Without any other information, it sounds like you have to assume that your slow cooker has only a warm setting (labeled "low") and a high setting, and use high for cooking.

(Usually they have warm, low, and high.)

But it's possible that they're just being overly paranoid in the manual.

I would personally try heating something on low (possibly just water, as a test), and seeing whether it boils or at least reaches and maintains a decent temperature.

The thing you're trying to avoid is the food spending too long in the "danger zone", below 140F (60C).

If the low setting only just brings it above that, then it's going to take forever to heat up past it, and your food will be unsafe because all that time it wasn't hot enough.

But on most slow cookers, the low setting brings it up to at least around 180F and on many, it even very slowly boils.

If your heats that well, you can certainly use it for cooking.

The one thing to keep in mind is that if it still takes a long time to come up to temperature, you may want to start it on high to get it all heated, and then switch to low for the rest of the cooking time.

With mine, "low" is what you'd use for a long slow overnight/all day style boston butt or pot roast.

It runs around 200F degrees.

"High" is more what you'd use for cooking in the day time, where you can come home at lunch and turn it on.

It runs closer to 300F, There will be a certain amount of warming time with the "low" setting: this is always the case when you're cooking around 200F degrees.

Some people recommend starting it on "high" and then turning it down to low once it's warmed up.

I don't think it really matters unless you're working with something that has already had time to build up some bacterial colonies.

One thing to remember with a slow cooker is that they tend to fail over time.

If you turn it on and it heats very slowly and doesn't get very hot, it's likely your heating element has crapped out, and you need to replace your slow cooker.

There is really no way to tell other than sticking a thermometer in it every now and again, but you can usually get a sense of it if you're used to using them.

The other two answers do a pretty good job of covering the pertinent issues, but here is a succinct answer: As long as the internal temperature of your roast reaches at least 140°F within the first two hours and then stays at least that temperature for the remainder of the cooking, you are fine.

The only way to test that is to use a thermometer.

The longer it cooks at the lower a temperature the more collagen extraction ( i.e. , tenderness)

you are going to get.

The Low and High settings both cook at the same temperature.

The only difference is how long it takes to reach the simmer point before the temperature stabilize.

So basically, both settings will stop at around 209 degrees and stay there until turned off.

What's the difference between the Low and High cooking: http://www.crock-pot.com/service-and-support/product-support/product-faqs/help-and-how-to-use/general-information/help-and-how-to-use-general-information-faq.html

Follow the instructions for your slow cooker!

The person who wrote your recipe doesn't know what your unit is capable of, but the manufacturer does.

If they say the wattage is too low to get a roast up to temperature quickly enough, believe them!

As long as you have enough liquid in there, the worst thing that could happen is your roast ends up being too tender.

In my opinion, that's a much better option than incubating e.coli.

If you're going to actually be around, split the difference.

Put it on high for a couple of hours, then switch it to low.

(I'm assuming you mean low for 6-8 hours or high for 3-4 hours)

Question: My pot roast recipe says to cook on high for 6-8 hours or low for 3-4 hours.  However, the instructions for my new Crockpot say that the low setting is just for warming, and should never be used for cooking. Many recipes I've found online do give instructions for cooking on low. Many people seem to think that the low setting produces more tender meat...but I don't want to do anything unsafe. Can I safely cook on low?

Should I cook my pot roast on high or low?

Try cooking something like water on low, testing the temperature to see how long it takes to reach boiling or a suitably high heat. As long as the internal temperature of your roast reaches at least 140°F within the first two hours and then stays at least that temperature for the remainder of the cooking, you are fine. It may be best to start at high before switching to low for overnight heating.

Slow cookers take time to heat up therefore it may be a good idea to start off on the high setting. Both high and low setting cook at the same temperature, low just takes longer to get there. For most types of food the setting is not considered important. However, it is probably best to follow the instructions that come with the slow cooker.

Test the slow cooker to see how hot it gets on the different settings before using it for cooking.

Slow cookers take time to heat up so it is recommended to start off on high and then turn down to low when the desired temperature is reached.

Low setting is for long cooking and high setting is for shorter cooking times but they both cook at the same temperature.

It does not matter which setting you us as long as you are not cooking something that may already harbour bacteria.

Follow the instructions for your slow cooker.


Many of the aromatic qualities of liqueurs are due to volatile substances that will likely evaporate while reducing the liqueur.

So it really depends on how volatile the substances are that you want to keep.

I performed a simple experiment with Frangelico.

So, what I did is (over low heat for 20 minutes)

I reduced

1/4 cup of store bought Frangelico to cca.

1/8 cup hazelnut and caramel flavored sugar water/syrup.

It tastes pleasant, but the hazelnut aroma is a bit weaker - which might suggest that some of the hazelnut aroma evaporated together with the alcohol and water (wouldn't be surprising) or that the alcohol helped with distributing (hence perceiving) the aroma better or that the sweetness and other flavors now overpower it.

Anyway, as stated above in many cases the aromatic substances in mixtures are aromatic because they are highly volatile - we can smell them cause they escape from the mixture.

So, what can you do?

Some techniques that I have used in the past come to mind: Distillation .

Where you separate aromatic substances depending on their boiling points and catch them after condensation.

However, the heat might not be good for some substances.

Rotary evaporation .

Which became a "hot" technique in molecular cooking =)

Here the idea is similar to distillation, but the method is gentler in terms of temperature as it operates under reduced pressure - however it requires special equipment - a rotary evaporator.

I successfully used it to separate the aroma from walnut liqueur and to make whiskey syrup .

Freeze distillation .

It has been suggested for separating menthol and other stuff from the alcohol medium (you might find suggestions for similar techniques by searching the internet for "homemade [whatever] essence/extract").

Making your own liqueurs/alcohol extracts - with more concentrated aroma than the commercial ones - so you have less volume for the same amount of the aromatic substance.

This might be possible as the amount of alcohol in the solution might be able to accept more of the aromatic substance than there is in the commercial liqueur.

However, it is very likely they are adding a concentrated/distilled essence, which gives a more clean and stronger flavor than what you can get from just extracting it (from say hazelnuts) with alcohol.

However, as perviously suggested by @TFD you can just want to avoid all the hassle and buy commercially available essences/extracts or use some alternative flavorings as @razumny suggests.

Or simply try the reduction technique if you don't mind loosing some of the volatile substances - and if the result is satisfying enough.

That said, I made very tasty reductions of some liqueurs with very strong flavors (homemade wild blueberry liqueur and Terrano liqueur) to pour over deserts, where I mostly just wanted to get rid of the alcohol taste and to thicken it a bit.

So, the results will vary from liqueur to liqueur and your best bet would be to just try it out with small quantities to see how it goes.

While you could reduce it, you would most likely remove a lot of flavour too Try a "home brewing" shop for a essence of Frangelico e.g. http://www.beaudeserthomebrew.com.au/Still-Spirits---Top-Shelf/

I have not tried reducing liqueurs myself.

However, judging from experience with reducing red and white wine, you will likely intensify the stronger base notes, while the finer notes are more likely to be lost in the mix.

(Note that the finer flavor notes are not gone, they are simply drowned out by the stronger base notes).

I found a list of Alcohol Substitutions at About.com: http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol6.htm

I left 3 centimeters of Disaronno Amaretto on the side in a glass with cling film on top, left it for 2 months (by mistake, I was saving for some meal I never made), it turned into a thick sticky syrup with next to zero alcohol (but all the flavor).

I also got a "sugar sweet" left in the middle (small badly formed sugar cube).

I think it could not have been quite air tight and the water/alcohol evaporated.

It was not in direct sunlight nor in shade.

I assume something could be done with others!

