).  Sun-drying tomatoes takes place at an uncontrolled temperature, which we can assume is sometimes ideal for bacteria/mould growth. Apple rings are often dried cooler and take 12+ hours.

These are sliced/halved fruit/veg, so aren't protected by their skins; they wouldn't dry if they were (as I found with blueberries).  And for much of the process they're rather wet.  The pH is usually uncontrolled; apple slices may be dipped in lemon juice but only to keep them from turning brown.

So why don't we get mould/bacteria growth during the dehydration process?

where you need to be very careful about the amount of moisture in the air. water should be possible at a minimum. It would also be extremely good if you can provide a dry air flow that goes through for a long time to dry. The presence of any molds can be controlled by magnifying glass.


What should I cover bread dough with while it's rising? If you let (bread) dough rise, the recipe always asks to cover it. Years ago, I read to cover it with a wet towel. Nowadays, I see more and more recipes that ask for plastic wrap (aka saran or cling wrap).
The towel lets air through, the wrap does not. What is the difference between the two in the end result? What is best to use and why?
I'm talking about the first as well as the second (proofing) rise. If there is a difference between the phases, please inform me.

The goal is to keep the surface of the bread from drying out.

A wet towel works fine but plastic wrap is cheaper and easier than constantly cleaning wet towels.

I have used both methods and haven't noticed a difference in the bread produced. In very dry climates, when I made bread with multiple rises I sometimes had to redampen the towel which was an added inconvenience.

Lately I have been proofing large batches of bread in a large stock pot and just use the lid of the pot as the only cover.

I use shower caps especially kept for this purpose and just lightly oil the inside of them.  Either normal ones or the thin, clear sort you get in hotels work fine and saves the hassle and waste of clingfilm.


Is soaking beans 24 hours unrefrigerated safe? It strikes me as an unsafe food practice to follow Cook's Illustrated's advice for soaking dried beans for 24 hours unrefrigerated.  I've also seen them suggest you soak steel-cut oats unrefrigerated overnight.

Is there some reason why these practices are okay?  Would there be any harm in refrigerating them, particularly the beans, while soaking?

From Cook's Illustrated:

  Dissolve 3 tablespoons salt in 4 quarts cold water in large bowl or
  container. Add [one pound] beans and soak at room temperature for at least 8 hours
  and up to 24 hours. Drain and rinse well.

In fact, although the risk is low, the Penn State Extension does recommend soaking in the refrigerator, or using the quick soak method as opposed to an overnight room temperature soak:

  To be on the safe side, it would be advisable to use the quick soak method: Bring water and beans to a boil, cover and boil for 2 minutes. Remove from heat and let stand 1 hour. Drain and further cook.

Similarly, the US Dry Bean Council recommends (emphasis added):

  A 12-hour soak in cold water before cooking helps hydrate the beans and considerably shortens cooking time. Ideally, beans should be put to soak the night before they are to be prepared and be kept in a cool place, or in the refrigerator, to avoid any fermentation taking place. Before soaking, wash them several times in cold water and remove any damaged or split beans. Discard any particles floating in the soaking water, such as small insects from the harvest, specks of dirt or other contaminants.

Simple answear: no harm in either refrigerated or unrefrigerated soak provided that you use the beans within 24 hours, otherwise put in the ref first if you will not use or cook it yet within a day after soaking.


Rule of thumb for cooking multiple things in a microwave at the same time? Is it possible to cook multiple things at the same time in a microwave and how do I adjust the cooking time?

What if the two items are identical, do I double the time or multiply it by some other factor?

What if the two items are different and have different individual cooking times?

For different food types there is no single correct answer, as it is very dependent on the specific microwave energy absorption and reflectance characteristics of each item (food and container) in the microwave oven

It's possible to put one item in which has a high absorbency and one with a low absorbency, and to have one fully cooked and the other still cold

e.g. A potato placed in a ceramic bowl, and a sausage on a glass plate, would result in a hot sausage, and a cold potato (assuming the sausage and potato are of the same weight)

For similar food types a general multiplication is required, but not exactly by weight, as each microwave oven has an 'efficiency to food and weight' exponential curve. You will find the result of this out by experience with the oven. This rule applies somewhat to normal thermal convection ovens too

e.g. 250 g of potato takes 6 minutes in your microwave oven, then 500 g may take 9 minutes not 12 minutes, and 1 Kg may take only 12 minutes, until you reach the equilibrium point of no further improvement (about 1 Kg for my domestic microwave oven)

It's best not to cook two items together because the amount of energy Vs time taken had been worked out by the manufacturer for the given power rating. Remember that temperature can be a factor, and getting to that temperature may take a significant amount of the cooking time to reach. So cooking 2 of the same item together might take longer than doing one after the other.
This is probably more obvious with things that are steam cooked as it's going to take longer for the extra mass to heat up.
A simple side by side wattage comparison shows that a conventional oven might be rated at 3000 Watts Vs 700 Watts of a microwave


Is there a technique to making Caramel in a Microwave oven? I've made it on the stove top: sugar, corn syrup ect..but wanted to try it in the microwave - any tips on cooking times, techniques?

Microwave candy recipes are very fast and easy. They tend to be only a little different in flavor than the stove top versions in my experience. There seems to be a little less depth of flavor.

The recipes usually call for short periods of microwaving and frequent stirring. As far as the cooking times- I have to follow the recipe as I have no way of measuring the temperature in the microwave.

I personally have had great success with peanut brittle recipes (which get hotter than caramel):

http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/microwave-peanut-brittle-2/Detail.aspx

A cursory google search found several recipes for caramel but I have not tried them personally.

you cannot control the temperature in microwave. use stove top.


Putting a solid chocolate bar inside cake dough: what's the outcome? Let's say I'm making a plain vanilla cake in a rectangular shape. If I were to put a solid chocolate bar in the middle of the dough before baking it, what would the outcome be when the cake is removed from the oven and has cooled down?

The bar will have dropped to the bottom and you now have a brown stain on the bottom of the cake
The bar will remain in place, but after melting it simply becomes solid again so you now have a very hard chocolate bar in the middle of your cake.
The bar will melt and become chocolate spread inside your cake. After cooling down, it will remain in its semi-liquid state and thus you have a deliciously filled cake.

I'm hoping for outome #3, but I'm pretty sure it won't be that easy. What If I were to put actual chocolate spread inside the cake dough rather than a chocolate bar?

As other answers have said, the result will NOT be (3).  The chocolate may melt somewhat during baking, but it will solidify again as it cools.  How much it sinks will depend on the thickness of the cake batter -- in some cases it may end up on the bottom, and in other cases it may not sink very much.

To achieve your desired result (a "semi-liquid state"), you should probably begin with a chocolate spread or sauce or whatever that has your desired final consistency.  I've seen recipes that use everything from ganache to fudge or even a cream cheese-based chocolate filling.  But the majority of recipes out there intend to result in a fairly solid state when cooled.

