Simplest solution:

Buy a more sensitive scale.

There's plenty around that can measure grams.

If that's not an option, you can sort of just about get it quite, but not completely wrong by using measuring spoons: A full teaspoon with something in it is usually around 5 grams.

A quarter teaspoon would be 1.25 grams, if you happen to have a 1/8th measuring spoon, it would be around 0,6 grams.

I'm not very proficient in baking (or not at all, really), but what I notice (or think I noticed) is that correct measurements in baking are more important than they are in cooking.

So the best advice would still be (since you're baking a focaccia) to buy a more sensitive scale.

Convert it to volume.

You can easily google the density of yeast or olive oil.

When I did it for yeast

I found that there's about 2.8g per tsp.

So, a heaping 1/4 tsp is about 1g.

I also found that 5g of olive oil is about 1.1 tsp.

The site I found is here: http://convert-to.com/

You can measure a power of two, and then divide.

For instance, you measure 15 grams, which is almost 16, and then you halve it, halve one of the halfs, etc., four times: you end up with one gram.

Or measure 30 (almost 32) and halve five times.

A decimal gram scale is a lot more affordable then many people think.

I have this one ( https://www.amazon.com/TREE-KHR-3001-Kitchen-Scale/dp/B01HKK4GYS ) and it is great.

It's accurate to .1 gram and measures up to 3 kg.

Another option that's used often in analytical laboratories for the same reason: stock solutions!

Since you want to use fairly cheap ingredients, you can create a "stock solution" (in water 1 ) and measure that with much more accuracy.

In your case, you can measure 10g

each of salt & yeast, mix them with 80g of water to make 100g of a stock solution 2 containing 10% by weight salt and 10% b.w. yeast.

You can then measure 10g of this with fair accuracy and add it to your dough, effectively adding 1g each of salt and yeast.

The main downside of this method is that you are wasting salt & yeast to make the stock, but seeing as they're both fairly cheap

I don't see it as a dealbreaker.

The other point of attention is that you're adding a bit of extra bulk ingredient (8g of water in the above example), which you might need to take into account at some other point.

Footnotes: 1:

You can substitute water for flour, or any other bulk ingredient, however solid ingredients require very careful & thorough mixing for the above method to work 2: More accurately it's a dispersion as yeast doesn't really dissolve

Question: Yesterday I was cooking a Focaccia were I required just a gramme of yeast and a gramme of salt.    When I try to use my (electric) scales, it never registers 1 gramme of difference. I also needed to weigh 5 grammes of olive oil, but i could not take out the exact quantity.  What can I do to measure very small quantities whilst cooking?

How can I measure / weigh really small quantities?

A more sensitive digital gram scale is quite affordable and could measure this amount, or you could use the volume equivalent using measuring spoons. In some cases, you can measure multiples of the amount and then divide until you have roughly the right weight.

A sensitive scale is the best option for measuring small quantities. However, if this device is not available, you can use teaspoons. Other methods include converting the weight to volume and measuring a larger quantity and then dividing the amount appropriately, i.e., measure 10g and divide into 5 parts to get 2g.

To measure small quantities, buy a sensitive scale.

You ca measure small quantities using teaspoons.

Measure a larger amount and then divide it accordingly.


Until the salt is dissolved, you will always have the problem of separate grains.

It seems that your potatoes are not moist enough for it to happen on its own.

And salt won't dissolve in fat.

My suggestion is to choose a liquid - and it can be water, if you insist on staying vegan

, else dairy is the typical choice - and dissolve the salt in it.

You don't need much, a teaspoonful may be enough.

Once you have the salty liquid, mix a small amount of potatoes into the liquid until dispersed.

Then add a bit more, repeat, using larger and larger portions of mashed potatoes, until all is mixed.

This will give you an even dispersal of the salty taste.

I make both vegan, vegetarian (ovo/lacto), and standard mashed potatoes in a few different ways.

My favourite way to add salt is to use seasoned stock or demi-glace.

There are great vegan and vegetarian options here (including homemade).

You can also grind your salt (assuming it's kosher or sea salt) in a burr grinder, or crush it in a mortar and pestle.

Alternative is to use pickling salt, which is ground extra finely to simplify the pickling process.

Smaller grains will dissolve in the potatoes faster.

I've also seasoned garlic as it roasted, and included that with olive oil (instead of vegan or regular butter).

Season roasted garlic is pretty tasty, and the heat + roasting does pretty well in dissolving the salt.

I find that olive oil is pretty great in potatoes as a simpler alternative to any form of butter.

Add more salt to the water you boil the potatoes in, or generously salt the tops of the potatoes while they are in the steamer.

Just like pasta, the boiling water is one of the best ways to get flavor into the item.

Unlike pasta, with mashed potatoes you get the ability to add flavor later as you mash, so you can choose salty things to add if you weren't able to get enough salt into the potatoes while boiling.

Try heating the butter and truffle oil and add the salt to that.

If it does not dissolve then no harm done.

You can add additional water until the salt dissolves.

Look for a vegan butter with high water content.

Soy milk and other vegetable based milks have fairly high water content.

As pointed out in comments I am aware NaCl

is does not dissolve in fat as fat is not polar.

On the butter it is a package deal.

The truffle oil needs to get mixed in so why not mix it in early and it will mix easier hot. Or start with moister potatoes then cook off liquid to get to the desired moisture.

It sounds like you're cooking with rock salt or salt flakes.

Just use regular shaker salt.

It tastes exactly the same (at least once you've mixed it up in the food) and it'll always be fine enough to mix in immediately.

Not sure how your vegan butter is composed, but could you dissolve the salt into that first?

Alternately, you could whiz your salt in a spice grinder or use a mortar and pestle to create a finer grind.

Question: I am trying to find a way to mix salt into my mashed potatoes without having unpleasant bits of salt appear in each mouthful.   I usually steam them with their skins-on, before mixing in salt, and vegan butter with a touch of truffle oil.   I have tried:   Whisking the salt into the vegan butter before mixing them into the mash. But I can still taste bits of salt in the mash.  Whisking salt directly into mashed potatoes. This is even worse than 1.

How to dissolve salt into mashed potatoes

Try dissolving the salt into the butter and truffle oil, or adding more salt when boiling/steaming the potatoes. Alternatively, you could grind your salt finer before adding it to the potatoes at the end.

If you put more salt in the water when cooking the potatoes, you will not need to add salt to the mash. However, when adding salt, to avoid grains in the mash, you can dissolve the salt in a little liquid or oil or, alternatively, use very fine salt or grind your salt before using.

Dissolve salt in a little water or in the oil and butter to avoid grains in the potatoes.

Add more salt to the water when cooking the potatoes.

Use a fine grain salt or gring your coarse grains.


If this is an oilstone (which is considered old fashioned exactly because of these issues), an oft-mentioned ultima ratio remedy is boiling it in soapy water.

YMMV, this could destroy the stone.

If you know what exact type (eg arkansas)

your oilstone is, research instructions specific to that stone type.

If it is a waterstone, abrading the stone - with a flattening plate, diamond stone, another waterstone until unaffected material is brought to the surface is the recommended method.

My uncle used a dry stiff wire brush to remove crud, then dipped the brush into a pail of sudsy water and scrub it again.

Then use a cloth with clean water (well wrung out), a dry up with a clean cloth, and a final dry wire brush on any remaining spots.

I think the best way to clean a old whetstone with lots of buildup would be to rub it on a flattening plate, which also has the advantage of flattening your whetstone.

On a whetstone for use with water you use a nagura stone.

There are natural and artificial nagura, cheap ones and expensive ones.

The nagura is harder than your whetstone.

You rub it on your whetstone in between sharpening your knife whenever you feel the surface of your whetstone is loaded (clogged) with particles.

It abrases the surface of your stone, thus cleaning its surface while also creating the slurry, the mix of water and whetstone particles needed for a less aggressive, more regular sharpening of a knife.

Here ’s a YouTube video of cleaning a stone and creating a slurry with a nagura.

While Bar Keepers Friend is a great cleaner with many uses, it is NOT great enough to clean an ultra-fine whetstone.

I use three grades of whetstone surfaces between two stones to do my sharpening jobs:

Coarse, Fine, and Ultra-Fine.

Coarse and Fine are on a single bastard stone, and Ultra-fine is a smaller dedicated stone.

The cleaning problem is presented by the ultra-fine whetstone; it remains clogged by particulates and discolored by impurities, the colors of which range from the expected shades of grey to suspicious sticky brown.

Boiling with detergents did not help.

Lye (potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide) did.

Two caveats: Do NOT allow it ANYWHERE near aluminum (it acts as does acid), and use VINEGAR (acetic acid) to neutralize it.

Lye works greatly on lots of things, especially when it comes to deposits involving extremes of heat and time, but it should be used with great care.

The reasons why "excessive" bathing was generally regarded as unhealthy was understandable—considering people over a century ago were horribly ignorant regarding chemistry and physics.

(nobody thought to bathe with vinegar after applying lye soap)

Question: I prefer a whetstone to a "steel" for knife sharpening. Over the years my whetstone has become loaded with steel particles from the knives. As it is basically 13 % chrome stainless steel it is not easy to dissolve. It is immune to nitric acid and hydrochloric is very slow , if at all . Any ideas for cleaning a whetstone ?

How to clean a whetstone?

You could boil an oilstone in soapy water, or scrub it with a dry stiff wire brush dipped in a pail of sudsy water. However, the recommended method would be to use a flattening plate, diamond stone, nagura stone or another waterstone to bring unaffected material to the surface. A flattening plate will also flatten your whetstone in the process.