(not vodkas or whiskeys, etc)

You may be able to reduce Frangelico, as it is only 20% alcohol by volume, and so may not be terribly likely to create a fire hazard.

However, as Razummy has indicated, this may not leave it tasting at its best.

Normally, you use liqueur in recipes as much for the aroma as for being a direct flavoring, so the among is small already: a tablespoon or two, perhaps a quarter cup at the outside.

You must ask yourself, why is reducing liqueurs not a common, or at least a known technique?

The answer is almost certainly that the results are not very good.

If you are wanting more flavor than the liqueurs provide, for a primary flavor component, you would be better off using essential oils or extracts.

For example, hazelnut extract is available from a number of sources.

Similarly, you can obtain essentially oils intended primarily for flavoring candies but useful for other purposes in a wide variety of flavors.

The main vendor these days appears to be LorAnn .

Reverse Osmosis is already in use to concentrate the flavorants in wine .

There's no reason to think it wouldn't also work for Frangelico or Kahlua.

Membranes that pass water preferably to ethanol are available (Powerpoint), but AFAICT, haven't yet been applied to liqueurs.

Barring such an experimental approach, you'd have to add pure ethanol back to your concentrated flavorants.

Question: I'm thinking specifically about Frangelico, but Kahlua is another one that I use quite a bit. I don't care about alcohol content, but I would like stronger flavor and less liquid.

Can liqueurs be reduced?

There are some ways that you could do this, but they might remove a lot of flavour. A better solution would be to buy essences, essential oils or extracts that are intended for flavouring candies.

Reducing liqueurs for flavouring is not generally recommended. Essential oils and essences provide a better flavour. However, liqueurs that are low in alcohol may reduce well or you can leave them for a long time for all the alcohol to evaporate.

Reducing liqueurs may change the flavour so using essences or essential oils is a better option.

Leaving a liqueur for a long time in a non-airtight container produces a thick syrup with no alcohol.

You may be able to reduce liqueurs that are relatively low in alcohol.


This depends partially on the cooking technique and the shrimp variety/size (=> thickness of the shell).

If the shrimp is deep fried the shell can turn crispy and is super fun to eat.

However, if boiled, the shells are chewy and extremely unpleasant - in this case you have to peel them.

I am not familiar with the spicy garlic shrimp, but you can just try if the shell is crunchy, is pleasant to eat, and does not require excessive painful chewing - go for it, if not return to your old practice of pealing it and just licking the flavoring of the shells.

The shells are edible (no harm would come to you) but unpleasant.

You're supposed to remove the shell and eat the shrimp.

If no no one is looking I'll suck on the shells because they do have nice flavor.

If you can save a decent sized pile of them, you can make a pretty serviceable broth by boiling them for a couple of minutes, but that is usually done with raw shells.

I'm Chinese American and when I order garlic shrimp I prefer to eat the little feet beneath the abdomen because it's slightly crunchy and thoroughly marinated in sauce.

But I always peel off the rest of the shell since it's hard to chew and usually tough.

A couple of years ago I went to an Indonesian restaurant in New York City and tried a dish where the shrimp had been flash fried in extremely high heat, so the shell was thin, brittle, and edible.

The dish was called Nasi Goreng Sambal Udang Petai, or Shrimp with Stink Beans and Rice.

I won't go into the unusual beans, which deserve its own StackExchange question, but the shrimp had been fried so that the shell nearly disintegrates when you bite into the shrimp.

I found the shrimp shell to be incredibly delicious and ever since then I've tried try to eat shrimp shells if they're not too tough.

So, yes, shrimp shells are edible and, based on recent scientific research, may also provide health benefits, like lowering cholesterol and improving cartilage and joint health.

My wife is from China (Northeast) and she ALWAYS eats the shrimp (fried) with the shells intact.

(chopsticks, fork, hands, whatever) I do too now, and prefer it that way.

You're supposed to eat the shrimp with chopsticks, picking one up from the platter, bite off a piece if they're large, chewing up the whole thing, and swallowing only the meat and spitting out the shells as politely as you can on the table.

I'm going to guess that if you are served shrimp prepared in this way, the shrimp are probably large.

The purpose of this method of preparation is to cook the shrimp without toughing it up.

My brother in law is from Bangladesh and he's making beautiful prawn curries and dishes with shells still intact.

So when it comes to eating we all eat the prawns iwth the shell and head.

It's super yummie and crunchy from the outside and soft from the inside.

Try it, when grilled prawns taste great with their shells still intact.

The fact is that the Prawn/shrimp shell/skin is edible item.

But it depends only on how the item is cooked.

If you cook a plain Prawn/shrimp in an electric oven at higher degree for longer duration(try your own by trial & error way the temp & time, also other way of frying/putting on direct fire/grill helps), no matter how big it is, you can enjoy eating them whole with excellent taste.

This way you get more calcium and other minerals and their benefits too.

But it is not advisable to eat the shells if they don't get to powder form while biting (generally other ways of cooking has this problem).

It may even upset your stomach.

Shrimp shells are edible but what she said they are not pleasant.

Shrimp skin is very healthy and have a lot of health benefits like it can help you lower blood pressure and lose weight easily.

Question: Some Chinese shrimp dishes like the spicy garlic shrimp is served with the shell still on but head removed.  Since the shell was on during cooking, the seasoning is all over it.  Are you supposed to eat the whole shrimp with the shell, or remove the shell and only eat the meat?  I usually taste the seasoning on the shell and then peel it away to eat the meat only.

Are cooked shrimp shells edible?

This depends on the variety as well as the type of cooking. Grilled or deep fried shrimp taste good with the shell, but boiled shells are chewy rather than brittle.

Many people consider shrimp shells edible, especially when the shrimp have been fried and the shell is crunchy. However, some people find them unpleasant and prefer to peel shrimp or spit out the shell. However, shrimp shells are actually good for you and have health benefits.

Eating the shrimp shell as well as the meat depends on the cooking methods: eat the shell when fried not when boiled.

Shrimp shells are edible but unpleasant.

Shrimp shells are not only edible, they are also good for you.

The correct way to eat shrimp is to take a bite, swallow the meat and spit out the shell.


Using melted hard candy, you are at the mercy of the ingredients of the hard candy manufacturer.

I like to make my own sugar glass.

Here is my recipe for sugar glass: 1 C Water 1.75 C Sugar .5

C Corn Syrup -

the clearer the better .25 t Cream of Tartar

I always supplement it with cream of tartar and corn syrup.

The cream of tartar stabilizes the mixture and the corn syrup helps the glass stay clear.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide (two sugars) of glucose and fructose.

Most cracking occurs when when there is a structural defect due to crystallization.

Applying acid (cream of tartar) causes the sucrose to break down into its component sugars and stabilize. Also remember that heat and humidity are the enemy of sugar glass.

Do the best you can to control the environment of the sugar glass.

I don't consider ExpertChef's answer directly applicable, but it shows an interesting experiment possibility.

It could be that glueing a tough, flexible film to your sugar windows will absorb some physical tension or jolting effects, and/or

prevent drying out which leads to cracking.

(The second shouldn't be a problem with traditional hard candy, but we don't know what your recipe is made of).

You could make such a film from high concentration gums in water (don't bother flavoring, at that concentration aroma isn't really noticeable, and the lack of sugar probably won't register against the sugar window).

There was some molecular gastronomy recipe for packing butter pieces in a transparent "hull", if you can find it (I couldn't :( )

whichever hydrocolloid they used will probably work well for you.

I don't know if it is better to brush the wet hydrocolloid on the window and let it set, or to make the film first and then glue it, this needs experimenting.

As an alternative to a gum film you could try glueing rice paper or oblaten to the inside of the windows.