In any case, by using a thinner spread/sauce, you may be able to get close to your desired result.  But you might still encounter some problems:

The vanilla cake batter must be thick enough so the chocolate layer doesn't spread too much or sink.
The chocolate spread/sauce might behave erratically when baked, depending on what its ingredients are.  It could end up more solid than it initially was after baking (or otherwise change texture), it could partially mix with the surrounding batter (which may or may not produce desirable flavor/texture), it could disrupt baking by producing excess steam or bubbling (perhaps breaking through the surface or producing unstable "bubbles" that could cause the cake to collapse after baking), or it could have other unpredictable effects on the batter immediately surrounding it.
One option for a thinner spread/sauce, as mentioned in comments, might be to chill it beforehand.  This would likely also allow the filling to maintain a better shape rather than spreading unpredictably.  On the other hand, it could also cause further baking problems if the batter adjacent to the filling takes too long to bake properly.  You could end up with an underdone layer around the filling, or you could dry out the outer layers too much before the interior is done.
If you do try this, I'd suggest making smaller cakes (individual sized cakes, cupcakes, or perhaps a slightly larger cake with just a few servings).  A layer of filling in a large sheet cake is even more likely to disrupt baking and make it difficult to get the sides and center done at the same time.  I suppose it might also work in a bundt or ring pan.

In sum, fillings behave unpredictably during baking, and they generally make it much more difficult to achieve uniform doneness.  Interior fillings are thus best reserved for situations where the interior layer is intended to have a similar texture and doneness threshold to the cake as a whole.

For these reasons, professional bakers often prefer to fill cakes with soft or "semi-liquid" things after baking.  Obviously the simplest and most common solution is a layer cake with a spread in between the layers.  If you prefer something more elegant, professional bakers often slice a single layer in half, perhaps cut out some of the interior if desired, and add the filling before reassembling.  For smaller (individual-sized) cakes or cupcakes, a syringe can also be used to fill the interior, though how much filling can be inserted will depend on the interior texture of the final cake.  These techniques allow you to determine more precisely where the filling ends up and provides a better separation between the filling and the cake textures.  If the final cake is to be frosted, it is possible to disguise such things and make the process of filling fairly undetectable in the final product.

That's not to say your desired outcome is impossible to achieve, but it may take some experimentation and the result is likely to be temperamental or inconsistent in baking.  I'd personally try to find a reputable recipe to use as a starting point.

By the way, a "molten lava" cake recipe, as suggested by another answer, is also probably not what you're after.  Lava cakes are almost always chocolate cakes that are slightly underbaked, so the center does not set completely.  How "molten" they remain after cooling varies from recipe to recipe, but they are also usually meant to be served immediately after baking.  To achieve your goal, you'd need two cake batters instead of one: a vanilla cake for the exterior and a "molten" chocolate center batter.  It's difficult to get the proportions and timing right to succeed with a single "molten" batter; mixing two different batters together while trying to keep one liquid and the other cooked will likely be very difficult.  A quick internet search for "lava cakes" uncovered some recipes that claim to do what you want by inserting a piece of ganache or something into the center of a vanilla cake batter, but these recipes mostly seem to rely on being served warm to maintain that gooey center.

To give you an idea that putting solid chocolate in the batter works
https://youtu.be/uJFSnCukXJY


Can you make stew without onions? I'm trying to make a stew with the least amount of ingredients.  If I could just cook the meat itself that would be great but I think that would be frying or grill so not a stew.

What is the least ingredients one needs to make a stew?  I take it can be made with onions, potatoes or carrots as one ingredient are there other options?

If you were to cook meat in just water (possibly after browning it) you could call it a braise. In order to be a stew it probably needs some other ingredients. If you don't like or don't have onions, there's no need to use them. Use whatever vegetables you feel like using. They aren't serving a chemical purpose, such as leavening or thickening or browning; they're just for taste and to make a filling meal by adding things that cost less than meat.

You can of course add a variety of spices, which may make your stew qualify as a curry or a chili. And if you intend to serve it over rice or noodles, you may want to thicken the liquid a little. There are many ways to do that, but white flour, predissolved in a little cold water, is a popular one. This is, for some people, a key discriminant between being a soup and being a stew: that stews are thickened with flour and soups are not. But you can find plenty of people to disagree with that.

Why is it important to you that you make something called a stew?

If your objective is really just fewest ingredients--as in some kind of challenge--this one doesn't need onions, per se.  The store-bought stock contains onion flavor:

1-2 lbs. beef chuck pieces
2 tablespoons of cooking oil
1-2 cups canned beef stock -- use fairly high sodium content
1-3 tablespoons beurre manie.

Brown the beef chuck pieces until they're crusty. Add the beef stock to the pan and scrape up the bits on the bottom. Lower the heat to simmer the meat for about 2 hours.  At that time add the beurre manie and stir to make a gravy.  Plate and serve this rather uninteresting dish.


Does a pressure cooker really cook food evenly? My mother uses a 5 liter pressure cooker to cook chicken pieces.

She heats it for 10 minutes, switches off the stove and waits for the steam pressure to go down before opening the lid.

Even though this is done, some chicken pieces, although seemingly cooked; when you chew it, it feels like chewing gum and does not 'disintegrate' well enough to be swallowed. Same way you don't feel like swallowing a chewing gum because it does not 'disintegrate' into tinier pieces, for example, the way cooked rice 'disintegrates' into a mushy semi-solid before we swallow it.

There are other pieces of the chicken which do get fully cooked, and they are not like chewing gum. They 'disintegrate' and can be swallowed comfortably.

I asked her to cook it for longer. She cooks it for 15 min now-a-days, but the result is the same. Some pieces end up like chewing gum.

She believes that since it is cooked in a pressure cooker, the heat and pressure should be even, and therefore all pieces should get cooked evenly. So even though I proved to her that it isn't evenly happening, she still remains stuck with the belief that it should cook evenly, and she's doing nothing to solve the problem.

So:
1. Is the food (especially meat) cooked in a pressure cooker really supposed to get cooked evenly?
2. Is boiling the meat in a pot (instead of pressure cooking it) the only other alternative?

UPDATE: From the answers and comments. Yes, Mom says that first we wait for the steam to come out of the pressure cooker's vent, then we put the weight over the vent and that's when we start counting the time taken for cooking. We can't really depend on the number of whistles, coz it varies among pressure cookers.

As a couple of commenters already mentioned, the base of the pressure cooker gets hotter than the rest, and chicken is no homogeneous size.

I would like to add that besides the size difference between pieces of chicken, there is also a difference in tenderness.  Breast meat is more tender so it will pressure cook faster, while legs and wings will be tougher and take longer.

There is actually a way that you can take advantage of this knowledge to have evenly cooked chicken - by stacking the chicken pieces.

Place the darker, tougher, chicken pieces at the bottom of the pressure cooker (closer to the hottest part) and lay breasts and any other tender meat on top of that.  Add just enough liquid to meet the cooker's minimum requirement (usually 1 - 2 cups).  The breast will steam on top (and cook more slowly) while the legs & ect. will boil on the bottom (and cook faster).

Stacking chicken for even cooking is a technique that I published five years ago, as part of my pressure cooking lessons series.

Because steam is hotter than water, any pieces of chicken submerged in the cooking liquid will take longer to cook, and pieces surrounded only by steam will cook faster. In either case, cooking proceeds from the outside in, so larger pieces of chicken will take longer to cook than smaller pieces.

You mentioned that your mother heats the pressure cooker for 10-15 minutes and then turns it off. It's important for the timing to begin only after the cooker reaches the desired cooking pressure. The time for that to happen can vary greatly, depending on the temperature and volume of the cooking liquid, and the food being cooked.

So, wait until the pressure cooker begins letting off steam, and then begin timing. At this point, you also want to turn down the heat so it stays at that pressure and only lets off little bits of steam.

Ten minutes at full pressure should be more than enough time to cook chicken pieces, so I suspect your problem is simply not waiting until it reaches cooking pressure before starting to time.