How you clean a whetstone depends on the type of stone. If it is an oilstone, soapy water, scrubbing and rubbing are recommended. If, however, it is a waterstone an abrading stone or nagura stone  are the cleaning methods of choice.

Soapy water, scrubbing and rubbing on a flattening plate are methods of cleaning oilstones.

Waterstones should be cleaned using an abrading stone or a nagura stone.


Buy or make fresh bagels and store them uncut in a plastic bag with the air squeezed out of it in the freezer for up to one month.

When you want to prepare a "like fresh" bagel, run it briefly under water

(I used filtered water) so that the outside crust is damp but not soggy.

Wrap it tightly in foil with a small vent, 1/2" long by 1/8" wide, on one side and heat in a 400°F oven (I use our toaster oven) for about 15-20 minutes, depending upon how cold your freezer is.

The bagel will be as soft as it was when it originally came out of the oven and the hot oven will cause the crust to crisp through the foil.

Don't let it over bake or it will be rock hard though.

I understand this is kids, and they like things just the way they like them.

But preheating an oven takes time you might not have.

For me I'd defrost overnight in the fridge, then in the morning split and toast them.

To get closer to fresh-baked I'd turn the oven on to a lower temperature (no more than about 150°C/300°F) and put them in almost immediately for 5--10 minutes having just brushed or flicked water on the outside.

If you really want to take them out of the freezer in the morning, 10--30s (for 1 or 2, if doing more try 30s, rearrange, 30s) in the microwave before putting them in the oven will get them defrosted or well on the way.

Preheat your oven to medium heat, approx 350 F or so, pass your [uncut!]

bagel quickly under running water (i.e. don't soak it), and pop it into the oven for a few minutes, like maybe 5.

Bagels go through a boiling phase anyway, when they are made, so a little water contact on their outer surface won't hurt them.

I sometimes do this if I feel really fancy: Put them into the microwave for a little while (like 20s at 600W for each piece).

This will make them soft in the center.

Follow up with a couple minutes in the oven with the top heating element turned to full blast.

I actually do this in the microwave as well because mine has a regular heater on top as well.

I put the bagels on that riser thingy I got with the microwave, like the one you can see in the following picture:

So I actually do this all the time, because my local bagelery only makes pumpernickel on Fridays, so I buy a bunch and freeze them.

In fact, I am about to do this in a few days for our traditional Christmas Morning Bagel Breakfast.

After experimenting with several different approaches, this is the one I've found to work best: Storage : As soon as they are cool, wrap each bagel in aluminum foil

(I suggest also labelling what flavor it is with some tape and a sharpie), and then put up to 6 bagels in a ziplock freezer bag and freeze.

The tightly wrapped foil retards freezer-burning, and is useful when you reheat.

Reheating : place the frozen bagels, in their foil, in a 300F/150C oven, which needs not be preheated.

After about 15-20 minutes (20 to 30 if not preheated) the bagels should be thawed and warm.

Remove from the oven, unwrap, slice and eat.

The above technique will get you as close as possible to having a fresh-from-the-baker bagel.

As you can see, though, it might not be ideal for a school morning just because of the amount of time required.

Don't try to speed up thawing with a hotter oven, because that will result in your bagels getting excessively dry and hard.

Question: My kids like their bagels like they just came from the oven or the bagel bakery with a crisp crust and soft chewy center. However, it is not practical to make bagels or buy bagels in the morning on school days. What can I do with a frozen bagel to mimic fresh out of the oven?

How to refresh a frozen bagel

You could defrost them overnight in the fridge before splitting and toasting them in the morning, or put them in the oven for 5-10 minutes at  about 150°C/300°F after brushing or sprinkling water on the outside.

Defrosted bagels can be either toasted or baked in the oven. The oven-baked bagels are more similar to fresh bagels.

The easy way to prepare bagels in the morning is to split and toast them after defrosting overnight.

To get a result closer to a fresh bagel, put them in the oven after splashing them with a little water.


That really wouldn't work.

With steaming the water is heated to boiling which creates steam.

Since the food is colder, the steam condenses on the food which transfers heat to the food.

With hot oil there is no boiling and vapor of the oil.

So in an enclosed container it would be more akin to baking, the hot oil heating the air, than steaming.

(There would be some oil in the vapor above hot oil, but not enough to transfer much heat.)

Another factor here is pointed out by user "Lorel C" in another answer.

Cooking oils tend to decompose and smoke before reaching their boiling point.

If you could get oil to boil without smoking, then "steaming" in the boiling oil vapor would be very close to frying in oil, but at a temperature much above what is normally used.

Also as user "yo" points out in a comment below , the bubbling that you see when frying something isn't the oil boiling.

Rather it is the water coming from the food that is vaporizing.

I have never heard of anyone "steaming" vegetables using oil instead of water.

Placing them in a metal frame above hot oil would not be as effective as cooking them surrounded by steam (from water).

The hot oil would need to be boiling .

According to https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_boiling_temperature_of_cooking_oil_palm_oil_Any_reference Q & A on cooking oil , "The exact boiling temperature depends on how pure the oil is.

The boiling point for palm cooking oil is estimated in about 300 C (or 572 F).

" That kind of temperature seems like overkill for vegetables.

Also the smoke point for cooking oils is lower than their boiling point, so it would be messy, unpleasant (with all that smoke in the kitchen), and, judging from the comments contributed by others, it would be extremely, crazy -dangerous as well.

As already said, this wouldn't work at all with any normal fat.

I'd further emphasize that it's really quite dangerous:

fat can spontaneously ignite when heated substantially over the smoke point.

And if you drop anything water-containing (like one of the pieces of vegetable) into hot fat, the water will boil with a sudden violent expansion.

When the fat is already aflame, this can result in a literal fiery explosion.

(The reason why fat fires must never be extinguished with water.)

That said, if you use a pure, saturated, short-chain fatty acid like lauric acid , you could get this to work because it chemically withstands the 300°C needed to get it boiling.

These vapours would then indeed “steam” your vegetables.

It would not actually get the vegatables to 300°C because the water content has a high heat capacity; a lot of fatty vapour would need to condense on the surface to even reach 100°C.

I reckon the result would actually be more like soaking the vegs in a cold deep-fryer, which is then heated up slowly.

If you'd do it long enough, the water would eventually evaporate, after which the temperatures would go up much higher – the food would eventually be dry-singed.

Pure lauric acid isn't toxic, but it would probably impose a soapy/waxy taste on the food.

You can, but the oil will smoke before it boils and the oil will require a lot of heat to actually come to a boil.

It's possible, but really really inefficient.

According to that article it would also be dangerous.

Most importantly, from an objective standpoint, you would heat the oil up too much and ruin the flavor.

Your vegetables would not taste good if you did this.

I'm assuming that you're just looking for cool ways to cook stuff at this point.

You should try roasting things with sand or salt.

The youtube channel cookingshooking has a lot of videos where the host cooks things like pizza without an oven using salt in a pressure cooker.

This would cook your vegtables well in a unique way.

If you want your vegtables to be coated in a little bit of oil then you can just sprinkle oil on them or toss them in a bowl with oil to coat them.

Even if you could steam oil without it combusting, it wouldn't transfer nearly as much energy as steam does.

Water has an obscenely high specific heat, just around 4.

Here Oil has a specific heat around 2, depending on the type of oil.

Here, Table 6 it takes approximately one crapload of energy to turn water into steam.

That energy is still in the steam as it rises, and is transferred to anything that it touches.

That is why steam has a such a high scald hazard despite being 'only' 100 C. Oil, with its lower specific heat, would not transfer energy as efficiently.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66523/Monica Apologists Get Out

Yes, you can "steam" using oil.

When you steam with water, the hot water condenses on the cold food and transfers the heat.

With oil, you mist the food with oil and then heat the air.

The oil transfers the heat to the food.

It's called "air frying." https://www.buzzfeed.com/michelleno/philips-airfryer-review

You can in fact.

It would not be practical and traditional streaming methods are more precise and less dangerous however, when frying particularly moist foods (like fries) especially in large quantities, steam is produced.

This steam isn't enhanced with flavor and there really isn't any benefit to doing it this way.

Which is probably why it isn't.

Possible to do this safely in an atmosphere without Oxygen, but it would still taste bad.

As other answers mention, the smoke point is lower than the boiling point, so food cooked in oil vapor would taste horrible.

By removing the Oxygen, you won't prevent smoking.

But you will reduce the fire hazard.

One method to do this, and prevent other reactions between the hot oil and the air, would be to remove all the normal air from a room and replace it with a much less reactive Helium.

For obvious reasons, this is not a frequently used cooking method.

When someone does this, it will make a great youtube video.

Perhaps the food will taste good too.

Question: Can you cook some foods just placing them in a metal frame above hot oil? In the same way as steaming vegetables, but with oil. Is that a thing?

Steaming with oil instead of water

This would be possible in theory in a room without oxygen, but in a normal environment the oil would smoke before coming to a boil and would require a lot of heat.

Water is considered the better option for steaming food rather than oil. Oil can, in fact, be used but it is less efficient than water. Using oil in a helium atmosphere may make the practice safer.

It is not possible to steam food using oil instead of water.

It is possible to steam food using oil instead of water but it is less efficient. You could do it in an atmosphere of helium rather than oxygen.


Generally , you should use unsalted butter.

You can always add salt to your unsalted butter, but you can't take it out if you want it less salty!

If it's just being melted on some vegetables, then salted butter is probably fine.

However, different brands of salted butter have different amounts of salt added, which makes it difficult to know how much total salt is going into your food.