It is probably the easier way out.

But it should be a more or less strong bond, just sticking it with jam or similar won't keep the sugar part from experiencing physical stress.

These are all untried ideas, if somebody has applied them, I would like to hear results.

Skip the melted candy windows!

It's not worth the stress of wondering about the amount of humidity in the air

and when the windows will start melting and running in riverlets down the side of your beautiful gingerbread house and then disappear completely, leaving open holes where your windows were.

Use sheets of gelatine instead.

They look awesome, stay good FOREVER and actually look like old fashioned leaded windows with the little diagonal diamond shapes.

I make gingerbread houses every year for my confectionery and find the finest, tiniest strings of battery operated lights which I fix to a fondant Christmas tree standing in the "garden" before threading it through under the wall to the inside of the house.

So beautiful.

You should try making them with isomalt instead of table sugar.

It is often used for decorative sugar work, for many reasons, but structural stability is one of them.

When I make glass windows for my ginger bread houses I just crush hard candies, put the sides of my house on a cookie sheet with a thin smear of oil where the cut out windows are.

Then I put the crushed candy in the cut out windows of the sides and front of my house.

I put it in the hot oven, watch it closely, and wait for it to melt.

Then I have candy windows.

When it's cool they come right up without cracking because I put a small amount of oil under them.

Then I put my ginger bread house together.

I also put a light under my houses

so it looks like someone is "home".

Question: I have melted hard candy in the windows of my gingerbread house, two days later the candy is cracked.  Tried it again, using more candy, but it cracked again.  The gingerbread wall with the windows was baked and sat for two days before the hard candy was melted.

How do I keep my melted candy windows in my gingerbread house from cracking?

This can happen because of structural problems from crystallisation, or because of environmental factors. Use isomalt instead of table sugar or try glueing rice paper, oblaten or sheets of gelatin to the inside of the windows. Alternatively, you can just leave the windows unglazed.

Glass candy windows can crack and to prevent this it is necessary to control the environment. It may be better to use an alternative such as gelatin. Or perhaps not make the glass windows.

Glass candy windows crack due to crytallization so it is important to control the sugar glass environment.

Alternatives to candy glass include gelatin and using isomalt instead of sugar.


Store them in a well ventilated place.

Cool (15 degrees Celsius) and dark will probably do them good too.

And buy green bananas.

Your bananas are alive.

Seriously, they continue to live after they have been picked.

Breathing, cell metabolism, hormone production, etc. goes on.

You cannot stop this process, you can slow it a bit.

In many plants, fridge temperatures trigger their own growth slowing processes, because they are evolved to stop growing in winter months.

But in tropical fruit, this doesn't work, because there are no cold months where they grow.

Instead, it exposes their sensitive cells to an environment they are not meant for, and they change a lot.

Bananas go black, tomatoes change their taste radically, and so on.

Still, keeping them coolish and dark may do them good, because it still gives them less energy to spend on ripening.

One of the mechanisms which controls ripening in fruit, including bananas, is ethylene gas.

It is a positive feedback mechanism.

Ripe fruit produces ethylene, and unripe fruit ripens faster when exposed to ethylene.

People tend to stick green bananas in bags to make them ripe faster.

If you can keep them well ventilated, the ripening will slow down.

Still, don't expect any wonders.

Bananas will ripe after being plucked, no matter if on the tree or not.

And they will overripen in few days, even when held far from ethylene.

Starting with green bananas gives you more headroom, but you still have a few days only.

The skins turn black in the fridge, but the fruit itself is fine.

Cooks Illustrated tested if refrigerating bananas keeps them good longer , and they found it does—five days longer.

Extract below: Most people store bananas on the countertop, and we wondered if chilling the fruit could slow ripening.

To find out, we left 12 pounds of bananas at room temperature for three days until they were perfectly ripe (signified by a firm but yielding texture).

We then moved half of the bananas into the refrigerator, leaving the remainder at room temperature.

For the next few days, the bananas were nearly indistinguishable.

After four days, however, the room-temperature fruit became markedly soft and mushy, while the refrigerated fruit remained firm, despite blackened skins.

We continued to taste the refrigerated bananas after the room-temperature samples had been discarded and were delighted to discover that they lasted an additional five days (so, almost two weeks after purchase) before the flesh became overripe.

The explanation is simple: As a banana ripens, it emits a gas called ethylene and develops acids that aid in ripening.

Cool temperatures slow down the production of ethylene and acids, thereby decelerating ripening.

However, refrigeration also causes the cell walls of the peel to break down, releasing enzymes that cause the formation of black-brown pigments.

Jolenealaska makes a good point - bananas should not be kept with other fruit, which is why fruit cages often have a long extension with a hook above -

this keeps the bananas suspended away from the other fruits.

Even better is a banana hook with no fruit cage beneath.

The amount of ethylene is critical, so keeping them away from other fruits which are also producing ethylene helps to slow down the ripening process.

Bananas that are refrigerated turn black, but that's only the peel.

The fruit inside keeps way longer if you leave them on the counter.

Easily a week to 10 days depending on how ripe when you put them in the fridge.

No loss of flavour or texture.

I always buy two bunches of bananas.

One Bunch that is perfectly ripe and ready to eat within a few days.

The second bunch is as green as I can find.

I then keep these two bunches separated in my kitchen.

This allows me to have bananas for a period of about 7 to 9 days without problems.

Additionally when I get them home, the first thing I do is submerge the stems in a bowl of water with soap to eliminate any fruit fly eggs.

This works very well!

To keep them pleasant for just eating by themselves keep them at room temperature.

Refrigerating or freezing them quickly turns them black.

They'll develop bruising as they ripen if they're resting against anything (including each other), so keeping them suspended by their stems helps keep them a nice even yellow banana hooks .

Once they ripen (darken and soften) beyond the point that they're pleasant for "out of hand" eating they're still a very useful ingredient.

Overripe bananas have much more flavor and aroma than yellow ones.

For baked goods ripened all the way to black is perfect.

Let them ripen to nearly mushy at room temperature, then freeze.

Once you have several bananas stored that way you're halfway to a very nice banana bread.

I peel them and freeze in a Ziploc bag, but many people swear by leaving them unpeeled for freezing, and that certainly works too.

You can't keep bananas very long.

So just buy what you can eat in about 3 days, period.

This is 80 years of dealing with bananas.

Ethylene gas absorbers should prolong banana life, but I've never tried them, and do not know if their absorbing capacity is high enough to merit the cost.

Looks like ethylene absorbers are used commercially

so there's at least some chance that the consumer level products will work.

Question: Is there any way to keep bananas fresh for longer? We tried putting them in the fridge but their skins turn black very fast.

Keeping bananas fresh for longer

Buy green bananas and keep them in a cool, dark and well-ventilated place away from other fruits to reduce the energy and ethylene they need for ripening. The fridge will extend their life, although the skins will turn black. Ethylene gas absorbers may also be effective.

Bananas do not keep for long. There are some steps to take to prolong their life. These include keeping in a cold dark place or the fridge. They least longer in the fridge. Alternatively, you could invest in an ethylene ansorber.

Store bananas in a dark, well-ventilated place that is cool.

Buy bananas when green and they will keep longer because bananas do not keep for long. Buy what you cn eat and keep at room temperature.

Bananas go black in the fride. This is only the skin, the fruit is fine and they do keep longer.

Ethylene causes fruit to ripen. Keep bananas away from other food.


The function of the chord, that is attached to the yolk, is to hold the yolk into place.

To have the most uniform baking possible, you remove the chord.

However, I never do.

I keep it in with the rest of the whites

and I've never had any problems with the finished products.