Here's a useful reference of pressure cooking times:

       Pressure Cooker Timing Charts


How can I make a carob coating? I want to make Italian Three color Christmas Cookies (like these: http://www.food.com/recipe/italian-tri-color-cookies-rainbow-cookies-147882 ). This kind of cookie is traditionally are covered in melted chocolate, but my husband and son are both allergic to chocolate. The last time I tried to melt carob chips, I discovered that carob doesn't melt (it was awful...). So... how can I make a carob coating for these cookies?

Melting carob is a bit different from chocolate.  The sugar crystal formation is not the same for tempering chocolate.  One suggestion is to add paramount crystals (which is a combination of palm kernel oil and soy lecithin) to help start/control the process.  I would also recommend not keeping the double boiler actually on the double boiler for the entire time.

Heat it up until some of the carob melts.  Remove from heat and stir.  Add it back to the heat and continue removing to stir as each bit melts a little more.  It takes longer but it allows you to control the heating and crystallization process.

End the end, you should have a smoother and more even end result.

double boiler not necessary if you have a microwave, just work on 10 second rotations (micro, stir, micro, stir, etc.)


How to fix food that got extra salty? How to fix food that got extra salty? I imagine this depends on what the food is. With spaghetti, you can add water or change water if you detect it on time. But what about grilled meat? Or a tomato sauce?

Determine correct ratio of food to salt.
Add more food until proper ratio is achieved.

Or just serve extra beer with it.

If there is liquid in the dish (soup, sauce, etc) you can add peeled carrots to help absorb the salt. Pre-cut and peeled baby carrots work best. They aren't as easy to pick out at the end as a potato is, but you don't risk having the potato break down and over-starch/thicken your dish.


Boiling lentils in chicken stock? I have some decent chicken stock that needs using and I am making a takka dhal tonight. I preboil my lentils, and was wondering if I boiled them in the chicken stock, whether or not they would soak up the flavour at all? Or would it just be a waste?

Advice would be welcome!

Thanks.

Yes, they will take up some of the flavor of the stock.  However:

1) the flavor will be subtle and hard to detect, especially if you are spicing the dal heavily (as you usually do with Indian food)

2) it's not that authentic, since Indian food is often vegetarian.

Personally, I'd freeze the chicken stock and use it for something else.  Or make Turkish lentil soup, which does call for a stock base.

It wouldn't make a massive difference to the taste - most of the flavour will come from the spices and things you add to the dhal - and the salt in the stock could prevent the lentils from softening as you cook them, leaving them a little tough.


Using an electric deep fryer does the food need to be totally immersed? ***Edit**** So there seems to be much confusion about the way I worded the question and how I described the situation. So I will try to clarify. The max fill line is about halfway down the fryer. The minimum fill line is very near the bottom. I am unclear whether this fill line is for ONLY oil or for oil and food both. Originally I assumed it was just for oil. There is no marking higher up as some have asked/mentioned.

I put a whole chicken that was wrapped inside the vessel. I then covered with water until the chicken was covered by an inch or two. as I put the water in I was calculating how much water it was I added. I added 8 qts of water on top of the chicken to cover it. I then removed the chicken and noticed that by chance the 8 qts of water reached the max fill line.

A commenter mentioned that the more food you have (a turkey compared to chicken for example) the less oil it will take to cook as the item will displace the oil. This should have been fairly obvious but I wasn't thinking correctly.

The box of the fryer says 22 qt capacity. I have no idea what this references. The box mentions cooking turkeys up to 14 lbs.

At this point in time I assume the max fill line is for oil only as it is halfway down the vessel and it takes 8 qts to reach that point which isn't much.

When I buy a turkey I will do the water test again (unwrapped) and see how much oil it takes. I am going under the assumption the max fill line is for oil only. I am assuming it is possible to cook a turkey since it is marketed as such.

I am hoping for the best and if you see a plume of smoke coming from Columbus, oh then pray for me lol.  Thanks to all

Hello I have an electric deep fryer that will hold a maximum of 8 qts of oil.

I put in a whole chicken (young chicken) and added water to measure how much oil would be needed to cover the chicken and it takes the whole 8 qts to cover it by an inch or two.

The problem is for thanksgiving we want to deep fry a whole turkey which is significantly bigger than the chicken. The 8 qts to cover the chicken is by chance the maximum the fryer can hold.  The box of the fryer says it can fry a turkey up to 12 pounds.

I understand the oil may bubble up as it's cooking. But the 8 qts barely covers the chicken. How can we cook a turkey with the same amount of oil that barely covers the chicken?

Would it be okay to do this?

Based on the comments, it sounds like your fryer has a fill line for just the oil, calibrated so that if you use that much oil then add a reasonably-sized turkey, you'll end up with the oil still safely below the top of the fryer. You'd never actually use 22 quarts of oil; then it'd be completely full of oil, on the verge of overflowing, with no room for food.

In that case, your chicken test doesn't really tell you very much. A turkey will fill the vessel more completely, so it may well take less oil to cover it. If you end up able to put your whole turkey in, and cover it with liquid, without getting dangerously close to the top of the pot, then you're okay. I would hope your fryer has another line closer to the top to tell you what a safe margin is there.

Do note that testing with wrapped birds also is misleading. That keeps the liquid from getting into the cavity, so it'll take less liquid to fill and cover that way.

And if the turkey is too big, then filling it to that 8 quart fill line then adding the turkey could cause it to overflow. So it really seems like you need to test with the turkey first (not wrapped!), to be sure it'll fit safely.

With all that said, supposing you do actually end up in the situation you mention in the question - not enough oil to cover the food - that's not good.

If your food is sticking out of the oil, it's not really cooking. It'll be in contact with hot air over the oil, but that's nowhere near actual hot oil.

Along with that, it'd indicate you've overfilled it, which is asking for trouble. The manual for your fryer almost certainly has some really strong warnings against that sort of thing. And even if the oil stops at the fill line, you have a huge turkey in there just waiting to shift or settle a bit, displace more oil, and push the oil above the max - it's still overfilled.

Doing something like that would make it really easy to splash hot oil out of the fryer, especially while you're putting the food in and getting that burst of boiling water and steam, which is incredibly dangerous. It's probably a fire hazard even with an electric fryer. And even without a fire, it's nothing you want splashing on you.

And in general, I'd strongly suggest you look at general safety guides before you attempt to deep fry a turkey, especially if you're not sure about part of the process.

The problem with cooking whole is the height. Cooking whole the problem is packing factor.  Is it an option to cut it in half and remove the legs?  If you can cut it up you will get a lot more meat under the same amount of oil.

Yes the meat needs to be totally immersed.


How do I thicken my Japanese curry after the fact? I made a lamb based Japanese curry in a slow cooker and unlike my previous efforts (using many of the same ingredients, though in different proportions), it turned out runny and underwhelming.

What techniques exist to "beef up" a curry after the fact? Would putting it back in the slow cooker with more veggies for another half-day help? Would adding another portion of curry mix help?