This is more problematic in baking.

It's possible to easily oversalt or undersalt just by using a different brand — leading to unpredictable results.

By using unsalted butter, the only salt remaining in the recipe is what you have added, and you have more careful control over the outcome.

If you need to substitute one for another, you can estimate how much salt is in salted butter and adjust your recipe accordingly.

If you are not sure whether a particular recipe calls for salted or unsalted, look for clues.

Is there additional salt in the recipe?

(If not, it may expect some salt from the butter.

If so, it may expect unsalted butter!)

How old is the recipe?

(Newer recipes tend to assume unsalted butter.

Older recipes tend to assume salted butter.)

Where was the recipe written?

Different cultures assume different butters (and salt levels may vary between countries for salted butter!); I will not give an exhaustive list here, mostly because I don't know, but it's worth researching.

If you have the time, interest, and money, you can try making the recipe twice (once with salted, once with unsalted butter) and see which tastes better.

This is a bigger investment, though, so only worth doing if you really want to get the recipe as good as possible.

It does matter, using salted butter changes the salt content of the dish, which will change the flavor.

It probably won't greatly affect the chemistry of a dish aside from that, however.

In my experience it's much more common to see unsalted butter in recipes, so I almost always default to unsalted if the recipe doesn't specify.

If they meant salted butter

and I use unsalted, I can usually fix it by adding salt.

The only real advantage of salted butter is its longer shelf life.

Good question!It depends on the dish being made.

Easy rule of thumb: Savory/seasoned as a main dish or meat = salted butter Sweet, fruit or greens heavy = unsalted Also

- you can make melted/browned butter easily, by slowly melting the butter

so you have a stable cooking medium.

This may be somewhat country-specific.

Here in the UK, sweetness levels which may be considered normal for the US palate are generally considered overkill here.

Using salted butter can provide a balance to the flavour which is missing in unsalted butter.

Adding salt separately can solve that problem, of course.

But with salt levels being relatively consistent in butter over here, and with most people who do use real butter as a spread using salted butter, my experience is that UK recipes are more likely to assume salted butter unless otherwise stated.

In the UK, if a recipe just calls for "butter", it is asking for salted butter.

This is because historically all butter was "salted butter", with "unsalted butter" being very expensive before the advent of refrigeration due to its low shelf life.

Additionally, the majority of products labelled "butter" will be salted butter, with the unsalted butter being explicitly labelled "unsalted butter", e.g. Compare the marketing of major brands in the UK in their use of butter vs unsalted butter: http://www.kerrygold.co.uk/home/products/ https://www.arlafoods.co.uk/brands/butter-and-spreads/

https://www.dairycrest.co.uk/brands/butters-spreads-oils/country-life/ Here is another source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/301909/leading-brands-of-butter-in-the-uk/

What's interesting is that, with the prevalence of internet-based recipes from the US and other English-speaking countries, the term "salted" is now being applied to plain old "butter".

e.g. I remember about 5 years ago Sainsbury's started calling butter "salted butter", which confused my partner at the time as she just wanted "butter", thinking this was an extra salty butter.

Salt and butter have two very different functions.

Using them together does not allow you to control them separately.

For example, if you need more fat but the dish is already salted, you need butter but not salt.

Therefore, if you want to be as accurate as possible, use unsalted butter.

Just a note on all of this - it is not necessarily just about the taste.

A few people have touched on the shelf life, which also makes a difference.

Salted butter is designed to last longer, therefore when doing things like baking - where you want to use the freshest ingredients for a better result - you should always use unsalted, because it will be fresher.

(Especially true when making "challenging" things like pastry).

If it's a recipe for homemade bread they say it's best to use unsalted butter because salt tempers yeast activity, therefore, theoretically, using salted butter would raise salt content (slightly) and possibly lengthen rising time, lessen oven "blooming", and up the finished saltiness of baked bread.

Regardless, I don't find it makes that much difference, for bread baking anyway.

There is no such thing as unsalted butter .

Butter is just made of milk, without salt or any other additive.

If you add salt to it, it becomes salted butter, which is a different thing than butter.

That said, the word "butter" can sometimes refer to salted butter in some countries like the UK.

In countries like France, butter is normally sold unsalted, and salted butter is considered like butter with an additive (salt).

So if the recipe needs butter, just take what is the default in the country of origin of the recipe book.

If you don't know, just take unsalted butter, it's always easier to add salt afterwise than trying to desalt your butter :-).

Question: When recipes call for “butter” but doesn’t specify “salted” or “unsalted”, which should I use? Does it matter?

Should I use salted or unsalted butter if the recipe doesn't specify?

This depends on the dish being served, but while salted butter can add a balance to the flavour, it gives you less control over the amount of salt you are adding. Generally you should use unsalted butter, but in applications like melting butter on vegetables, salted is usually fine.

It is generally considered correct to use unsalted butter in a recipe unless salted is specifically stated. However, this custom may be country-specific. Unsalted butter allows you to control the amount of salt in a dish. Salted butter may be fine in some recipes.

Generally, unsalted butter should be used as it allows the amount of salt in a recipe to be controlled accurately.

Salted butter changes the flavour in a dish.

Using salted or unsalted butter depends on the dish. Salted butter melted on some vegetables is fine.

Using salted and unsalted butter may be country-specific.


Yes, it's true that bananas are radioactive, however, the amount of radiation that you get from eating a banana is negligible.

It's also true that eating too many bananas can kill you, but if you manage to eat enough bananas to get radiation poisoning, you're going to die from something else long before potassium exposure comes into the equation - like, say, the death penalty after murdering the next person to bring a banana within 50 miles of you.

Source https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Bananas are on the left, third from the top.

To better communicate the scale, the top legal (i.e. totally negligible) radiation dose for US workers is equivalent to eating 500,000 bananas/year.

There is actually a unit of radiation exposure measurement called the Banana equivalent dose .

Suffice to say, there are about a thousand other sources of radiation in your day to day life that you should worry about before how many bananas you eat starts to become a real concern.

You can safely eat as many bananas as you please, at least, from a radioactivity standpoint.

In addition to the answers explaining that bananas do contain radioactive potassium, but in small amounts, it's also worth noting that your body maintains a fixed amount of potassium through metabolism .

So even if you somehow manage to consume 5 million bananas, your body won't actually be exposed to 5 million Banana equivalent doses of radiation.

While it's true that bananas are unusually radioactive (which actually means very slightly), you should keep in mind that all plants and animals are radioactive.

For people, about half of our intrinsic radioactivity comes from the potassium in our bodies, and about half from the carbon-14 which we all carry around.

As for safe quantities, that's pretty simple: about 4 liters (9 pounds or so).

But this has nothing to do with radioactivity - it's the approximate maximum capacity of the normal human stomach.

Eating more than this runs the risk of tearing the stomach and dying.

The question of banana radioactivity has sparked the creation of the Banana Equivalent Dose of radiation.

It's about 0.1 μSievert.

Since it takes about 5 to 7 Sieverts to kill an adult human, the lethal dose (radiation) for bananas is something like 50 million bananas.

And it's even harder to kill somebody that way than that rather silly number suggests.

The body has a fairly comprehensive and efficient set of mechanisms for keeping things in balance, and excess potassium is typically excreted within 24 hours.

Although, admittedly, the changes needed to support the ingestion of 50 million bananas would almost certainly cause other changes in the (formerly) human body, and any discussion of associated effects become pure speculation.

Yes, bananas are radioactive .

They contain potassium, and a small part of this comes as a radioactive isotope 40 K.

The dose of an average banana is (rounded up) around 0.1 μSv.

Other potassium-rich foods also naturally contain 40 K, e.g. potatoes.

There is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Our natural environment and cosmic radiation means our bodies are constantly exposed to radioactive material, but just in trace amounts.

If you were to somehow actually take all that radioactivity into your body you would be dead long before the radioactivity became an issue.

The radioactive element is potassium--and potassium chloride is used as an execution drug.

In practice your body maintains potassium levels at the right amount (too little is also deadly), eating more bananas simply means more potassium in your urine.

Besides, I have a jar sitting here next to me.

It's far more radioactive than a banana.

It's meant as food, though:

When people compare the radiation received from other sources with the radiation from eating a banana, the point of the exercise is not to say that eating bananas is risky.

It’s to say that the radiation level you’re exposed to from from things like nuclear power is safe, and you shouldn’t worry about it (or about eating bananas).

Yes, but it's extremely small.

Bananas do have a very small amount of radioactivity, but as showed by the chart linked in another answer, it's a really small amount, compared to the amount you are exposed to by being around everyday items/doing everyday activities.

You would need to eat several million bananas in a short time span to actually suffer ill effects/

die, which we all know is basically impossible.

The bananas would've probably killed you some other way.

Basically, don't worry.

Well, yes to both, up to a point.

All things are radioactive - radioactive isotopes occur in minute concentrations in nature, so stones, trees, water, air, and indeed fruits are radioactive, and it can be measured too, but only because our instruments are very sensitive.

Life has evolved in this environment for ~4 billion years, and it is clearly not enough to harm us.

As for the second question - if you will forgive the tongue-in-cheek answer - anything will kill you if you eat too much; that could be concidered the definition of 'too much'.

But I think you will have to eat an incredible number of bananas, and it won't be the radiation that kills you, but the overeating.

Question: Is it true that bananas are radioactive, and if you eat too many it can kill you? If yes then how many bananas are good to eat at once.

Is it true that bananas are radioactive?

Like all plants and animals, bananas are radioactive, but this level is so low that it would take millions of bananas to kill you.