So you can

: toss it keep it with the yolk (a little bit of whites with the yolk is not bad, the other way around is) keep it with the whites since it does not contain fat, it will not stop the whites from being whipped

It's up to you.

There is no reason to try to remove the chalazae by hand in practice, or to worry about whether it goes with the whites (it will not interfere with foaming) or the yolks.

The only application where they might be perceptible is a custard or curd.

Simmered custards should be strained after cooking to catch any curdled bits; baked custards should be strained before baking to catch any undissolved bits (like sugar clumps or bits of zest).

Either way, they will be caught in the straining.

They are essentially imperceptible in any other application.

No one has ever sent a sunny side up egg or scrambled egg order back because of the chalazae.

There is a reason that, at least in the few hundred books I have personally read or episodes

I have watched, no cookbook author or television cook has ever mentioned removing the chalazae by hand.

Sometimes you should remove the chalazae even if you're not separating the eggs.

Case in point, I made lemon curd tonight to top a cheesecake.

The curd contained two eggs and one yolk.

The recipe said that it might be necessary to strain the curd before chilling.

It was.

After straining, it was clear that it was the chalazae (in minute pieces) still sitting in the sieve.

So, after this learning experience, I would recommend plucking out the chalazae any time you are going for a smooth, translucent final result (think curd or pecan pie filling).

I must like fussy extra work....because I consistently remove the chalazae.

I use a grapefruit spoon and it is quick and solves any problems related to if it goes in with the whites or yolks.

Another couple applications in which I've been able to occasionally detect the egg's chalazae in the finished product: ice cream and fresh mayonnaise.

Straining the custard before freezing it takes care of the problem in ice cream.

In mayonnaise, I almost never bother removing it because separating the chalazae while keeping the yolk intact is hard to do.

Also, from what I've seen, the fresher the egg is, the stronger the chalazae is and the more you might want to think about removing it.

But like others have said, it's pretty much impossible to notice most of the time unless your finished product is something that's meant to be super-smooth in texture.

One experienced with chopstick can pick just the chalazae out from the other elements.

Question: I separate eggs with my hands, I'm pretty good at whites going one place and yolks going another. What's got me stumped is the chord. It seems to want to stay with the yolk, but it tends to hold on to quite a bit of the white. Should I let it stick to the yolk, pull it away, or what? Does it contain any fat? If I keep it with the whites, will it keep the whites from whipping as fully as possible?

When carefully separating eggs, what to do with the chalazae?

You shouldn't need to worry about it unless you need a very smooth custard or curd, but fresher eggs have a stronger chalazae and it can be removed whether or not the eggs are separated.

It is only considered necessary to remove the chord when making dishes requiring a very smooth texture. For other dishes it is unnecessary. However, it may be necessary when eggs are very fresh, as the chord tends to be stronger.

Removing the chord depends on what you are making: for smooth textures it is best to remove it. Also in very fresh eggs it is stronger and may need removing.

Mostly removing the chord id not necessary and does not affect the quality of the finished product.


NO!

It would not.

They will break, possibly violently.

Unless they are labeled for that use, don't do it.

No, this is a very, very bad idea.

The thermal gradient can lead to uneven expansion and shattering.

This is true of the modern product as well as the historical borosilicate product.

The only Pyrex that I'm aware of that was labeled as being safe for the cooktop was the 'Pyrex Visions' line, and I don't believe they ever made anything that I'd call a 'baking dish' from it.

I know they made skillets, pots, and dutch ovens, and the associated lids.

It's typically a sort of orange-brown color, and there were also some pink-ish ones.

There's also Pyrex that's used for science labs ...

again, not casserole dishes, but many are rated for thermal stress, as they make various weights (price vs. durability)

The Pyrex company markets a ceramic product called Pyroflam in Europe which can be used on the stove top.

This is an opaque material different from the traditional glass products.

NO!

Mine too exploded on top of my stove, just last night to be exact.

That's why I was looking this up.

I had it sitting there and turned on the wrong burner

and it went everywhere.

It was really loud and chunks of glass everywhere, took me an hour to clean up

NO Mine exploded on top of my stove.

I had it sitting there and turned wrong burner on and it went everywhere.

It was really loud.!!But

I will buy another one.

Question: Would it be okay if a Pyrex baking dish is used on an electric stove top to reheat food?

Are Pyrex casserole dishes safe for use on electric stovetops?

While Pyrex company markets a ceramic product called  Pyroflam  in Europe which can be used on the stove top, most of their products are liable to uneven expansion and shattering if used on the stove.

Only products labeled for stove top should be used on the stove top. Other pyrex dishes may explode. However, Pyrex does market some products suitable for stove-top use.

Pyrex dishes should not be used on the stove top as they can explode.

Only use products labeled for stove top on the stove top. Pyrex make some products specifically for this purpose.


The reason dry yeast is so popular is that it is easier to store, and is less persnickety about it than fresh yeast.

Treat dry yeast right

and it can last for a couple of years or more.

Fresh yeast is highly perishable, and it should be frozen if you're not going to use it within a couple of days.

If you're lucky, you can get significantly more time from fresh yeast by freezing it within just a day or two of getting it home.

The thing is, yeast is a living thing

and you just can't know what experiences it has had before arriving in your kitchen.

As such, it's impossible to predict just how much extra (past the expiration date) time you are going to get from freezing it.

A month?

Probably.

Two months?

I wouldn't count on it, but maybe.

6 months?

Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

If you do freeze fresh yeast, wrap it very well.

Moisture and air are your enemies.

Do put it in the refrigerator at least 12 hours prior to use, then let it spend the last hour on the counter.

As a last step before putting together your dough, proof it.

Proof the yeast by mixing it with the warm (100Fish) water called for in the recipe and, if applicable, the sugar.

If there is no sugar in the recipe, give it a 1/2 tsp of flour (per loaf).

Within 5-10 minutes it should be quite bubbly and growing.

If it doesn't look like it's doing much, throw it away.

You might as well throw away all of the yeast you have from that batch.

Go to the store and get more yeast before proceeding with the recipe.

Properly stored, yeast usually dies at least somewhat gradually.

You may see a slight progressive decrease in the vigor of your yeast as it gets older.

Personally, once I see that I'll use it that time, but I'll get more for next time.

Anymore, fresh yeast is hardly seen except in professional bakeries.

It's easy to see why.

If you're going to make multiple loaves in a week, then maybe fresh yeast is worth it.

Now that I have found 2 pound packages of Fleischmann's instant dry yeast

(expiration almost 2 years out) at Sam's Club for $6, I think my days of messing with fresh yeast are over.

(BTW 2lbs of dry yeast = about 130 loaves) EDIT:

Interestingly, Red Star disagrees and doesn't recommend freezing fresh yeast.

This goes against my experience and the cynic in me wonders of their recommendation has more to do with selling yeast than anything else.

I found this useful:

http://www.wessexmill.co.uk/recipe/freezeyeast.html As soon as I get it home

I crumble 12g [of the fresh yeast] into approx 30g (2 dessert spoons) of a ordinary bread flour and mix it up so that I have a dry crumbly mix, and put into a small plastic bag.

I do this to approx 70% of the yeast

so I have about 50 small bags i.e 1.5kg bag of flour.

I then put all the small bags into a big bag and put them in the freezer.

Mixed in with the flour and frozen

I find the yeast keeps for a couple of months

, it may keep longer, I don't know, I've usually run out by then and started again.

Good Luck

Being a Professional Baker Fresh yeast cannot be frozen I have tried it is dead on defrosting and cannot be ressurected with sugar.

Neither do I like dried yeast

the bread dough is too heavy and takes too long to rise it spoils the taste of the loaf

I disagree with eschewing fresh yeast.