Several options, depending on the type of curry and the ingredients already present.
Japanese Style Curries
Using a commercial, packaged Japanese-style roux:
Add another brick or two from the package. This type dissolves nicely generally with minimal clumping.
Using a homemade, Japanese style roux:
You can prepare additional roux by melting fat (butter, beef fat, etc) in a saucier, foaming it if needed (as with butter), and whisking in flour (we usually use a 1:1 ratio). Allow the flour to brown to the desired level, keeping in mind that the thickening power decreases the darker it gets. If you prefer not to use flour, potato starch/katakuriko is a reasonable alternative. When suitably dark, take some of the liquid from your existing curry and mix in to the roux, whisking vigorously to minimize the risk of clumping. Add more of the existing curry liquid if you think there's a risk of clumping, then reintegrate it back into the main pot. (if you were starting this roux from scratch you'd also integrate fat-cooked spices into the roux, but your problem does not appear to be flavor).
Avoiding fussiness:
Mix cornstarch or potato starch (katakuriko) in cold water. Once reasonably dissolved, add it to the curry pot. This type of thickener can create a slightly odd texture in a Japanese curry, as the browned roux creates a more velvety texture, but that doesn't mean I haven't done it before in a pinch. The liquid will thicken as it boils.
Indian Style Curries
For more Indian-style curries, there are other options.
If your curry contains lentils, chickpeas or potatoes:
Smash some of them in a small bowl, or just against the edge of the pan. Allow the pot to boil a bit.
If you have almonds, cashews or similar nuts available:
Grind a small quantity of nuts in a coffee/spice mill, and incorporate them into the curry. These need to boil more gently, and I usually do this sauce more intentionally by making them the focal point (dum ki ghom, for example, which has mushrooms and tomato puree in a nut sauce) but can rescue an existing curry too.


Sugar in tea better if put after boiling I am a big fan of tea. I hail from Punjab, India. I like it with cardamom and milk and water in 1:1 proportion. And I like to boil everything together (this is the way its done in majority of Indian households). Recently, I noticed that the tea tastes much better if I put sugar in my cup after pouring the tea in it, rather than boiling the sugar with everything. It tastes so fresh this way that I have altogether stopped putting in the sugar while boiling. Is there anyone who shares this taste with me and can give me some scientific explanation on what is the difference?

Yes, it would taste different-
Sugar chrystals are made of sucrose saccharose(glucose combined with fructose), if you boil sugar with an acid (milk is slightly acidic[ph 6.5-7]) your sugar splits into its monomers-fructose and glucose(invert-sugar).
Fructose fits into your taste receptors better than sucrose or fructose causing it to taste sweeter(1.73 x sweeter).

Yes according to science sugar is always use after boiling water because if we used sugar before boiling water then elevation of boiling point will occur that is more energy require to boil water.so this process is very expensive. So according to my opinion always use sugar after boiling water.


How to properly make maple foam? So I got this great sounding recipe, but it only contains the ingredients, not the method. I am lucky that I don't have any problems putting it together by myself, there is only one thing I can't get my hands on really: Maple foam.

The recipe says it consists of milk, maple syrup, gelatine and vanilla beans.

I got all the ingredients, but before I tried anything I Googled, thinking that there is maybe another recipe already out there for this. I found some things, like a guide where the foam turns into a rock hard candy. I don't think this is what I want, as my recipe is for ricotta pancakes.

I also found this recipe: http://400caloriesorless.com/?tag=maple-foam
But the maple foam in there does not contain any gelatin (and does not look really foamy to me).

Then I found this, which seams more right to me, but I don't own a NO2 dispenser: http://thebellyrulesthemind.blogspot.de/2007/08/foam.html

A bit discouraged I just tried to whip milk to get some kind of cream (yes yes I know about whipping cream ;-) ), add some maple syrup and gelatine. Of course this didn't work out really well.

Because the recipe also uses vanilla beans I thought about bringing the milk to the boil together with the vanilla beans, then adding maple syrup and adding gelatine and beating it until it's basically at room temperature. This also didn't really work, the problem is that it never gets really foamy. So I guess thats the problem an NO2 dispenser solves. But maybe there is another way of creating maple foam? Maybe I was even on the right track?

It's not exactly what people mean by culinary foam, but you can make maple whipped cream. (It seems kinda like the original recipe you found was trying to do this, except it forgot that you can't really make whipped milk.) There are a lot of recipes you can find for this online. They probably won't be as concentrated maple flavor as a more pure maple foam, so a couple thoughts:

You can always reduce the maple syrup, so that you can add more maple flavor without adding so much water that you destabilize the cream.
You could use manufacturing cream, which has even more fat than heavy cream, so it's more stable when whipped, and you'll be able to add more maple.

simmer the milk with vanilla beans til warm,  add the gelatin til it melts
add the maple syrup and refrigerate until it is partially set.   remove the beans
you can then beat it with a mixer


Gravy with Scrambled Eggs :: What went wrong? OK, I love scrambled eggs but I wanted a variant which isn't completely dry so here is what I did:
I got some instant (add hot water) type gravy packets which were of Chinese cuisine. I added hot water and stirred like crazy till it tasted, looked and had a good consistency like gravy. I made my scrambled eggs this way and simply added them. As a consequence, the scrambled eggs got all soggy and tasted really weird.
The ratio of addition was just enough to drown the scrambled eggs. Sorry but I can't provide metric proportions

Note: I am on a student budget, please suggest improvements which won't burn holes in my pockets.

Instant gravy packets are not known for their subtle flavor. They contain boullion, tons of salt, and some modified starch. If you don't like the flavor of a lot of that gravy then don't use it.

The scrambled egg recipe that you linked to is of a particular variety. They are just barely set. This gives them a very delicate flavor and even more delicate texture. They are also as moist as scrambled eggs can be.

Such a preparation of eggs would not be well served by a gravy.

My suggestions are these:
1- Use a different recipe for your eggs that will cook them much more. If you insist on a gravy then your eggs will need to have the structure enough to support it.

2- Make your own gravy and don't ever use those packets again- even if you are starving to death I think they would only hasten your demise. Instead find a recipe for a quick white sauce- (just fat, flour, and milk). If you would like you can add a little shredded cheese for flavor. I think you will find this will be more satisfying and possibly even less expensive than your gravy-packet-crimes-against-humanity.

fry the eggs separately  and then add the gravy


How to peel hard boiled eggs easily? This is one of the most annoying duties in the kitchen, for me.

What are yours tips and tricks to peel hard boiled eggs easily?

Buy almost-late eggs.

The worst-case scenario of egg-shelling is a farm-fresh egg. That annoying film that sticks to both the shell and to the egg will detach, the older the egg gets. The bubble at the fat end, too, will get bigger as the egg ages, which also makes the bottom cap pop off more easily.

Obviously, we don't want rotten eggs. We want the almost expired but not expired ones.
Roll the egg against the countertop, cracking it along the "equator".

This will give you lots of starting points, and it will weaken the shell in enough directions that the rest of the peeling becomes easier. Usually, the top and bottom caps come off in large and clean pieces, so don't bother cracking that part unless it sticks.
Start from the fat end of the egg.

After much experimenting, I've determined that starting from the bottom of the egg (the fat end) is the best way to do it. Give the egg one good whack on the countertop, and the bottom caves in quite easily. This gives you a really nice starting point. Now peel out from there in a spiraling pattern down the rest of the egg. The top cap still comes off quite easily in one big chunk, if the egg is old enough.

Add cold eggs to already-boiling water that has salt added.

Let boil requisite amount of time.

Once you're done boiling the eggs, immediately place them in a cold water/ice water bath. Let them cool down before peeling.

Once they're cool, peel the eggs. Or store in the fridge to be peeled later.