Bananas are slightly radioactibe but they are safe to eat as you would need to eat 50 million to suffer adverse effects from radiation.

Bananas are slightly radioactive but they are safe to eat.

All plants and animals are radioactive and the amount of bananas you need to eat to suffer ill effects is 50 million. Death from overeating would come first.


I find that a silicone spatula is frequently better at getting the pan clean than a stiff spatula like a wooden one.

If your rice is slightly burnt into the bottom, you might have to use both - scratch it off with the wooden spatula, then collect with the silicone one.

Other things you can try: add a tablespoon more water at the start reduce the cook-time by 2 minutes let the rice sit for a minute or two with the lid on, sort of "steaming in its own juices" The idea is that if the rice is just a bit damp, it won't stick.

Try putting a spoon of fat (oil, butter, etc) in the beginning... it will melt and coat the rice/bottom of the pan.

I used to always have some rice stuck to the bottom of my pan when I moved into my new home with gas stoves instead of electric.

This trick works very well, and now my rice all comes out of the pan clean and easily.

When making sticky-rice

I use a rice cooker with a non-stick surface on the inner pot.

This works tremendously effectively.

If you are using a frying pan with a non-stick surface then my immediate reaction would be that the contact point heat is too high.

My second reaction would be to make sure you were rinsing your rice before cooking it (this helps with the extreme stickiness issue)

Cook it in the microwave.

It never sticks because the heat is applied evenly throughout.

Place one cup of rice with one cup of boiling water in a glass bowl with a tablespoon of oil.

Heat on full power for 6 minutes.

Stir the rice, add another cup of boiling water and heat for another 6 minutes.

Then fluff it up once finished.

Once you cook it this way you will never go back.

I guess it depends on what you expect from your rice, but my recipe is this: Heat up a pot with some (not too much) oil until the oil is quite hot. Put some volume of rice into it, and vigorously scrape/mix it with whatever large implement you have around (big spatula).

Smell it a lot.

At some point the rice will start to roast (ever so slightly), it may smell like nuts or something like that.

As soon as that smell changes, put in two volumes of cold water.

Let it get to boiling and immediately lower the temperature until it stays at an almost-boil.

Stir occasionally (like every few minutes).

Let it cook until the water is about gone.

For whatever reason, the rice never sticks, at least not more than can easily be swooshed off with a spatula (without any force, without getting any black burned residue).

I usually do that in stainless steel pots (very smooth surfaces).

Occasionally I do it in a big wok with a noticeably rough surface, and there it works the same.

So it should also work in a pan.

I have not tried it in my cast iron pan.

I'm going to go contra to pretty much all the advice so far, but this is how I've been cooking rice for 25 years...

Clear-lidded pans make this far less guesswork.

Don't use a frying pan, use a heavy-bottomed saucepan with a tight-fitting lid, 3 times the volume of your finished rice.

Don't rinse the rice, you don't need to.

Use your coolest, most even burner - this is not necessarily the smallest.

Sometimes the tiny ones generate bad hot-spots that a medium one wouldn't.

Boil the kettle.

Pre-heat the pan on high.

Add rice to your pre-heated pan.

Salt as required.

Immediately add 1.75 x the volume of water, not double.

That should immediately hit a rapid boil because of the pre-heating.

Stir once, just enough to ensure the grains are separated.

Drop the heat to minimum [on gas

this is near instantaneous, you might need to wait a second on electric]

Put the lid on.

The contents should foam almost to the top but not go over - lift & replace the lid if it looks like it will go over, otherwise leave alone.

Simmer at this minimum temperature for 12-15 mins [depends how low you can get the heat]

Don't lift the lid to "see if it's done".

Learn when it's done by repetition. '

When it's done' btw, is when all the water is gone; you might be able to hear a slight crackle as the last bit dries.

After the required time, switch off the heat, leave the lid on.

Allow to rest for another 15-20 minutes.

Fluff briefly with your spatula; no great effort should be required at this stage.

Serve.

The rice will be separate & fluffy, none will be stuck to the bottom.

This works for pretty much any rice type - long grain, basmati, or short-grain, glutinous [short grain, of course, will not separate in the same way].

I agree with the suggestion of adding a very small amount of oil.

I pay attention to the taste and freshness of the oil I use, however small the amount, it influences the taste of the result.

Sticking rice usually happens because of a very high cooking temperature.

Your pot should be slightly boiling with the cap closed.

Let it cool and it won't stick, then you can scrape it out with a spatula rather easily.

Do what sushi chefs do when cooking rice, which is to use something like cheese cloth inside the cooking pot.

I bought one specifically made for rice, it's big enough to fit inside the pot folded over the rice and the water.

AS the rice cooks and the water boils away, the net catches all the rice.

When the rice is cooked you grab the ends of the netting and pull the whole thing out of the pot.

voila, all the rice in the net.

Question: Often when cooking rice a lot of it ends up sticking to the bottom of the pan and gets wasted. I'm using a frying pan with a non-stick surface. Is there a way to get all the rice out of the pan easily?

How to get all the rice out of the pan?

Use a large, heavy-bottomed saucepan on your coolest, most even burner, and add a tablespoon more water or some fat at the start. When the rice is done, let it cool and then remove with a silicone spatula. Other options include not rinsing the rice before cooking, placing the rice in something like cheesecloth in the pot or cooking the rice in the microwave.

Several tips can help prevent rice sticking. These include adding oil or fat, cooking on the lowest heat and leaving the rice to stand when cooking is finished. Moreover, a frying pan should not be used and the rice should not be rinsed. However, there are some othe cooking methods to avoid the problem, such as the microwave and cooking the rice in a cheesecloth.

There are several tips for preventing rice sticking to the pan. These include scraping with a spatula, adding oil or fat, cooking on the coolest heat and allowing to stand after switching off the heat.

To prevent rice sticking do not use a frying pan and do not rinse the rice.

Use alternative cooking methods such as the microwave or a cheese cloths as sushi chefs do.


There are several terms which you can use, depending on the context of writing (or speaking).

A very simple one is "the starch".

It is mostly used in the context of meal planning, such as "What starch are we going to serve tonight" or "When planning a vegetarian meal, it is best to first decide on the starch and then select sides that complement it".

"Grains" or, mostly interchangeably, "cereals" is what academic specialists for nutrition and diets use in their jargon.

If you read a textbook on nutrition, that's where you will find breads, etc.

There, the context makes it clear that the word doesn't mean simply uncooked kernels.

The nonacademic literature on dieting is more likely to use "carbs" - see Chris H's answer for more detail on that usage.

In legal language, for example rules and regulations about food product labelling, or import and export regulations, you will frequently find phrases like "grain products".

Since none of these terms is unambiguous, outside of these genres of writing you will probably have to go for something more descriptive, for example "foods made from grains" in a colloquial conversation.

A broader category, including things like potatoes, would be carbs (carbohydrates).

This is a common category when considering feeding for exercise, and tends to mean starchy foods.

It's not a perfect term as "carbs" strictly includes sugars, but the carb component of a meal is the (usually fairly plain) bulk accompaniment to the tasty bits.

Since all of those, specifically (even the bread) are derived from cereal grains, they are generally referred to as "grains."

Any food made from wheat, rice, oats, cornmeal, barley or another cereal grain is a grain product.

Bread, pasta, oatmeal, breakfast cereals, tortillas, and grits are examples of grain products.

Grains are divided into 2 subgroups, Whole Grains and Refined Grains.

Whole grains contain the entire grain kernel ― the bran, germ, and endosperm.

Examples of whole grains include whole-wheat flour, bulgur (cracked wheat), oatmeal, whole cornmeal, and brown rice.

Refined grains have been milled, a process that removes the bran and germ.

This is done to give grains a finer texture and improve their shelf life, but it also removes dietary fiber, iron, and many B vitamins.

Some examples of refined grain products are white flour, de-germed cornmeal, white bread, and white rice.

US Department of Agriculture: What Foods Are In the Grains Group?

Starch

I've heard it called the Rule of Three - protein, starch, vegetable.

The first thing that came to my mind is that these are "staple foods."

In other words, and especially for what you specifically mention, these foods constitute the basis of diet for a group of people.

Of course, they're also starches, carbs, sugars, etc.

The term "grains" is commonly used to referred to the 'processed' food as well as the 'unprocessed thing'.

People often refer to 'eating grains', and they very rarely mean the unprocessed seeds.

I've also seen 'grain foods' used where there might be confusion.

The term " farinaceous " might be appropriate, especially when used as " farinaceous dishes " that include other ingredients.

The corresponding noun " farina " isn't quite equivalent.

"Farinaceous" seems to be rare now but was more common in the 1800s .

The examples you've given are all from the grass family and they're examples of cereals.

But if you included peas and beans, those are legumes or pulses.

But if you also included say potatoes then these are often called carbs.

It's unclear which way you want to categorise.

If you want to reference the main bulk of some meal which a previous answer has called the carbs, I often call this the filler of a meal.

The term carbs can't really legitimately be used e.g. if your filler is a pulse such as kidney beans which has a high protein content so isn't just carbs.

Again, bread is a filler but contains protein, carbs and a bit of fat.

Or you have say dumplings which are another filler, this time often with a relatively high fat content.

Question: I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the English language stack exchange but here goes:   We have broad classifications like "Fruit" and "Vegetable" and "Meat"/"Protein". What do you collectively call bread, rice, pasta, cereal etc. My first guess was "Grains" but that feels like referring to the unprocessed thing rather than the food.

What are things like Bread, Rice and Cereal collectively known as?