I am trying to make bread like I used to get as a kid in Northern NJ

and it is pretty much impossible to get the dried yeast to provide the necessary lift.

The recipe I was trying to use shows the cook Dannielle Forrester on "Baking With Julia" using Fresh yeast.

I have been using starter added to the water with yeast and proofing it then using it was the water eliminating the adding fresh yeast part.

She mixes up the water and flour first then adds the fresh yeast and after kneading it adds the salt.

I'm getting the right crust but the inside is just not lifting and making the big holes as it should.

So I'm on the definitely use fresh yeast if it is called for side of the question.

I did a lot of searching online and calling yesterday and I am going to have to drive a couple hours to get it from a baker who is willing to sell me some of what he uses but its not on the shelf anywhere I could find in NW Oregon.

Pretty much everyone I spoke to had no idea what it was except for this one guy.

I found this page in my attempt to fond out how long I can freeze it as that will dictate how much I buy.

Maybe 4 months is the conclusion I see

so I'll probably only be getting a few ounces.

Thanks all

Anyone who follows grandmas recipes knows that fresh yeast rises better and definitely makes your product taste different and better.

Coming from my roots in New York, any baker worth his weight in gold uses fresh yeast in their products.

As far as whether you can freeze fresh yeast it is a crap shoot.

I have had it rise fine and other times

it's has not and you have ruined all your ingredients.

My recommendation is always to buy it fresh at the store.

Some Wal-mart stores carry it by their biscuits doughs or eggs.

Problem is they order to much and is usually out dated.

That's why most stores stop carring it.

They are loosing money.

If they bought smaller quantities more often they would sell more

Question: I've heard that I can actually buy a large box of fresh yeast cubes, freeze it, and take one out of the freezer twelve hours before using it, to let it slowly get to room temperature again.  How long can I freeze the yeast for? Will it slowly degrade, or will it just be suddenly unusable after a certain length of time?

How long can fresh yeast be frozen?

You may be able to freeze yeast soon after buying and defrost it successfully, but this is unreliable and not recommended.

There are very different opinions about freezing fresh yeast. While amateur bakers appear to belive it is ok, professional bakers tend to disagree. Others believe that there is no guarantee the yeast will be usable after freezing.

The life of fresh yeast can be prolonged by freezing.

Professional bakers tend to believe fresh yeast should not be frozen.

Freezing fresh yeast is hit and miss: there is no guarantee it will live.


Several options, depending on the type of curry and the ingredients already present.

Japanese Style Curries Using a commercial, packaged Japanese-style roux: Add another brick or two from the package. This type dissolves nicely generally with minimal clumping. Using a homemade

, Japanese style roux:

You can prepare additional roux by melting fat (butter, beef fat, etc) in a saucier, foaming it if needed (as with butter), and whisking in flour (we usually use a 1:1 ratio).

Allow the flour to brown to the desired level, keeping in mind that the thickening power decreases the darker it gets.

If you prefer not to use flour, potato starch/katakuriko is a reasonable alternative.

When suitably dark, take some of the liquid from your existing curry and mix in to the roux, whisking vigorously to minimize the risk of clumping.

Add more of the existing curry liquid if you think there's a risk of clumping, then reintegrate it back into the main pot.

(if you were starting this roux from scratch you'd also integrate fat-cooked spices into the roux, but your problem does not appear to be flavor).

Avoiding fussiness:

Mix cornstarch or potato starch (katakuriko) in cold water.

Once reasonably dissolved, add it to the curry pot.

This type of thickener can create a slightly odd texture in a Japanese curry, as the browned roux creates a more velvety texture, but that doesn't mean I haven't done it before in a pinch.

The liquid will thicken as it boils.

Indian Style Curries

For more Indian-style curries, there are other options.

If your curry contains lentils, chickpeas or potatoes: Smash some of them in a small bowl, or just against the edge of the pan.

Allow the pot to boil a bit.

If you have almonds, cashews or similar nuts available: Grind a small quantity of nuts in a coffee/spice mill, and incorporate them into the curry.

These need to boil more gently, and I usually do this sauce more intentionally by making them the focal point (dum ki ghom, for example, which has mushrooms and tomato puree in a nut sauce) but can rescue an existing curry too.

In this case, probably adding more curry mix is the answer.

You may also need to use a little cornstarch to thicken.

It's worth bearing in mind that if you're using a recipe not designed for slow cookers, you should usually halve the amount of liquid it states.

You can always use cashew/almonds/freshly grounded coconut paste to thicken it up.

In most of the indian cooking that what used.

This will added up richness to your recipe.

Yes, cornstarch is another good option too.

Rather than adding thickener why not reduce your sauce?

Separate the meat and vegetables, put the sauce in a wide pan and then cook it down.

It will thicken it up, and concentrate the flavors.

Slow cookers trap moisture so frequently result in"runny" results.

Easiest, non interventionist solution: take the lid off for the last (or an additional) hour - more or less depending on results - on high.

yes dissolve cornstarch with water then mix it.

if the curry/spices flavour start to decrease, add more curry paste/curryroux.

but i wonder how the the curry restaurant keep their curry thick as hell for their customer ? :/

Question: I made a lamb based Japanese curry in a slow cooker and unlike my previous efforts (using many of the same ingredients, though in different proportions), it turned out runny and underwhelming.  What techniques exist to "beef up" a curry after the fact? Would putting it back in the slow cooker with more veggies for another half-day help? Would adding another portion of curry mix help?

How do I thicken my Japanese curry after the fact?

If using a slow cooker with a normal recipe, you can usually use half of the liquid it states, but you can thicken runny curry with a cornstarch slurry, more curry mix or cashew/almonds/freshly grounded coconut paste.

Cooking in a slow cooker tends to result in thin sauces as the device traps moisture. To solve the problem, a thickener can be added, such as cornstarch or nuts, or the sauce can be reduced.

Cornstarch, curry mix and nuts can be used a thickeners.

Slow cookers trap moisture and result in thin sauces.

Reduce the sauce rather than add a thickener.


You shouldn't heat a non stick pan without the oil, because it is too easy to overheat it and ruin the coating.

So, I put oil inside first, and tell by the state of the oil.

It smells, looks and flows different when it is hot enough.

You can also learn to judge if there is sufficient heat when you hold your palm at a given distance above the pan, but in my experience, you learn to judge by the oil before you have gotten good enough to keep the same distance and to distinguish "enough" from "not enough" heat.

If you don't have enough experience to know when the oil is ready, you have to do it repeatedly until you learn it.

It takes a few less-than-great meals if you do it purely by trial and error, and goes better if you use an infrared thermometer.

You can also try floating cubes of stale white bread and watch their browning behavior, but I find this method too involved logistically - you have to have the bread, cut it, then deal with messy pieces of oily bread, and end up with slowly charring crumbles in your pan.

Just put in a little test piece of whatever you're frying.

(e.g. a small piece of onions if you're frying onions)

You'll be able to tell the right temperature from its colour (Is the onion staying white?

Too cold.

Turning golden?

Great.

Turning brown/black?

Too hot.)

and its sound or behaviour (e.g. medium sizzling).

I tend to put some oil in.

Then to test if it is hot, I throw in a few drops of water.

Just by running my hand under the sink, and giving it a flick.

If it spits, then it is hot.

I'm not too sure on the exact science of it.

but clearly it does indicate the oil is hot enough to boil a few drops of water. and thus the pan is too.

Big downside of this method is that you now have oil with water in it, and it may keep spitting.(Esp if you used too much water)

For frying, you're dealing with oil, and oil is actually easy to tell when it's hot enough, no matter the type of pan: For sautéing, look for the oil to 'shimmer'.