I've tried adding eggs to cold water and then bringing the water to the boil. No amount of cool water or cooling the eggs at the end makes them easy to peel. Steaming eggs - not much luck there, either. Pressure cooking eggs - that comes a close second.


Is cooking with fruit liqueur comparable to cooking with fruit juice? I had some cranberries and blueberries that were past their prime, so to preserve them I made them into a liqueur. However I'm not much of an alcohol drinker, so I was thinking of using this liqueur for cooking. How does one use fruit liqueur in cooking? Will there be a noticeable taste difference from using the juice of these fruits once the alcohol has evaporated?

Sorry rumtscho that is incorrect. Alcohol will completely evaporate, what does stay "forever" is the flavor the spirit will impart but chemically ethyl is evaporative, to test my posit try wiping some rubbing or high proof vodka on a glass surface and you can actually watch it evaporate. The "How" depends on the recipe in e.g., deserts usually @ the end or in a finishing sauce. You could also make a chutney or in a marinade.

Cheers!

EDG


How to preserve cotton candy For this Christmas, we wanted to do a particular packaging for biscuits using cotton candy.
We have a machine to make it, and flavours to do different colors and flavourings.

Now, the problem is that it will shrink over time, in few hours, probably because of air humidity or other reasons.
We tried to make some cotton candy and place it in a closed box (one in paper and one in plastic), but it shrunk in few hours (less than 12).

Now, we need to find a way to preserve it from shrinking for at least 24 hours, but more would be better... And we should find a do-it-yourself solution which does not involve particular equipment or materials.

A way to preserve cotton candy is to freeze it, but obviously you have to eat it frozen, or it will melt.

We thought of two other ways:

Use hot hair to reduce the amount of water in the box, and then seal the box. I am not a supporter of this idea, because I believe that hot air will just melt the cotton candy (and I do not think that humidity will be reduced that much).
Use CO2, which can be easily and cheaply fabricated at home (vinegar + sodium bicarbonate). Since it should be heavier than air, one could produce it in a large container, then pour the CO2 in the box containing the cotton candy, and then seal it. I think that CO2 will replace air in the box and this will reduce the amount of humidity, allowing conservation of the food.

What do you think? Have you ever tried something similar? Have you any other idea?

It seems the best thing to do is to have a sealed container with little air in it.
CO2 has proven to be useful, but its presence is not as important as sealing.

So, if you want to preserve cotton candy, my experimental results show that a sealed container is preferred. I obtained a conservation of 24 hours, but probably it will least 48h or even more.

EDIT: Well, sealing seems to work pretty well, but I have to report a pair of failure...
2 out 5 packages did not preserve the cotton candy for more than 24 hours, while the remaining did. On the plus side, the first experimental sealed package preserved cotton candy for more than a week.

Why dont you try to add some alcaline salts to the syrup formulation? That way the sacarose inversion would be impeded.


Why did my ice cream turn out like this? I suppose I should mention that its texture came out PERFECTLY, and I'd really like it to do this again.

The first thing I did was heat 2 cups of sugar and 3 cups of half and half over low-ish heat, with some vanilla bean paste. Then, I tempered 9 heavily-whisked egg yolks with some of the half and half mixture. I added 3 T of Skyy vanilla vodka, forgetting that I was supposed to do that during the mixing process, not the custard-ing one. It curdled slightly, so I blended it, heated it gently again, and then strained it with a fine wire mesh strainer. I refrigerated it for several hours, forgetting to add the 3 cups of cream specified in the instructions.

Well. Not forgetting. I thought I was supposed to do it later, because evidently I don't read instructions effectively.

So then I took it out of the fridge. It was lovely and thick. I added the cream that I was supposed to have added earlier, didn't add more of the vodka I was supposed to have added at this point, and ended up with a very thin ice cream mixture. Pretty much liquid. I added a little salt, beat it in a very, very frozen ice cream mixer bowl (KitchenAid) (VERY frozen) for thirty minutes. It became slightly thicker, like a milkshake that forgot to be thick and was mostly melted. I drizzled in a little homemade caramel (1 cup sugar, 3/4 cup cream, a little vanilla, some salt). It then froze over night. I took it out of the freezer. The texture was PERFECT. Very scoopable, no ice crystals, didn't get overly hard, and the taste was spectacular.

Is the beautiful texture because I put in the cream later? Because I added the vodka? Because the ice cream gods decided they liked me last night? What in that set of steps resulted in that texture, so I can repeat this with recipes that aren't that one, not intentionally making 'mistakes' that I might not have to make so it comes out this way again?

Why do you think it was one single thing you did? It turned out good because the whole process was within the parameters which produce a good ice cream. A single mistake can ruing an ice cream, but a single right thing cannot make an ice cream.

  so I can repeat this with recipes that aren't that one, not intentionally making 'mistakes'

If a good recipe is followed correctly, it will turn out this way without the need to do anything else. An ice cream which gives bad results means that either the recipe was not good enough, or that you made a (real) mistake somewhere while making it.

There are no magic tricks in making ice cream, some little thing which turns any strange mass into a fluffy wonder. There is expertise, and knowing why each step is done a certain way. Once you know this, you will be able to fix bad recipes by correcting whatever is missing. But this knowledge is too much to fit this paragraph. Basically, you need to internalize some simple ideas of food chemistry (such as fat globules getting in the way of proteins trying to coagulate), then learn the basics of egg chemistry and custards, and then learn about ice cream and freezing. Reading the chapters on eggs and dairy from McGee on Food and cooking should be sufficient. But we cannot write up these couple of hundred pages here in an answer.

You can also read our other questions on crystalizing ice cream, they have short guidelines. I found this one with a quick search, but there are more. The Perfect Scoop also starts with a chapter explaining some of the methodology behind ice cream, before starting with recipes. These are good ways to start, and may be sufficient for you. They won't be enough for learning how to create your own recipes, or even for recognizing problematic recipes before making them. But once a recipe has failed, they give you a few options of what to try with the hope that it can be made to work next time.

I am no scientist but I truly believe you adding and beating in the cream (heavy whipping cream?) saved your ice cream and you being persistent. The cream gave it the body it needed and freezing it  was the trick.  Now your idea of perfect ice cream and my idea may be different, but if it was creamy and dreamy, well the ice cream gods were on your side.  Mistakes often create new and better products for us.  Next time follow the directions the correct way and see what happens. Compare, I really believe that adding the cream, whipping it, freezing it overnight really took care of things.  Good luck and again, try again the correct receipe and see what happens.


Is there a way to safely can pesto sauce? I grow basil and I have enough that I would like to can some pesto sauce.

I have tried to find a way to can it but I keep hitting a wall.

I would like to give a few cans of pesto to people for Christmas.

Can anyone help me?

I've never seen canned pesto, nor do I know if there is a way to do it safely. I will propose an alternate solution. Have you thought about freezing it? I've had pesto given to me as a gift before, but it was made as normal then frozen in a canning jar. It worked great.

Did some more digging and eventually came across this, from the National Center for Home Food Preservation. In summary, the oil and herb mixture is too low of an acid to prevent development of nasty bacteria.

See similar questions regarding storing/canning stuff in oil for more about why it might be dangerous:
 - Garlic Infused Oil
 - Peppers and Oil

Less chance of bacteria forming if the pesto is canned in a regular (not pressure) canner, if you leave out the nuts and cheese and add those ingredients when serving the pesto.


What is this colored fiber in my chicken? I smoked a whole chicken. When I cut into the breast I found this:

What is it and is my chicken ruined?