Since these all come from the grass family, they are commonly called grains, cereals or sometimes farinaceous products. They can also be referred to as starches, staples or carbohydrates.

Starch, grains or cereals are the terms considered by most people to apply to bread, rice and cereals. Other terms include carbs, staple foods and farinaceous foods. In legal language, they are known as grain products.

Starch, cereals and grains is the term usually applied to the food group that includes bread, rice and cereals.

Other names for this food group include staples, carbs and farinaceous.

In legal language bread, rice and cereals are known as grain products.


If an egg is already cracked then it will almost certainly split open when boiled, there's no way to avoid it, it would be best to cook them using another method.

Be aware that once eggs are cracked they no longer have protection against microbes, if you don't know how long they have been cracked it may be best to throw them away.

I use Egglettes ™ to boil my eggs.

You simply crack the egg/s into a silicone cup and place it/them into boiling water.

Without wishing to seem like a crappy infomercial (see below), I find it a heck of a lot easier to crack an egg into a cup than I find it to peel eggshells off of a soft-boiled egg.

Obviously it makes no difference if the egg has already sustained a recent crack (from being dropped onto the surface, for example) since you're removing the shell prior to cooking.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way affiliated to Egglettes other than being a customer

Adding salt in the water helps as well.

There are multiple theories on why this works.

Osmosis direction

The egg white will become solid when getting in contact with the salt water and basically it will close the crack again.

Boiling point difference

You can choose to poach the egg.

The egg is cracked into a cup or bowl of any size, and then gently slid into a pan of water at approximately 75 Celsius (167 °F) and cooked until the egg white has mostly solidified, but the yolk remains soft.

The "perfect" poached egg has a runny yolk, with a hardening crust and no raw white remaining.

I don't have any experience with this

but I would imagine you could cook it until the yolk hardens along with the whites.

You can boil cracked egg safely just use 2 table spoons of white vinegar.

Put White vinegar in boiling water and then gently put the egg in the water and let it boil.

Egg will not come out of its shell.

You can also make egg poach.

Click here to understand about egg poach

Believe it or not, you can put some Duct Tape (like gaffer tape - heavy tape) over the crack, and away you go.

(I'm not sure why anyone would bother with this - boiled eggs which have some white "poking out" are fine -

but there you have it.)

It's possible to boil an egg with steam.

This usually requires an additional device.

The eggs are put upright and won't split open since they are not exposed directly to the hot water.

If the egg's been cracked for a while, just throw it out.

Even though the boiling process should kill anything growing in it, good sense says it's not worth the risk.

If the egg gets small cracks when you put it in the water or while cooking, it's perfectly fine.

In my experience, the heat will quickly make the outer layer of white solidify as it cooks, which will lock everything else inside, crack or no.

The worst I've ever seen happen from cooking an egg that cracked early on is that little bits of white escape and get cooked in the water, giving it a cloudy look.

I've eaten many eggs that cracked while cooking and never had any problems.

You can "steam" the egg instead.

use a separator/sieve to suspend the egg above the boiling water in the pan.

It will take longer than boiling to completely cook the egg.

Question: If we boil an egg which already has a crack on its shell before boiling, it will break and spread into the water. In many cases if we put an egg into hot water it will crack also. So, is there any safe method to boil an egg like that, or should it be fried or cooked in another way?

Is there any method to boil a cracked egg without making a mess?

If an egg has been cracked for a while, it may not be safe and should be thrown out. Otherwise you can add vinegar or salt to the water, use another method like steaming or poaching or use Egglettes to cook the eggs.

If an egg has been cracked for some time, throwing it away is considered sensible. However, you can boil a cracked egg by adding salt or vinegar to the water, applying Duct Tape to the crack or boiling the egg in Egglettes ™. Alternatively, a different cooking method can be used, like poaching or steaming.

If an egg is cracked it is better to choose a different cooking method and not boiling. Poaching or steaming are possible cooking methods.

If you wish to boil a cracked egg use one of the folloiwng tips: add salt or vinegar to the cooking water, use Egglettes ™ to cook the egg or place Duct Tape over the crack.

It is better to throw away an egg that has been cracked for some time.


It's possible to get specialized equipment for this: a plunger measuring cup.

The base is adjusted to the level you need to measure, the sticky honey or syrup is poured in, and then the cup is upended and as the base is pushed in, it scrapes the sides as it travels.

I'd only invest in this if you very frequently measure sticky ingredients

-- it's not strictly necessary, but it can be a timesaver for some recipes.

It's available from many different brands.

As, since this answer other suggestions have abounded, let me clarify.

These methods assume you want no wastage & also no cross-contamination of your source jar of the sticky component.

They also require almost nothing in the way of 'extra equipment'.

Depending on what the next steps to your recipe are, I can think of three alternatives.

None are perfect and each would suit a different scenario.

Tip it and leave it a long time.

Heat it slightly.

Microwave or sit the container in hot water. or my favourite, Rinse it out with the next liquid ingredient

you will use in the same recipe; or for a spoon, stir your existing ingredients with it.

Your concern is NOT getting the measuring item clean.

Your concern is ensuring the right amount of ingredient goes where it is desired.

If you have decent accuracy digital kitchen scales (relatively cheap usually but may depend on your location), you can measure by weight.

If you need to determine the weight by measure of your sticky substance, start with these steps: Place the measuring item (spoon, cup whatever) on the scales.

Tare the scales to zero.

Scoop quantity of sticky substance.

Measure on scales, and note the number.

Once you know how much the desired measurement should weigh (you can also look up these numbers online or in many cookbooks): Place destination bowl on scales and tare to zero.

Add sticky substance up to the desired weight.

What I do, if the recipe calls for any sort of oil, measure that first, then the honey slides out pretty well.

It's not a perfect solution, but using two spoons and scraping one with the other you can get the majority of the syrup off the spoons relatively quickly.

Silicone spatulas are quite good at cleaning hard vessels well.

Combine that with a small enough measurement - so don't measure 50 ml of honey in a 1000 ml cup, use as close to 50 ml as this gives you a better ratio of volume-to-wall-surface - then scrape with the silicone spatula, and it will be almost as clean as licked. For getting the cup clean afterwards, wash with hot water, not merely warm.

Heat the utensil.

For a spoon, fill a coffee cup with boiling water, and drop the spoon in there for 30 secs or so, or for a measuring cup, just fill it with boiling water before measuring out the honey/syrup.

The heat will reduce the viscosity making it pour off the spoon/out of the cup better.

I've found that a light spray of cooking spray on the spoon or in a measuring cup will make measuring any sticky substance very easy.

Rub a tiny amount of neutral oil onto the measuring cup prior to measuring.

Why not put the honey pot on the balance instead and take your measures at reverse?

That's what I do.

Convert all measures to CC's and then use syringes.

Different syringe for each ingredient.

Minimizes waste, and they come sterile.

Water on your spoon will help, I found that when I put peanut butter into my drink in the morning and used a wet spoon from the draining board that it is considerably less sticky.

In the case of honey or syrup, buy a squeezy bottle, and measure out the amount by placing the receptical on a balance and squeezing until enough comes out.

The bottle can be rinsed out and used again and again.

I also buy glass jars of honey (much cheaper than squeezy), and decant that into the squeezy bottle.

Question: When I put honey in a spoon or measuring cup, the residue stays and it’s hard to get all of it out. How do I make it all come out? Is there a way to measure honey without leaving honey on a spoon?

How do I get something sticky like honey or Golden Syrup off measuring spoons or measuring cups? Is there a better way?

If the recipe calls for oil, measure this first or coat the spoon with oil or cooking spray. Heating the spoon or coating it in water can also help.You can also use a second spoon or a spatula, or convert to CCs and use a syringe.

There are various ways to get sticky ingredients out of a container. It can be scraped out using two spoons or a spatula or you can put some oil or water into the container first so the sticky substances comes out easier. However, it is also possible to avoid the problem all together by using syringes for measuring sticky substances.

Use syringes for measuring sticky substances.


You can pretty much substitute coffee with roasted grain coffee-like powder of any brand you like.

It works as a drop-in replacement in drinks and foods really well.

After all, coffee is just a roasted grain, too.

If you need instant coffee, one that dissolve in water or baked goods, I know for a fact that Inka brand makes instant roasted grain "coffee" that can be used as substitute.

I don't know about other brands quality, but you can try ones found on Amazon .

I personally prefer ones with sugar beet and chicory, some brands also use dandelion.

Additions are there to emulate coffee better, to make taste more rich and complicated.

Basically, if it tastes good and is bitterish enough, it'll work.

I'm not affiliated with linked sellers.

It is just an example.

If it's primarily a chocolate recipe the coffee is there to add flavour.

You may be able to simply omit it.

I would generally replace it with the same quantitity of (unsweetened) cocoa powder as otherwise the recipe may be a little too sweet.

If you find the overall recipe lacking in flavour after that, try more cocoa or adding a tiny bit of a compatible flavour, for a different but still good effect.

One thing that works well with chocolate is vanilla, another is ginger (though too much and it will dominate - good, but not what you asked for).

If the espresso powder is dissolved in liquid before adding, you can use liquid extracts to replace some of the liquid (but be careful what you buy if you also avoid alcohol as many who avoid coffee do).

This gives you slightly more choice, as you can use a little almond extract, or even mint, or replace the liquid with orange juice.

Of the flavours I mentioned, the almond and the vanilla would be best for just adding a subtle bit more flavour, while the others are conventionally used with chocolate in some recipes and ould go well, though change the end result.

If the recipe is a mocha recipe, or there's a lot of coffee in there, I suggest looking for a similar recipe with no or less coffee.