The surface of the oil will start to form tiny waves in it when it's sufficiently hot, causing odd reflections / refraction (but if you wait too long after that, it'll start to smoke).

You can also take a piece of whatever you're cooking, and press a corner of it into the oil.

If it's hot enough, some of the water will instantly turn to steam and you'll hear sizzling.

For deep frying, you typically don't want it to get quite as hot as sautéing, so you can't rely on the shimmer.

The food trick will work if the food is wet enough, but I prefer using a wooden utensil (wooden spool, skewer, etc.) and putting a bit of it in the oil.

If the oil is hot enough, you should see little bubbles forming around the wood that's in the oil.

(don't soak the wood, just use whatever natural humidity there is ...

although this might not work if you're in a desert)

You can get a good infrared thermometer for $10-$15 at an auto parts store.

Question: With stainless steel pans you can perform a water test to see if the pan is the correct temperature for frying but how do you tell with a non-stick pan?

How can you judge when a non-stick pan is the correct temperature for pan frying?

You can judge by holding your palm over the palm or putting some of the food in the pan. Oil in any pan will shimmer when it's hot enough, or you can measure more accurately with a cheap infrared thermometer from an auto parts store.

You can either attempt to assess the heat in a pan by holding your hand above it or adding a piece of food to the pan and seeing if it sizzles. An alternative to this method is buying a thermometer.

You can tell if a pan is hot enough by holding your hand above it or adding a small piece of food to the oil in the pan and seeing if it sizzles.

Buying a thermometer is a good way of checking how hot a pan is.


It is not a good idea.

You can certainly prepare your seasoned flour mixture and keep it in bulk.

Just transfer it as you need it to the container where you do the actual breading or dredging; then you don't need to discard the entire amount.

If your chicken goes into the flour, you've got a contamination risk...which can't be sifted out.

While the likelihood that you poison yourself and your guests is minimal, particularly if you refrigerate, use in the next day or two, and cook thoroughly (certainly don't cross contaminate by mixing the sifted flour back into your unused flour)....

I wouldn't take the chance.

Instead, get better about portioning your flour..toss the excess.

As everyone's already pointed out this is a BAD idea...

BUT I make too much flour all the time too.

What I choose to do instead of throwing out the left over seasoned flour (

considering it's touched raw meat) is to add some egg to the flour and mix it thoroughly.

I then fry

that dough in the pan just like I did the flour and egg covered chicken, beef, eggplant, ect.

Once it's cooked through

I have a little chef's treat to enjoy!

Safe depends on your definition of the word.

If you wouldn't mind ending up with E. Coli or Salmonella, then I guess you could call it 'safe'.

Otherwise, no of course it is not safe. :)

Keeping the flour seems like a bad idea, as explained in the other answers.

The obvious solution is to stop getting carried away and using too much flour!

Alternatively, instead of dredging the chicken through the flour, you could try sprinkling the flour on by hand.

As long as you're careful to use one hand for the chicken and one for the flour, your unused seasoned flour hasn't come into contact with the raw chicken so you can store it like any other flour.

After our family makes fried chicken.

We mix the leftover flour and egg together and pour in pan after chicken is taken out.

Stir around and chop up into little bits then you have some of those little crunchy chicken in a bisquit snacks.

The game you're playing is that you have a tub of flour whose viable lifetime is only as long as raw chicken (or possibly even less, if the damp flour where the chicken has touched it is a particularly good culture medium).

This is a difficult substance to manage.

I think I've done it, but only because I wasn't immediately cooking all of the chicken , and I saved the flour to do the rest of it.

Hence I didn't keep the flour any longer than I kept the chicken that contaminated it.

I'm not dead,

but like I say I'm not entirely confident that the salmonella or whatever won't thrive better in the flour than it did in the chicken.

Question: I love to make (and eat) buttermilk fried chicken but I always get carried away with the amount of flour I use.  I am fully aware of contamination due to raw chicken, but is it safe to keep the excess seasoned flour used to coat the raw chickens in an airtight container and use it solely for this purpose?  Before storing the flour I sift out any larger pieces.

Saving seasoned flour used for dredging chicken

This is a contamination risk and a bad idea, but you could try to use less flour and sprinkle it on the chicken rather than dredging the chicken in the flour.

Once flour has been used for coating chicken it should not be kept as it may be contaminated. To save flour either use less or sprinkle flour on chicken rather than dipping chicken in the flour.

It is not a good idea to save flour that has been used to coat chicken.

Flour that has been used to coat chicken is not safe as it may be contaminated.

Obvious solutions are using less flour or sprinkling the flour over the chicken instead of dipping the chicken in the flour.


If you can, put all grains you buy in impenetrable containers as soon as you get them home, and freeze them.

Keeping rice (or any other grain) in the freezer for a full day will help.

Keeping the grain in the freezer for a week will kill just about any creepy crawly that's already in the rice, the impenetrable container will keep new visitors out.

Glass or hard plastic containers (like tupperware) are impenetrable, Ziploc style bags may not be.

If you don't have room in the freezer for all of a new rice purchase, go ahead and repackage it in the impenetrable containers, and rotate the containers until they have all had at least a full day in the freezer (a week is better).

Get rid of anything that already seems like a breeding ground.

Thoroughly go through all of your food storage space, get rid of anything infested, put all you can save into impenetrable containers, and consider a (hopefully) one time use of a pesticide.

Also, the cooler you can keep the stuff that the bugs like, the better.

Bugs that are well fed and warm are happy, happy bugs.

One more thing.

I don't know if it actually works, but it can't hurt: Try putting a few bay leaves in each container of rice.

It's a bit folklore-ish, but the countermeasure has been touted for decades, maybe longer.

I assume you soak the rice before cooking and get rid of anything that floats?

Since you say you are from India, the best thing will be to sun it for a few hours to get rid of the crawling creatures.

Then put some neem leaves in it, which are available all over India (azadirachta indica, for the uninitiated)...also cloves in the rice will help.

I don't know whether putting it in the freezer is a good idea.

I have never heard of anyone doing it in India, maybe due to smaller fridges and freezers, non frost free fridges (which produce a lot of water vapour), and of course an erratic electricity supply.

In China，we put ginger in the rice container,and it's effective.

Without access to a freezer or dry ice, you can try this low-tech method: put rice in a container with a lid

Put a spoonful of baking soda into a bowl, put the bowl on top of the rice in the container pour a couple of spoonfuls of vinegar into the bowl

shut the container lid Carbon dioxide produced by the baking soda and vinegar is denser than air and would sink into the rice filling all the gaps between grains.

The weevils will eventually suffocate.

Once dead, they will dry up.

The dried up dead insects should float off when you wash the rice before cooking.

The general consensus (from people that have had problems with insect infestation and posted their experiences to various internet forums) seems to be that two kinds of containers are usually effective at keeping bugs of any kind out of dry goods, and that most other types are unreliable: 1)

Glass containers with hinge and rubber gasket construction, look at the IKEA Korken series for an example, any reputable brand (IKEA, Fido,...) should do.

Hard plastic containers with a gasket and four-sided locking tabs, for examples look at what Lock&Lock, Luminarc Pure Box, or Glasslock makes.

These are also available in quite large sizes so you can protect a bag of flour, or a collection of many small bagged items (if none of them is pre-infested).

I do not mean to recommend specific brands here but needed examples for known good container designs, the general theme is: hard materials, airtight and wide rubber or plastic gasket that is forced against the container with pressure, quality brand.

Alot all rice sold in the USA (from China and Japan and similar) has rice weevil eggs in them, but it takes time for them to hatch.

If the bugs haven't burrowed out yet, there isn't any problem eating the rice.