It's called deep pectoral myopathy or "green muscle disease", and it's a problem with heavy breasted poultry. The vessels are unable to supply enough blood to the muscle, with the result of death of the muscles affected. It's not detectable until the chicken is cut open. By the time you see the green colour, muscle death occurred a couple of weeks prior and fibrous woody tissue has developed. Since breeding practices for roaster chickens and turkeys often favor heavy-breasted poultry, this is likely to be found more often until that changes.

There is no odour or bacterial growth with this, and the meat itself is safe to eat, though no one would eat the green part. The Occurrence of Deep Pectoral Myopathy in Roaster Chickens, from The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, has extensive info available about it.

The muscle died and the fibre are discoloured because of it.

The muscle died primarily, because it was genetically developed to grow too quickly for its heart and blood was not able to get to the specific area.

However it could have been due to it not having enough room to move or if it got an infection from standing in several generations of feces from previous chickens. They do get a lot of antibiotics to prevent this, though.

Either way, I'm sure you can appreciate that a muscle dying in a living body is not the most pleasant of experiences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation#Animal_health_and_welfare_concerns


How should I alter a chocolate cake recipe to make plain/flavoured cake? I have a really good chocolate cake recipe. It's so good that I want to use it as a base for all my cakes. How do I alter this recipe to make different cakes like vanilla, lemon, coconut, etc.?

I tried converting it to a vanilla cake last night, but it came out too floury. All I did was replace the cocoa with flour.

Here are the recipe ingredients.

2 cups raw sugar
1-3/4 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup cocoa
1-1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1-1/2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
2 eggs
1 cup coconut milk
1/2 cup vegetable oil
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon almond extract
1 cup boiling water

There are several aspects of the chemistry of the chocolate cake being converted to a white cake that are not covered in the existing answers.

Fat content of cocoa powder

You cannot simply replace the cocoa powder with flour, because it compared to flour, cocoa powder:

Contains more fat (about 10-12 percent by weight, for grocery store brands; more for some premium brands up to about 25%)
Is more acidic
Is far, far more flavorful (okay, that part is not desired in a white cake)

You should use slightly less flour than there was cocoa, to avoid adding flour by weight equivalent to the fat in the original recipe which would throw the balance off.  I would suggest a half cup plus 2 tbls of flour instead of 3/4 cup of cocoa as a starting point.

Flavor balance

With the astringency of the cocoa removed from the recipe, the flavor balance may be too sweet.  You might want to try reducing the sugar by about 1/4 cup - 1/2 cup.

Acid and Leavening

The original recipe contains both baking soda (which requires an additional acid from another ingredient) and baking powder as leavening.

When you remove the cocoa, you are removing the acid that the baking soda was intending to react with.

Therefore, you need to remove the baking soda, replacing it with baking powder which brings its own acid.  You might need a slightly larger amount, as part of the weight of baking powder is the acid, so there is less leaving per unit than with baking soda.  I would suggest an additional 1/2 teaspoon as a starting point.

Boiling water

The boiling water is specifically intended, I infer from experience with many chocolate cake recipes, to bloom the flavor in the cocoa.  When you remove the cocoa from the recipe, you remove the need to use boiling water to enhance the chocolate flavor.

Furthermore, the reason water is used rather than milk or another liquid is to interfere less with the perception of chocolate flavor.  Therefore, you may choose to use another liquid like milk or additional coconut milk which will enhance the flavor and tenderness of your final cake.

Vegetable Oil

Vegetable oil is chosen in this recipe to avoid interfering with the flavor from the cocoa.

You may continue to use it, or you may find that butter or even coconut oil give a more agreeable flavor for the final product you are creating.

Method

With all of the above changes, there will no doubt be some changes to the method.  Since you have only listed the ingredients, and not the actual steps, it is harder to be specific here.

However, what will be left is a fairly standard sponge cake, so should modify the steps to the standard creaming method:

Sift the dry ingredients together; combine the wet ingredients other than butter and sugar
Cream the butter and sugar(s) together
Add in the eggs one at a time, beating until smooth.
Add the dry mix alternating two or three times with the wet mix, beating each time for 30 seconds or so
Beat one or two minutes longer to develop structure

Flavorings

For coconut, using coconut oil in lieu of vegetable, and more coconut milk in lieu of water, and adding coconut extract should do the trick.  The recipe should also be able to carry a small amount of shredded coconut if you choose, although that will change the texture.

For vanilla, try butter and milk instead of oil and water.  Add vanilla extract.

For lemon, start as with vanilla, and add lemon zest to the batter (and maybe lemon extract), and possibly, should you choose, a touch of yellow food color.  I would not add lemon juice as it has a profound effect on the chemistry; instead I would make a nice lemon icing or glaze that has the tartness.

Conclusion

Despite all of the above, I would not try to convert a recipe that is specifically designed for chocolate to a white cake; too many aspects of the cake will change.  Instead, I suggest finding a truly outstanding white or yellow cake recipe to use.

Just replace cocoa powder with good quality milk powder.. 1:1 ratio + 2 TBSP APF.
Hope this works for you, as it has worked for me.


Why are my dumplings made of evil? I made a fairly simple chicken-and-dumpling stew recipe; however, after one bite of dumpling, I have the most wretched aftertaste. The soup is fine; however, the dumplings taste totally nasty, kind of bitter and repulsive and a little like vomit (My fiancee describes it as "metal and bad"). If there had been anything in my mouth by the time that taste hit, I'd have spit it out instinctively.

The recipe calls for 1/3 cup Bisquick Heart Smart baking mix and 1/3 cup buttermilk to make the dumpling dough; I doubled it because I was making a large pot of stew. The stew tastes fine once I ditch the dumplings; it contained chicken broth (made from bouillon cubes), milk, cornstarch, cooked chicken, parsnips, carrots, celery, and onions. The dumplings were dropped by spoonfuls into the stew and cooked for about 7 minutes, as per the recipe directions. I have not made this specific recipe before. The consistency of the dumplings seemed fine; they were a little bland due to lack of seasoning, but otherwise all was well until that aftertaste hit.

What could have gone wrong? The buttermilk was purchased just a few days before, well within its expiration date (Nov 24th), and the baking mix had been used for pancakes earlier in the week (which were a little bland but not disastrous)

Spoiled buttermilk wouldn't give a metallic aftertaste, but I wouldn't expect old baking mix to do so either.

I would suspect that your box of bisquick is either contaminated, or you may have gotten a bad box. Sometimes manufacturing processes don't go right, so it might be that your box got far too big a portion of baking powder, or some other component of the mix. In the manufacturing process all the ingredients are supposed to be well mixed but it isn't unheard of for a clod to make it through the process intact. I'd throw the box out.

I use very few mixes or prepackaged food of any sort, as I absolutely love to cook and bake with fresh foods as much as possible. Chicken and Dumplings though is one thing I have been cooking for more than 30 years, and my family's absolutely most favorite of all my dishes. I use regular Bisquick (or Jiffy Mix, either one), and regular whole milk. Alternatively, during the winter when I don't get to the grocery store for a couple of months, I'll put about 2 teaspoons of dry milk powder into the center of the mix and then use water to make the dough. The soup or stew needs to have enough liquid to allow the dumplings to be resting in the liquid, or even mostly submerged (though not necessary). I let the meal simmer on low heat with the dumplings added, for about 3 minutes. Then I put the lid on the pot and continue to simmer at lowest heat for another 5 to 7 minutes (or until I see the dumplings are fully raised and cooked - or if you wish, test with a toothpick like you would a pie to make sure the center is done). When I serve the dish, I take some of the broth/gravy, and spoon it over the dumplings. In my opinion, so-called "low-fat" or "more healthy" is anything but "healthy". Remember, what they take out to make it "healthier", they add more chemicals in to make up for the loss.