This is always an option.

It won't be coffee flavored (maybe that's not a bad thing), but what about ground black cardamom?

I have yet to try it (I am ordering it shortly), but Alton Brown has updated some of his old recipes.

His updated chocolate syrup uses black cardamom to enhance the coffee syrup.

From his description in the episode, it sounds like more of an herbal compliment, unlike espresso powder's enhancement of the bitter flavors.

See new recipe here .

I fully plan on playing around with black cardamom and chocolate.

Chaga mushroom powder has a similar flavor profile to a lot of coffees and is also super good for you.

Coffee is a roasted cherry pit, not a grain, so I'd avoid those.

There are a lot of acidic and tannic qualities in brewed coffee, so even a black tea powder may work well!

Like another poster said, it's really just to add depth of flavor to the chocolate.

Barley Cup was the go-to instant coffee substitute back in the day - roasted cereal and chicory in an easy-to-use powder.

Artificial coffee flavour seems like the right solution for your problem.

Question: I see Espresso Powder frequently in chocolate-based baking recipes. I've done some searching here (and elsewhere online) for potential substitutes, but have only been able to find other coffee-based substitutions.  For  religious reasons  I would like to avoid coffee products. To clarify - caffeine is not the issue, but rather the coffee bean itself.  What are some effective substitutes for espresso powder in chocolate-based baking recipes (e.g. brownies) that do not contain the coffee bean?

Please suggest a substitute for espresso powder which is not made from coffee

You can substitute coffee with different kinds of roasted grain powders such as Barley Cup or artificial coffee flavour, omit it and add more cocoa powder or use a different flavour like ground black cardamom or Chaga mushroom powder.

Coffee is not a grain but it is often replaced by roasted grains in cooking. Other options to be considered are black cardamom, black tea, chaga mushroom powder and artificial coffee flavour. In some recipes, on the other hand, it may be possible to omit it altogether and replace with extra cocoa.

Roasted grains are considered a good substitute for expresson powder. However, coffee is not a grain so the taste may not be similar.

Expresso powder can be omitted in most recipes or additional cocoa can be added in chocolate recipes.

Other alternatives to coffee powder include black cardamom, chaga mushroom powder, black tea and artifical coffee flavouring.


Very, very carefully.

Although that's rather tongue in cheek, it's true: slowly and carefully is the key approach.

The quicker you try to move, the rougher the shape you produce.

You also significantly increase the chance of breakage.

Make an initial rough hole at the center point of your eventual window area, and then cut out to finish the edges.

A serrated knife used with a slow, steady sawing motion should work.

Luckily, if you do end up with lopsided, misshapen, or unexpected results, icing and candy decoration can help hide the mistakes :)

Serrated knife is the best choice and was what I was taught to use in my baking class.

What @Erica said is right, slow and steady.

If the pre-bake is too tough and dry then a possible fix is to add steam to the area you are cutting the window to both sides to soften before cutting (assuming you didn't attach the piece to something already).

You can boil some water and then set the piece above it to soften or even fill a bowl with water then put the cookie above the bowl in the microwave (microwave

may over cook cookie!!!!)

(don't let the water touch the cookie)

Try not to use anything other than a serrated knife if possible.

But if you are trying for a small window then you may have to create room for the serrated knife with a pairing knife before hand just try not to use it too much if at all.

Pairing knifes often will put lots of pressure on and make it easy to crack the brittle cookie.

If it does crack, fill it with thick-ish consistency royal icing (watch out if you steam it after adding royal icing it may and probably will fall apart) and let it set before trying to deal with it more (unless you wanna try to cut out the window first then glue it together with icing).

If money (and complexity) is no object, laser cutting creates the best finish.

A friend of mine created a fantastic gingerbread 'mansion', all of the pieces for which were cut from large slabs of gingerbread she baked.

The difficulty in your case would be calibrating the laser to cut in the right place on your pieces.

This is obviously not a practical solution for most people, but should nevertheless be mentioned

I'd propose the carving approach: With just the very tip of a pointy knife, draw the lines where the window should be Carve a thin layer of gingerbread away from the inside of the window to the line you made.

Re-cut the outline of the window to get a sharp and straight edge Repeat carving out the inside of the window to the edge

The reason for this approach is that sticking a knife through the gingerbread to cut out any shape first adds material to the gingerbread that is not flexible enough to accomodate the knife without breaking.

By pre-cutting shallow lines and then carving the inside out you only remove material, lowering the chances of breaking your gingerbread.

I would start not with a knife, but with a cookie cutter.

If you dont't have a square cookie cutter, choose something which has at least one straight side, but is smaller than the full window, maybe some kind of triangle.

Cut that out, then use the tip of a knife to cut out the other straight sides.

Question: We have a gingerbread kit that we would like to add windows.  What is the best way to cut into the hard gingerbread without breaking?

Cutting windows into a premade gingerbread

Laser cutting would give the best result , but otherwise it is best to cut with a serrated knife, possibly starting with a hole cut with a paring knife. Alternatively, you can cut a hole in the middle, score around the edges with a paring knife and cut lines from the centre to the edges with a serrated knife.

The technique for cutting windows in a gingerbread house is to make a whole in the centre of the window and cut towards the outside. A small, pointed knife is required to make the hole and a serrated knife for the cutting. Steaming the area where you want to cut may make the job easier. Invest in a laser cutter but that is probably expensive.

Make asmall hole with a pointy knife then cut from the centre to where you want the edges to be.

Use a serrated knife for the main cutting.

Use steam to soften the gingerbread in the are you want to cut.


This might seem silly

but, . . .

I use my fist.

I always cover my chicken with plastic wrap to contain the mess before I pound it.

You can also glove up instead/as well.

I have found that punching it is just the right amount of force for the job.

And the uneven surface of my knuckles acts as a meat tenderizer and breaks up the tissue just a little.

(But not too much.)

Anything flat, non-breakable, and reasonably heavy would work: rubber mallet, rolling pin, flat-bottomed wooden bowl, etc.

I would suggest protecting the meat and implement from one another with plastic wrap.

Put breast between baking paper, roll like dough with a rolling pin.

If you have any spices/herbs/salt/pepper to add you can sprinkle then mid rolling as this will push them inside meat.

Put it between two plastic sheets, or inside of a zipblock bag big enough to accommodate the smashed size of the breast.

Then you're going to want to grab a skillet and beat that meat into submission.

Cast iron is the classic here, but anything you can swing will work.

Just make sure the skillet isn't hot or warm when you start assaulting that meat.

I've been known to cover with plastic wrap, lay my chef's knife flat along a piece of chicken, and then hit the flat of the blade with the heel of my hand.

Obviously, stay away from the sharp / pointy parts; but that is easy to do with a big chef's knife.

I typically only do this

when I have one or two pieces of meat that need tenderizing (as anymore will tenderize you back!)

We designed ourselves a wooden block (remains from a 2" laminate floor joist) about 8" by 8", drilled a hole in one side, and screwed in a handle.

When we use it, we wrap it around and around with plastic wrap to keep the meat clean.

We would then use this as an intermediate, placing the chicken breasts underneath it, and pound it with a 3 lb sledge hammer.

Though it sounds a bit extreme, it is actually quite effective, works quickly, and does not damage the meat.

I've seen my mother use a Corningware plate or saucer in place of a meat tenderizer.

She would just hold the plate sideways and pound out the meat with the edge of the plate.

Iron Skillet (or another heavy pot/pan) Cutting board Rolling pin - really easy if you have the French tapered kind Big can of tomatoes...

An empty wine bottle A pool ball (the kind you use on a table...not in the water!)

Bon Appetit!

First off, you'll definitely want your chicken between two sheets of plastic.

You can either do this with two sheets of plastic wrap, or by putting it in a gallon ziplock bag (don't seal it though).

The best alternative tool to use is a rolling pin as it's got no sharp edges (will break your plastic and can cut the chicken in half) and has weight and length to aid in leverage when whacking.

Not everyone has a rolling pin, so if you don't just grab the largest heaviest can of food you have and slam it into the chicken.

I wouldn't use any beverage cans, and especially not anything carbonated like soda or beer.

I actually have a purpose built meat tenderizer and prefer using my rolling pin.

I have used a cast iron skillet against a cutting board.

Plastic wrap or parchment paper to protect the surfaces...

Question: I do not have a meat tenderizor. I want to fry my chicken breasts but need to pound out the meat. What can I use instead?

How to pound chicken breasts without a meat tenderizer?

Anything heavy, flat and non-breakable would work, like your fists, a rubber mallet, a rolling pin, a flat-bottomed wooden bowl, a cast iron skillet, a pool ball etc. Protect your surfaces and the meat with baking or parchment paper, and place the meat on a cutting board.

Two techniques are considered useful for tenderizing meat: rolling and hitting. For rolling a rolling pin is the tool of choice, but a wine bottle or pool ball are other options. For hitting select from a mallet, cast iron pan or your fist. In all cases the meat should be placed between sheets of plastic or parchment.

Numerous heavy items can be used in place of a meat tenderizer, including rolling pin, mallet, empty wine bottle. There are two approaches: rolling and hitting. Carbonated beverage cans should not be used.

The meat to be tenderized should be between sheets of plastic or parchment.


I don't think that it is really necessary to use your knuckles.

Rather, there are ways to knead dough well, and ways to knead dough badly.

I have seen ineffective people pinching the dough, or turning it between their hands, or other strange motions, which in a cargo-cult way resemble actual kneading, but don't do anything useful.

My guess is that whoever writes such instructions has learned a correct way of kneading that involves the knuckles, and writes down the admonishment to remind people that they have to do it right for the recipe to work well.