So, what I do is freeze the rice for 48 hours to kill the eggs (invisibly hidden inside grains of rice), and then seal in half-gallon mason jars for long term storage (I just vacuum-seal the jars, but even that is probably overkill - any air-tight seal should be fine).

However, I also keep rice for everyday use in a common clear plastic ostensibly airtight container, without freezing it, and that usually lasts fine, even several months.

Airtight containers seem to greatly extend the lifetime of the rice before the eggs hatch.

Eating the eggs are harmless, though I'm sure many Americans would be squeamish to know almost all the rice they've ever consumed had bug eggs in it.

TLDR:

Freezing rice for 48 hours in a freezer (just in the store-bought bags they come in), then put the rice into an air-tight container is sufficient to kill the eggs before they hatch and preserve the rice indefinitely (e.g. decades).

Is dry ice available where you live?

You can use it to kill bugs in grain .

You can also buy oxygen absorbing packets that will kill bugs in sealed containers.

You have to be careful about your choice of container.

To kill all the insects, you need to keep the oxygen level below 1% for 12 days.

Many 5 gallon buckets don't seal well enough to keep the oxygen out that long .

Used plastic soda bottles can be used effectively , but it will take a long time to pour the grain into the bottle using a funnel.

put lots of unpeeled GARLIC CLOVES in the rice container and shuffle it .Rice can be stored for years free from bugs.

Before this just sieve the rice to remove existing bugs.

Question: Can you please suggest to me how to prevent rice from getting very small black coloured insects, they are really irritating us by spreading total house and bothering my little kid a lot. I am from Hyderabad, India.

How do I get rid of bugs in rice?

Try to eliminate anything in your cupboards that is already infested, then transfer your rice to impenetrable containers and freeze them together or in batches for 48 hours. Low oxygen levels will kill bugs, so add oxygen absorbing packets or unpeeled garlic cloves to the containers.

Freezing is considered a good way of killing bugs in rise, as is putting the rice in the sun for a few hours. Alternatively, various things can be added to the rice, for example ginger and garlic. It is also important to keep your storage area free of items that could potentially be a breeding ground for bugs.

Freezing rice gets rid of the bugs and kills the eggs.

Make sure you do not have areas which are good breeding grounds for bugs.

You can put various things in the rice to kills the bugs, including ginger, garlic and neem.

Putting the rice in the sun for a few hours should kill the bugs.


Tea needs to be kept away from heat, light, air, and moisture.

The best way to store tea is at room temperature in an opaque, airtight container.

Your container should not be plastic, because odors from previous uses (even if its only been used solely for tea) could contaminate your current tea.

Do not store tea in the freezer or refrigerator.

Opening and closing of the door causes rapid humidity changes that cause moisture to seep into the container and degrade the flavor of the tea.

Some cheap tea containers can be found here: http://www.specialtybottle.com/teatincontainersmi.aspx

Personally, I would go for one with a twist or latching cover rather than a slip cover, just to ensure that it's airtight.

References http://www.uptontea.com/shopcart/information/INFOstoring.asp http://www.teavana.com/tea-info/tea-storage-for-loose-leaf-teas http://www.teavivre.com/info/proper-storage-of-tea/ http://verdanttea.com/how-to-store-tea/

I use a tin that some posh tea came in.

The lid fits pretty tight.

But anything airtight should do; a decent tupperware box or even a jam jar or a sauce bottle.

I used to keep flour, sugar and everything in them when I was a student because the places I lived were always damp.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24720/Bloke Down The Pub

In my opinion the best way is if you take the tea into a hermetically sealed box (that can be found in almost every supermarket), the tea won't lose their smell and taste in a long time.

But don't forget everything will go bad sooner or later.

The freezing isn't recommended, because the micro ice cristalls do harm the fibers of the foods, that's why the freezing makes more tastles the frozen foods (but

not very much).This is the reason why the meets can be frozen only once.

You must buy teas from some reputed shops .It should be placed in a very dry place with out any strong smells.

Green tea requires more preservation than other teas

If you keep it with vacuum sealer then it will be preserved for more days.

You can also see some different tea preservation process here:-

Keep it sealed under low light.

If you can smell the tea, it's losing flavor.

For large quantities I use 1L widemouth jars with screw on plastic lids.

Plastic gives a tighter seal than metal for this sort of thing.

Question: This  is the tea I use. Like Coffee needs to be stored in freezer, are there any storage restrictions for loose tea leaves also?

What is the best way to store loose tea to maintain its freshness?

Tea should be kept at room temperature in an opaque, airtight container, and should not be kept in the fridge or freezer. Plastic containers have a better seal, but may absorb some of the aromas and/or contaminate tea placed there.

Tea should be stored in an airtight container in a cool, dry, dark place away from strong smells. It should not, however, be placed in the fridge or freezer. Some people advise against using plastic containers while others recommend them. Green tea needs more careful attention than other teas.

Tea should be stored in a cool, dry, dark place away from strong smells.

The container should be airtight. Some people recommend plastic and others are against it.

Tea should not be stored in the fridge or freezer.

Green tea requires more careful storage than other teas.


Yes, the UV light will make your fruit and vegetables last longer.

Really it depends on the wavelength of UV.

275nm is used for killing bacteria and will burn your retinas, 385nm is less harsh to the skin or eyes and will still kill bacteria to a degree.

I just read a study in which they used 285nm in a controlled refrigerator setting against a static test with no UV on strawberries and how long they would stay fresh.

The UV irradiated strawberries lasted 9 days without growing mold.

The non uv, started growing mold all over them by 9 days.

They tested the nutritional content of each and the UV treated had a higher content of nutrition then the non uv.

It's for sterilizations -- for years they've sold "UV pens" for hikers to sterilize water, and kits with UV lamps to keep fish tanks clean.

Of course, it won't help if items are in opaque containers, tightly packed, wrapped in foil, etc ...

so you'll likely need to start using clear containers for it to be beneficial ... and even then, it'll only help the outside of the food, and the shelves and walls of the fridge, not the inner portions of the food being stored.

UV light also causes clear plastics to degrade over time.

They'll become less transparent (typically taking on a yellow/brown hue), and become more brittle. ...

so it could also cause you to need to replace your storage containers much more often.

I have no knowledge of UV affects on vitamins.

Whether UV might help a food last longer depends on what the food is.

Fats (like shortening or ghee), and most spices should be protected from light.

The UV in sunlight is part of what turns fats rancid, and helps dried herbs and spices loose their flavor.

You will never achieve a truly sterile environment at home.

Bacteria and molds are everywhere, in the air, on every surface.

In any case, any reduction in pathogens due to the UV is strictly a surface treatment, and the food will be quickly recolonized from the environment.

I recommend practicing good sanitation (such as not cutting vegetables on a board just used for raw chicken) in general, and not worrying about a gimmick such as a UV light.

I cannot speak to the stability of vitamins under UV.

UV light will destroy bacteria etc.

On direct contact only They are used in commercial food storage to self clean all the surfaces of the food storage system and containers placed within it Food should be in light proof containers if the UV light is very strong, or there will be some surface degradation For a domestic fridge, this is most likely a marketing gimmick, though it may help reduce odors etc.

if the owner doesn't clean the fridge very well or often?

Is it a sub zero?

Sub zero uses a uv light to filter the air

every 20 minutes not light up the entire fridge.

It is taking bacteria and odors as well as ethelyne gas out of the air circulated in the fridge.

This is not a new concept

Revco corporation introduced this at least as far back as the 60's in their bilt-in Gourmet line.

They continued it until they stopped making home refrigeration in the late 70's or early 80's.

They continue to make lab refrigeration so they probably continue to use uv air filtration.