EDIT:

I believe the odd taste was the combination of ingredients, the Heart Smart Bisquick w/ buttermilk. IMO, so-called low-fat or more healthy items are anything but "healthy". What is taken out to make items "healthier", chemicals are added in an attempt to make up for what was lost. I believe if whole milk and regular Bisquick or Jiffy Mix is used, the dumplings will come out wonderful. I posted my tips/recipe merely to perhaps help Yamikuronue to try and make them again


What's the ideal coffee to water ratio for a French press? What's the ideal amount of coffee to use per cup of water in a French press?

I've looked at various online resources, which all gave me a different amount. Some call for 2 tablespoons per 6 oz of water, others per 4 oz. Others said to use one or the other, and add water after brewing if it's too strong.

So what's the ideal blend for extracting the best flavor?

There's a whole, whole lot than can go into it, but a great starting place is a ratio of 17.21:1 water to coffee.  That is, if you have 500 g of water, you should use 29 g of ground coffee.  What the ratio really does is specify how concentrated the coffee should be.  Once you've set your ratio, there are many other variables to play with to make the coffee taste wonderful including grind size and consistency, bloom time, brew time, filter type, pour method, etc.

I wish I could post hyperlinks to all the individual videos of different french press techniques, but you can find them all at the wonderful site http://brewmethods.com   Specifically, please check out:

James Hoffmann's French Press technique
Mark Prince of CoffeeGeek demonstrates the Press Pot

Lastly, and please tell me if this isn't kosher, but I've made an iPhone app that will handle the coffee and water weight conversions automatically, as well as timing the brew and detailing a couple guidelines for different brew methods.  It's available on the app store as Brew Control.

I use a 1/8cup (30ml) scoop for a medium coffee cup.
Three scoops to fill the press for 2 full mugs.


Sourdough starter - will it set off my allergies? I'm very allergic to mold, among other things (all airborne, no food allergies). I also adore sourdough bread. If I were to make my own sourdough starter so I could bake sourdough regularly, would it a) be similar enough to mold to set off my allergies, or b) be likelier to attract mold than anything else in my kitchen?

Sourdough starter will grow mold if it starts going "off". If it's healthy, it will naturally prevent mold from growing, but if you forget to feed it for too long and/or the container it is in is dirty, it can start growing fuzzy stuff.

Feed your culture regularly, and transfer it into a clean container now and then, and it will be fine.

I’m severely allergic to Penicillium mold. In the folder that I was given, it says to not eat anything with a lot of yeast. Sourdough bread has a lot of yeast.


Is rare duck breast safe? Other forms of poultry are regarded as undercooked at the slightest sign of pink juices and yet it is common practice to cook duck so that it's medium rare. Is the risk of food poisoning significantly lower with duck meat than other birds?

On the other hand, if we could be sure that a piece of chicken could was salmonella-free, would its texture and flavor be improved by not overcooking it? I expect the sight of pink would put most people off but if one could overcome that, could it actually taste better?

Rare duck meat is safe to eat because it does NOT contain the same risk of Salmonella as does chicken meat.

Primarily because ducks, as mentioned above, have not traditionally been raised in the same squalid conditions as "factory raised" chickens - salmonella is a disease that is primarily transmitted through dirt/dirty unclean conditions.

Now, on the other hand, as more and more ducks are being raised in industrial conditions, they are also becoming more likely to contain strains of Salmonella.

Salmonella is a bacteria only found in the intestinal tract of chickens. No other birds contain this bacteria; if they do it is from cross contamination with chicken feces. Also, duck is not poultry,  it is fowl. Fowl flies, poultry does not.


Are there any health risks when making vegetable stock from kitchen leftovers? I have seen, that many people use kitchen scraps for making broth (eg. onion root and scraps) or that they just crush garlic, but still keep it in its skin or that people even do not peel carrots.
I am using slow cooking, but when I would be using these 'leftovers', is not there a risk of bacteria (from garlic skin maybe)?
Is it recommended to bring it to boil every time for a while? And even if it is boiled, there can still be toxins, that do not breakdown by boiling.
So is there any advice concerning that?
Is there a procedure, that should always be taken into consideration?

Simple washing (for carrots, or veg. you might peel) is fine, if you don't want to peel.  There is no problem using root vegetables without peeling either.  Stocks are typically brought to a simmer.  So, you easily mitigate any bacterial concerns.  Botulism toxins form in an anaerobic environment.  So, you don't really have to worry about using fresh, even unpeeled, root vegetables.   Of course, you need to adhere to general food safety, and have an awareness of "the danger zone."  So your stock needs to at least cook above 140F (60C), and then be cooled below 40F (4C) with two hours of completion.

I live in the UK and frequently don't peel a lot of my veg, just take off the outside of things like brussel sprouts and cabbages and cut any bad bits off root vegetables etc.


What temperature are dark beers (stouts and nut browns) supposed to be consumed at? I remember reading somewhere that certain beers are supposed to be drunk much closer to room temperature than most people drink them for optimal flavor.  Specifically stout beers and nut brown ales are only supposed to be "slightly chilled".  I think I read that the temperature for optimal flavor is around 55 ℉ (13 ℃).  However, most people I've met are shocked when I tell them this and swear by a nice cold one.  My own personal experience does seem to confirm the "slightly chilled".  Am I crazy?

No, you're not crazy.  You have good taste.  The reason for drinking darker beer like stouts and porters is for the flavor.  If they are over-chilled, you lose most of that flavor.  Don't obsess over it, but in general a lot of people serve dark beer too cold.

That said, you should drink your beer at whatever temperature makes you happy. There is nothing wrong with a nice cold pilsner or Hefe-wizen on a hot day.

in summer i like my XXXX cold,
my stout cool,
in winter i drink my stout room temperature.


What temperatures do low-medium-high on the stove correspond to? I'm quite suspicious that my electric stove runs hot.  Recipes that suggest medium-high on my stove are incredibly, incredibly hot and you can feel 'high' radiating heat from across the kitchen.

As such, I've semi-recently purchased an IR thermometer - what pan surface temperature should low, medium-low,medium,medium-high, and high approximately register as?

They don't correspond to a temperature, they correspond to a rate of heat input.

The elements in your oven are connected to a thermostat with regulates their temperature, they are really constant heat/fixed temperature devices, like the heat in your home. The oven turns the elements on and off to regulate temperature, but the elements are only ever ON or OFF.

The stovetop elements, by contrast, are variable heat/variable temperature. There is no thermostat, but the elements can be variably adjusted between MAX and OFF. For every setting the temperature will just keep getting hotter and hotter (unless something is removing the heat, like cooking food) - the higher settings will just get hotter faster.

The important thing to know (for an electric range) is the wattage of the elements - most 8" elements are ~2500W, and most 6" elements are ~1500W. But there is a lot of variability. Additionally, if you are living in a home with 240V power but have recently lived in an apartment (which likely had 208V power, but 240V elements installed in the oven, even if you didn't realize it), your heater elements will seem much hotter than before. It is also possible that the oven maker or previous owner installed higher wattage elements (perhaps by installing elements intended for a 208V service in a home with 240V service, which would have the effect of "turbocharging" them a bit).