The reason for the choice of label may be because the author is unaware that there are effective kneading methods which don't use the knuckles, or because the author has taught new kneaders and has found out that "use your knuckles" is a good cue to get them to use the right kind of motion.

A third possibility is that the author is referring specifically to the punching down step of a double-rise bread process.

In that case, the motion between the first and second rise is not the same as standard kneading, and maybe the author wanted to underscore the difference.

This may not be the primary reason

but I have hot hands and my knuckles are noticeably cooler than my palms or even the insides of my fingers.

It's less of an issue with dough than with pastry

but I still find that kneading with my palms makes the dough sticky compared to using my knuckles.

The writer is telling you a method for kneading.

They can't the skill level of the user.

This is from my knowledge not books:

Fingers only give 8 points of impression, which is a small area.

Fingernails can leave bacteria.

Although some modern cooks weargloves to protect food.

Using fingertips can cause injury to fingers nerves.

It is a more efficient to use knuckles.

It is less likely to remove gloves stuck to the dough (wrappingfingers tightly into a fist helps to hold gloves on) This way a camper in the woods as well as a chef with nice equipment can get the same results.

Maybe knuckles impart more force compared to just using extended fingers (or the palm of your hands) when kneading the dough ?

I assume the "use knuckles" step is when you punch the dough after the first rise; it is just easier.

It might be intended to make kneading easier on one's wrists, especially for persons with weak wrists or joint problems.

When you knead with your palms, they are bent close to 90 degrees backward, which puts additional stress on the joints and ligaments.

When you knead with your fists (knuckles)

your wrists are (or should be) straight, which allows you to apply more force without stressing the joint.

This will be especially beneficial if you knead a lot of dough (or for long time).

Question: Some recipes specify that the baker's knuckles should be used when kneading the dough. What is the purpose and effect of using one's knuckles as part of the kneading process?

What is the purpose and effect of using knuckles when kneading bread dough?

This is probably not necessary if you have another effective method, but kneading with the knuckes could be more efficient, easier and less painful than using your fingers or the palm of your hand.

Correct technique is important for kneading bread. This may or may not be done with your knuckles. However, using your knuckles is easier and more efficient and beneficial for people with weak wrists.

It is not essential to use your knuckles to knead bread. The correct technique is more important.

Using knuckles to knead bread is more efficient as more force can be used. It is easier and may help people with weak wrists.


Apple juice is good with pork.

The frozen cans of concentrate are cheap and perfect for this use.

Apple juice lacks the dark notes of cola.

To get those I propose you add hoisin sauce .

It is very sweet, a great mix with pork (I have some boneless ribs soaking in some right now awaiting the grill) and will lend the apple juice more of a dark sweet tone.

If you want to stay pure to your recipe, sub in one of the organic root beers on the market.

They are easy to find and they will brag about how they don't do the stuff you dislike about Big Cola.

Whole Foods has a store brand one you could use.

Root beers vary a lot; try some first to make sure it has flavors you want for your pork.

The main function that soda adds in these recipes is as a flavored syrup that also has an acid.

So make your own.

Add your preferred sweetener to water with some form of acidulation (I prefer apple cider vinegar with pork) and a few spices and you will have something suitable to use.

I learned a recipe for a chicken dish from my mother.

Her recipe also called for cola to create a sticky and caramelised sauce.

She taught me, however, that the cola could be replaced with fruit juice.

Her preference was a mix of pineapple, mango, and orange juice.

Shops where I live call this juice mix "tropical fruit" juice.

It stands to reason, though, that any of the above juices individually, and maybe others, will work, too.

Here's an example of a recipe similar to what my mother taught me, supporting my claim of the juice helping to create the property sought by your question

What about something like Hansen's ?

It's available at the local store here in Nowheresville,

MN population

so it shouldn't be too hard to find.

The flavors in Coke are cinnamon, vanilla, and citrus.

I personally taste cinnamon the most.

Dr. Pepper has a lot of other spice and berry flavors, and is similar to root beer.

You could try to recreate the cola taste by using apple cider vinegar and adding cinnamon, vanilla, and molasses.

Depending on how much time you have, how often you would like to use this (or similar) recipes, how much you like the idea(s), and how involved you want to get...

you could try making a cola syrup recipe*.

You could even reconstitute it with club soda, or carbonated or sparkling water, or use water, a sprinkle of yeast, and some time to turn your syrup into a cola you can directly sub into the recipe.

This does require a much higher up-front investment, but it might be fun on one hand, and work for other recipes (and, yanno, drinking sodas) on the other.

*example link was randomly chosen

Question: I was looking up sweet pork recipes and every one of them call for Coke or Dr. Pepper.   I avoid soda as much as possible because of questionable ingredients: specifically GMO corn syrup, sodium benzoate and caramel color.  Are there any safer substitutions I could use to achieve the same/similar flavor?

What can I substitute for soda pop in a sweet pork recipe?

You can try making a cola syrup or substitute with fruit juice, root beer, apple cider vinegar of a mixture of apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, vanilla, and molasses.

Alternatives to cola include fruit juices and root beer. It is also considered while making a recipe of your own with sweetener, apple cider vinegar and cinnamon.

Fruit juices are a good substitute for cola in cooking.

Root beer is a natural substitute for cola in cooking.

Try to recreate a similar taste to cola with a recipe of your own, using, for example, sweetener, vinegar and cinnamon


Thai curry recipes often use a lot, and the flavour is distinctive.

You'll need to experiment.

Your idea of cashews is a good place to start.

What I've often used in Indian curries is ground almonds (almond flour would be better but I can't get it easily).

They have some thickening power and quite a suitable taste.

You could also try cooking with nut milk - I've only done this a couple of times because it's not something I normally have, but recently used some almond milk in a sauce with lentils etc.

It ended up with a fairly creamy texture.

This was a brand marketed for cooking and a little thicker than I've come across before As an aside, I hope you've had medical confirmation of the allergy

- it's not exactly unknown for these things to be deceptive.

Substitutes have been mentioned already, but how about going the other way?

There are more curries without coconut than there are with it.

Many many curries use an onion base for thickness; coconut is a Southern Indian/Sri Lankan twist on what is a continent-full of cuisine.

Look down the even just the standard sauces of any take-away menu...

Bhuna Madras Vindaloo Jalfrezi Rogon Josh Dopiaza Pathia Dansak

The list goes on... & not a coconut in sight.

Or for more variety, how about Ethiopian Wat, or a Moroccan Tagine?

For Thai, have a look at a Jungle Curry - again, no coconut.

I don't know much about Thai curries but there are plenty of Indian curries that are broadly similar to coconut-based ones but with sauces made with cashews and other nuts.

Typically, you'd want to soak the nuts for a few hours and then blitz them into a puree, or just use a nut butter because life's too short.

Indeed, there are many Indian curries that don't use coconut or any other nut.

Coconut is basically a south-Indian thing and being allergic to coconut doesn't stop you eating Indian food, just like being intolerant of pasta wouldn't stop you eating European food.

I suggest you get yourself a good Indian recipe book.

I'm a huge fan of Camellia Panjabi's 50 Great Curries of India , because it has a pretty long introductory section that explains what all the different ingredients are for, which is really helpful when, for example, you can't eat coconut

but you want to make something similar.

We cooked a lot of vegan at home for some time and often used soy cream as substitution for sauces that demanded cream.

It has a unique taste, but I do not find it unpleasant.

It has about the same thickness as coconut

and I think the taste is also quite fitting for curries.

As others mentioned, some almonds or cashews could enhance the experience.

In Germany, I usually find this soy cream in the vegan/non-dairy aisle next to the other soy products.

As we do not know exactly what you allergic to (you said coconut but it could be coconut milk, an additive in the milk or coconut in general), I will make some extra suggestions: 1)

You might be able to try adding natural coconut flavouring to the already mentioned nut milks (cashew or almond).

This might tip the scales in making an Indian style almond based curry taste like a Thai coconut milk based curry.

If you are allergic to everything

coconut

then you could try Imitation Coconut Extract which shouldn't contain any coconut.

Again, this might tip the balance on the other nut-based milks.

You could try adding gorse flower extract.

I have never tried it

but I do know from roaming the coastlines and moorland of Devon , that gorse smells a lot like coconut.

It is edible , is common year-round and according to eatweed.com , has a subtle coconutty taste.

I see no reason this could not be added to a curry to infuse further coconut tones.

Finally, if you are allergic to all coconut, here is a quick and helpful guide to replacing all coconut ingredients .

I can only speak to south indian curries.

I don't have a substitute for coconut but you can certainly make a great curry without dairy or coconut added to the mix.

You can make a delicious sauce from just water and emulsified fats combining with your choice of spice meats and veg.

I have only experience with meat based dishes

so this may not work out for any vegetarian attempts.

Meat releases fat and water when covered and heated.

After I sauté the veg (typically ginger, garlic, onion), I add the meat which has been marinating in spices and oil (or just dry rubbed with spices).

I cover the pot and keep the heat on high for a few minutes until I see water appear at the bottom of the dish.

Then I reduce the heat to med low and leave it covered for 30 mins or so.

Over time more water and fat is released and the meat should be practically swimming.

From there I simmer uncovered for as long as I need to thicken the mixture.

This also concentrates the flavors.

Chicken stock also can be added.

Even plain water.

You'll also get water from watery veg like tomatoes.

I'm pretty sure you could add kool aid if you wanted to.

Most of the flavor comes from the spices and chillis.

North indian and Pakistani food uses a combination of onions, tomatoes and ginger garlic paste to form the curry base.