Temperature measured with an IR thermometer may not be useful for you to determine if your oven is hotter than usual, since an empty pan on Low will still reach 400+ degrees (it will just get there slower).

What might be more useful is to find out what setting people do certain cooking tasks at, and see if that is different than what works on your oven. You can also remove the elements and find the voltage/wattage stamped on the bottom - let us know what those values are and we may be able to tell you if they are abnormally high.

Personally, I sweat onions on 4/10, fry an egg at 6/10, simmer soup at 2/10, and maintain 1 gallon water at a consistent, but not vigorous boil at 8/10.

Well I'm not sure what temp they can reach but I do know they can reach a temp high enough to melt down lead and leads melting point is around 620° f


How do restaurants make chicken fried rice? What ingredient am I missing? Everytime I try to make chicken fried rice like I get at the take out place it never tastes like it does when they make it. We all know the basic ingredients

Rice (1 day old),
Chicken,
Green Onions,
Sprouts,
Eggs,
Soy Sauce,
MSG (optional)

I have a wok and I cook it just like them, I've heard all sorts of things as to what the "missing" or "secret" ingredient is. Some say it's a different type of soy sauce (not the standard La Choy) that they use.

I've been searching for definitive answers for this for a long time. It seems no one knows or anyone who's worked in a chinese place doesn't wish to share the knowledge. I went as far as adding MSG thinking that was what made the take-out place's Fried Rice taste different. MSG helps (sold as Accent Flavor Enhancer in your spice aisle) but that's not it.

For me it isn't fried rice without toasted sesame oil, and the fried rice I have had in restaurants always tastes to me as if it contains toasted sesame oil. Peas are pretty required too. BTW, La Choy is synthetic soy sauce, it was at the very bottom of the America's Test Kitchen taste testing of soy sauce (sorry, paywalled), the only soy sauce to get a "not recommended" rating. Use anything but that. From that taste test: "In summary, could this be any worse?"

I actually fry the rice in toasted sesame oil, but I have reason to believe that some toasted sesame oils will burn at that temperature. To experiment with that is on my list of things to do. So I can only say that this sesame oil has a high enough smoke point to fry rice.

For whatever reason, the label does not say that this sesame oil is toasted. It is, and it's a very high quality oil.

Amazon Link

EDIT: In other answers, Pepi mentions ginger, and Teresa mentions oyster sauce. I second both of those. I always use ginger and garlic and either oyster sauce or hoisin sauce. Also, Cindy mentions salt, the eggs do need salt. I actually use all of these in my rice (which looks like this when it is done, this is mine):

I'm assuming already cooked meat, peas sitting in a colander defrosting, water run over them enough to rinse off any clinging ice, and day-old rice.

I start by making slightly underdone scrambled eggs, seasoned just like I season eggs that I'm eating for breakfast. I set the eggs aside on a plate and wipe out the skillet (or flat bottomed wok) with a paper towel, and let it get pretty hot. I don't attempt to use extreme heat, the same level of heat I'd use to sear chicken works fine for me.

I add a good pour of the sesame oil, perhaps 1.5 tablespoons for two big servings (like the amount of fried rice in the picture above), let it heat for 30 seconds or so, then add ginger and garlic and stir. Then I add whatever veggies I'm using in the order of how long I want them to cook (all veggies except peas). When the veggies are just about fully cooked to to the level I want them in the rice, I add the rice, breaking it up and stirring in the veggies. I lightly press everything into the bottom of the pan, then I don"t touch it for a few minutes. I want the rice to get a bit of a brown crust along the bottom and to get mostly heated through before stirring again. This adds color and flavor, and helps keep the rice from sticking. This step seems to bridge the flavor gap between the the rice made with the super-high-heat that Asian restaurants can achieve, and the more moderate heat of a typical home stove.

In the meantime I mix my sauce. The proportions are up to taste, I usually go about half and half soy sauce and hoisin or oyster sauce. Less soy if is is dark, more if it is light or reduced sodium. I'll usually make just shy of a cup of sauce, knowing I won't use it all.

When the rice has formed a crust, I stir in the meat. Then the sauce, a bit at a time, tasting as I go. Finally I stir in the peas and eggs. I garnish with some chopped cilantro on the plate. Voila.

You mention Five Spice. That would be interesting, and possibly very good, but it is not a flavor that I associate with fried rice.

You are missing the sugar! For 1 serving add 1 tsp. sugar to wok before you add the rice, also 1 tsp. sugar to the wok after you add rice and soy sauce, continue cooking 1 minute on high heat then you will have authentic Chinese fried rice!


Creating a home "anti-griddle"? I watched a restaurant documentary last night (Spinning Plates; pretty good!) which featured a modernist chef demonstrating their kitchen's anti-griddle: essentially a large metal plate chilled down to somewhere around -40 degrees (both F and C, oddly enough).  It's used to chill and freeze foods that can't be frozen at normal freezer temperatures like olive oil, a bit like dipping or dropping into liquid nitrogen.  I've never been much of a fan of molecular gastronomy, but I was absolutely fascinated by this idea, as I'd never seen anything like it before.  I'm compelled to give it a try.

The official, professional version of this machine runs about $1200 USD, so that's completely out.  These guys created one using a cast-iron skillet submerged in liquid nitrogen, but I'm not buying a massive container of that either.  This site suggests that similar results can be had at home by placing a sheet pan on top of a block of dry ice, which sounds more reasonable, at least from a financial perspective.  I obtained an estimate for a 10-inch x 10-inch x 2-inch slab of dry ice (about 10 lbs) for $15 USD.  EDIT: Responses to date also suggest using a bed of dry ice chips.  I'm checking to see if there's a significant price difference, as I'll probably be trying the cheapest method for my first go.

However, before I embark on what sounds like a chemistry lab demonstration in my kitchen, I thought it best to seek some advice.  Specifically:

Has anyone actually tried this at home with any success?  You'll get automatic bonus points for being braver than I.
Are there particular hazards that I need to be aware of during this exercise in applied insanity?  Let's assume that I can guess at some obvious ones like "Don't touch the dry ice with your hands" and "Let the frozen items warm up a little before you eat them".
Would a slab the size of the one described above last long enough to let me experiment a bit, or would it simply sublimate down to a useless size within a matter of minutes?
If anyone's actually worked with a professional-grade anti-griddle before, would a home hack like this produce similar results, or am I just fooling myself?

I look forward to any input that I can get, because I'm really excited by the novelty of this idea!  Feel free to completely dash my hopes.

EDIT: Great suggestions so far, thanks all!  I'm keeping this open for now since I haven't seen any definitive answers based on experience with this method, and I'll add my own answer once I can give it a try.

You can get better cooling with less dry ice by using a cooling bath.
Chunks of dry ice mixed with isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol, isopropanol) will give you a liquid with a temperature of -77°C (-106.6 °F). The liquid will transfer heat to the botton of a metal dish far more efficiently than solid or granulated dry ice.

Just add raw salt to frozen simple ice in 20:80 ratio mix both and properly crush 20% of the ice into smaller pieces.
Place all contents properly mixed into an metal container which can be sealed. As the ice will melt along with salt, gas will form and the metal touching the contents will give you minus 30 degree. You can use it as anti-griddle.
All costs below 20 dollars. Happy anti griddling .