First you fry some finely chopped onions until they turn golden brown, then add about a tablespoon of ginger garlic paste, finely chopped tomatoes and the spice powders (chilli powder, turmeric etc.).

You let that cook stirring from time to time until the tomatoes turn into a slurry.

That's your curry base!

There are many videos on youtube that show you how to make this in case you want to see it in more detail.

It's also possible to substitute yoghurt (curd) for tomatoes.

Question: I'm allergic to coconut - this is a new allergy, so I really miss Thai and Indian curry! I also have issues with dairy.   Would it work to use roasted cauliflower puree as a curry base instead of coconut? Maybe with a little raw cashews pureed to add creaminess.  Are there other options to satiate my dreams of curry without coconut or dairy milk?

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Many Indian and Thai curries do not use coconut at all, so you could try some of those recipies. Alternatively, cashew, almond, soy and some other options can be used, either soaked or as milk or butter. You could also try gorse flower extract.

Nuts are considered a good substitute for coconut in curry. It may also be worth trying gorse flower extract and soy cream. However, there is a wide range of recipe for curry without coconut, so no substitute is needed.

Coconut can be replaced by other nuts such as cashews and almonds in curry. Other options are soy cream and gorse flower extract.

Many curries do not use coconut so there are numerous recipes available.


The answer it seems is - no, you can't just use any variety of corn .

It seems that you need in particular a hard shell around the kernel that is not present in sweetcorn varieties.

I also suspect that it is harder to make than one might imagine, you need a specific percentage of water in the kernel to get it to pop -

this is why you can't store unpopped popcorn in the open and once opened needs to be used within a few months, as the water will evaporate and eventually the percentage will become too low to effectively pop.

It's a children's book, but The Popcorn Book by Tomie de Paola is actually a very comprehensive summary on the history and science of popcorn.

Popcorn pops because the kernels contain small amounts of moisture which, when heated, cook the starches inside the popcorn, causing them to rapidly expand and exploding out the kernel.

(This is my basic understanding; I'm sure food scientist will have a more comprehensive explanation).

What this means is that popcorn has to have a few specific features: it must have some internal moisture

it must have a hard outer shell holding in that moisture

it must not be too moist

I imagine all varieties of "sweet corn", the type used for corn on the cob, would probably not work very well.

I don't think it would dry very well, and I think the shell would be weak (a feature when marketing it as something for humans to consume) Dent corn, the variety used for animal feed, would also probably not work very well.

It is a tough kernel and I don't think it would have enough moisture to explode.

I very well could be wrong about this, but I doubt that popping these other types (and I'm sure there are many more) would make for good popcorn.

Interestingly, there are other grains which also pop very well, including sorghum and amaranth .

No, you need popping corn.

Popcorn works because it contains the right kind of starch; it has a hard husk that is quite waterproof;

it contains the right amount of moisture (14–20%, according to Wikipedia ).

When you cook the corn, the water turns to steam, and the husk stops the steam escaping until the pressure builds up enough to make the kernel explode and the starch turn to a solid foam.

The other kinds of corn (dent, flint, flour, pod and sweet corns) don't have the right combinations of starch, husk and moisture to pop properly.

For example, sweet corn has a soft husk and is picked while it still contains a relatively large amount of sugar that hasn't been converted to starch.

Dent and flour corns have lots of starch but it's the wrong kind.

My grandparents were Western Nebraska farmers who grew corn (and other things.)

Most was "field corn" which is suitable only for livestock feed.

Some was sweet corn, which is for humans.

Grandma used to make what she called "parched corn."

Sweet corn was dried out by pulling the husks back and hanging the ears down by tacking the husks to the side of the shed.

When the kernels were shriveled, she shelled them (that is, pulled them off the cob) and treated them like popcorn.

She popped pop corn by heating oil in cast iron skillet and stirring.

So she did the same thing to the dried sweet corn.

It didn't pop, per se, but the kernels became spherical and crunchy.

With a little salt, it was a great snack.

So, while you can't pop any kind of corn, you can still try, and what you get is still a treat.

I've always meant to try to reproduce this, but I've never gotten around to trying.

So YMMV.

In Bolivia we have this kind of giant popcorn, called "Pasankalla": I do not know what type of corn is used to create it, but obviously is not the same one used to create ordinary popcorn.

Bon appetit!

Question: Up until today I only knew about one type of corn for popcorn. Searching for Peruvian food I found out that in Peru there are different "popcorn" varieties.  So that made me think: is it possible to make popcorn with  just any  variety of corn? If not, what properties do these corn varieties have that allow then to be popped and not any others?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Not just any corn variety will work, as it needs to have the hard shell around the kernel. However, some other grains will work, such as sorghum, amaranth and a giant popcorn variety called 'Pasankalla'.

A special kind of xorn is needed to make popcorn. However, you can also pop other grains such as sorghum, Pasankalla and amaranth.

You need a special kind of corn to make popcorn.

Other grains can also be popped including sorghum nd amaranth.


It is less useful than what you think Frame challenge incoming...

Cling film is very light and made especially for such purposes.

The environmental damage is extremely low - which limits what alternatives you can choose.

Most alternatives (including those already mentioned in the other answers) will be so much more resource demanding to make, dispose or recycle for it to be worth it.

Baking paper, while extremely useful - is full of silicones, so don't put it in the "paper" bin... and it is more resource demanding to make.

Teflon, cloth, etc - same deal!

Aluminium foil, for instance.

75% of all Aluminium refined and made is still in use .

Because of the extremely friendly "recyclability" of aluminium, it is a very good material.

Just not for aluminium foil, it is rarely recycled .

People just throw it in the trash.

We destroy a valuable resource.

Cling film, on the other hand is dirt cheap to make and can safely be incinerated.

If you worry about polluting the sea - I'd see if there are any alternatives to landfilling your waste in your community.

As for carbon emissions - Walk once to the store instead of driving, and you'll be in the green even if you consider a life time supply of cling film.

Note: Some cling films are made with PVC, I'd consider switching to the less clingy, but better overall alternative LDPE.

PVC contains chlorides and while the environmental impact is still low, if you go for LDPE or similar it goes to negligible.

Check the box it came in to find which you have

Use Tupperware, or a plate over a bowl.

Since those items are reusable the environmental impact will be less so long as you keep using them.

You can get Tupperware that is mostly glass too.

Lots of places do this with their dough.

All that moisture will still be in there as the dough rises or rests.

As long as it's airtight it should work.

Alternatively you can put a damp tea towel over a bowl.

This will allow the pastry dough to breath while maintaining moisture.

Make sure the towel doesn't dry out though.

If it does, your dough will too.

Just add some more water to the towel when it starts to get dry.

Bakers use some variation of tupperware and damp towels all the time.

Plate over a bowl won't work as well, but it should still work.

You don't have to use clingfilm (cling wrap, saran wrap depending where you are in the world), there are alternatives as long as the pastry is not sticky: Plastic bags:

I reuse zippable plastic bags as many times as I can, you can wash them by turning them inside out Baking paper: baking paper can be re-used as long as it stays clean Aluminum foil: again this can be reused several times A damp towel: if all you want is to let pastry rest for an hour in the fridge then a damp tea towel works pretty well.

Just make sure it is damp, not wet, or you risk moisture from the towel getting into the pastry and making it too wet

Put it in a bowl, large enough so the dough doesn't reach the top (if possible), cover it with a damp dishtowel (not wet, just damp).

Voila.

Totally ecological, and works better than plastic wrap because the dough can breathe.

If the towel touches the dough, you might have to scrape it off depending on the dough and the time involved, but that's not really a problem.

Make sure to use a smooth towel, not a textured one which will both stick to the dough more and probably hold too much water.

And use a clean one of course.

I have reusable teflon sheets for lining cake tins and baking sheets.

They also work well for wrapping pastry and dough.

With pastry the easiest way is to make a folded parcel with the opening side underneath on a plate or dish.

They wash up by hand or in the dishwasher and also save you lots of baking parchment/greaseproof paper and some foil.

Another option is a plastic box only a little larger than the pastry.

With very little exposed surface area and very little air in the box it won't dry out noticeably.

The two options can be combined - ina box with a small piece of the teflon sheet (an offcut perhaps) on top

I have always used wax paper to wrap pastry for the fridge.

It's always worked for me.

(Note: this is not the same thing as the baking paper/parchment mentioned in other answers.)

If your question can be changed slightly to: What to use instead of cling film to prevent pastry dough from drying out when resting (or storing) in the refrigerator?

, here is what I would do.

Similar to what others have suggested, find a glass container or plastic tub with lid a little larger than the footprint of the dough.

Place a ramekin (smaller than footprint of dough) in it upside down (or something else you have around your kitchen to elevate the dough), add a little water to the bottom of the container, place dough on ramekin, cover with lid.

Dough should not touch water, of course, sides, or lid.

This method is used by home cheesemakers to create a humid environment.

Question: I'm trying to stay away from single use plastics for the environment. The only kitchen thing I have not yet managed to find a substitute for is wrapping pastry in cling film to let it rest in the fridge before rolling and baking. What can I use instead that doesn't let the pastry dry out while resting? I'm interested in a substitute that's either biodegradable or ideally reusable.

What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry

You can keep it in a plastic container slightly larger than the pastry, or a bowl covered with a damp teatowel, a plate, a teflon sheet or wax paper.

Alternatives to wrapping pastry in cling film include wrapping in wax paper, putting in a bowl with a damp cloth over the top, putting in a plastic box with teflon sheet on top or putting the pastry in tupperware.