Question: I have a new fridge in which there is, apparently, some LEDs emitting UVs. I read on the internet that it kills bacteria and helps the food last longer. Does this really work? And what about the claim that it somehow preserves vitamins?

What is the use of UV LEDs in my fridge?

UV light will sterilise the surface of food and destroy bateria, extending the lifetime of some foods. Similar technology is used in fish tanks and for sterilising drinking water. Containers should be clear and light proof for this to be effective, and only the surfaces exposed to the light will be sterilised.

UV light is used as a method of sterilization. However, it only works on direct contact and thus its use is limited. It also causes plastic to deteriorate over time. Practising good sanitation may be a better method of removing bacteria.

UV light is used for sterilization and will thus result in some foods lasting longer.

UV light works on direct contact only so opaque containers should not be used. Bacteria will recolonise from the enviornment.

UV light causes plastics to deteriorate over time.

Good sanitation is better at removing bacteria than UV light.


While if you have the opportunity to improvise a lid I recommend you do so as per the other answers, however it isn't always possible.

I have unexpectedly been thrust into the "grill master" role when I've shown up to parties and the charcoal is hot, food expensive, and nobody

but me knows how.

In situations like this you have to do the best you can with what you have, and sometimes you won't have a lid or anything you can use as one.

The reasons you want a lid are that it evens the heat out, and reduces the oxygen supply to the fire which cools things down a bit and reduces flare-ups.

Without a lid you will get a hotter temperature at the base of the grill and much cooler temperatures above, with fat having a much greater tendency to flare.

You can still get good results through making good choices of what to cook, and good technique.

Bad technique will lead to food that is burnt to a crisp on the outside and raw in the middle.

There are some foods that you don't need a lid for,

in fact you shouldn't use one, like thin to medium cut steaks.

Other foods like burgers

you can use a lid or not and still get a good result.

So part of your success will come from choosing the right things to cook.

Thinner is better, as is picking foods that don't necessarily have to be cooked through.

Some food you just can't grill without a lid.

Avoid anything that requires long, indirect heat like legs of lamb or roasting joints.

Some food is best cooked with a lid, but you can get good results without one, like chicken and sausages.

Your main problem is heat control, and flaring.

Chicken and sausages need longer cooking temperatures, so the goal is to cook them through without burning the outside, you can do this by keeping them around the edge of the charcoal where they get enough heat, and dripping fat won't hit the coals and flare up.

Turn them often, like once a minute to keep them from burning.

If they are getting close to done and they don't have enough char then you can move them to the center of the grill for a bit.

It also helps to have some sort of baste to coat them with to keep them moist like bbq sauce or a marinade.

With sausages you can cheat a bit by slicing them down the long way and cooking them flat a few minutes over high heat.

If you are cooking different foods at the same time, like burgers, sausages, and chicken then separate your grill into zones.

Burgers get high heat, sausages medium, and chicken low.

If you want to cook mostly food that needs a medium to low heat then you will get a lot of mileage from arranging your charcoal intelligently, like in a long strip down the middle of the wide part of the grill, or in a square grill in a torus shape.

This will give you much more area of your grill with the temperature you need.

Really important for lidless grilling is a spray bottle full of water to put out flare-ups, a mist sprayed on the base of the flare works magic and it won't kick up ash all over your food.

There is no good reason to adapt to going lidless, make a lid!

If you've got a lid to a roasting pan or whatever, use that.

Otherwise, just use a big stainless steel mixing bowl.

It'll be fine, just be sure to have good oven mitts/gloves.

A cast iron skillet or Dutch oven would work well too.

The shape of the grill hardly matters.

Just make sure that your "lid" is over the hot portions of the grill.

Heat travels up, not so much sideways.

I use a big terra cotta flower pot, turned upside down.

Buy an unused one at the hardware store for less than 20 bucks.

Excellent heat regulation.

Also great for doing roasts in the oven at home, smoked meats, etc.

GdG gives a lot of good information, but one other thing to consider about lidded vs. lidless grilling is the humidity -- with the lid down, you'll have more moist air than with the lid up.

For sausages, you can start the cooking in a bath (disposable aluminum pans work well); either water, or cook 'em in beer or other flavorful liquid.

Once they're cooked through, you can get some grill marks on them.

For chicken, You can add some humidity by placing the pan down in the coals, and then cook the chicken above it.

This can also help to prevent flare ups for fattier pieces, as the fat drips into the water, rather than onto the coals.

Because it is an open air grill, you'll just have to be mindful of the oxygen supply that gets to your charcoal.

On a kettle grill, for example, the lid helps control flare-ups, because you are limiting the oxygen supply to the cooking chamber, which keeps the coals more at a smoldering level than a flaming one.

When cooking in open air, however, there is plenty of oxygen available.

So adding fuel (drippings from your meat) to the fire will cause the flame to surge and singe your meat.

On that note, you should also be aware that your fire will be hotter over the coals than it would be when using a lid, if the amount of charcoal used is constant between the two scenarios.

You can resolve these potential issues by either putting the food further than normal from the heat source, or by using less fuel (or some combination of both).

I cover whatever I’m cooking with aluminum foil when cooking without a lid.

I shape it into a tent and place it over lets say a chicken.

A Disposable aluminum roasting pan works too.

Question: If a recipe explicitly asks to grill with the lid on (for example this  jerk chicken ), but I'll be grilling on a grill without a lid on one of those ubiquitous rectangular park grills, how should I adapt?  I know I'll need more turning to get more even heat, but is there anything else I should do?

How do I adapt to grilling without a lid?

Some food is better with a lid or requires a lid, so either choose foods that can be cooked without or improvise using a roasting pan lid, stainless steel mixing bowl, Dutch oven, aluminium roasting pan or similar. Make sure your lid is over the hot parts of the grill when cooking.

There is usually no need to grill without a lid as you can make a lid very easily. However, if you have to do it, choose the foods you cook with care and avoid foods requiring long, indirect heat.

There is no need to grill without a lid when you can use many usually available kitchen items to substitute as a lid, like a stainless steel bowl, roasting pan, flower pot, etc.

If you have to grill without a lid, choose the food you are going to cook carefully. Choose foods that cook quickly on high heat.


Making bread without sugar is nothing strange - I do so several times a week!

The wheat flour (or whatever you're using) contains enzymes which, when you blend it with water, breaks down starch to sugars which fermenting agents such as yeast or lactobacilli can feed off.

The Wikipedia page on sourdough has more info.

I assume, by sugar you mean sucrose .

However, yeast actually prefers glucose and maltose, see nutritional requirements of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and also proofing .

Luckily, we get glucose and maltose "for free" from the flour, see this article on bread chemistry :

Flour naturally contains both α- and

β-amylases, which between them break down some of the starch in the dough to the fermentable sugars, maltose and glucose The short answer is thus, bread does not need additional sucrose, as the maltose and glucose we get out of the flour is already sufficient for the job.

On a sidenote, as other answers mention, basic bread dough does not call for sugar in the recipe.

Technically, by adding sugar you get an enriched dough (a dough with additional sugar, syrup, butter, oil, eggs, milk, or cream, etc. is called an enriched dough).

In this case, the sugar is added for achieving a specific effect, most typically making the dough sweeter or also more tender see

What is the purpose of sugar in baking plain bread?

and this article and also this paper .

You do not need sugar to make bread.

The majority of traditional, rustic breads use just 4 ingredients - water, yeast, flour, and salt.

Consequently, rising times are slower (usually resulting in better flavour) and the bread goes stale quicker (hence, for example, the French practice of buying fresh bread every day).

Sugar softens bread by slowing gluten development - contrast a soft white sandwich loaf with a rough French baguette - and at a certain level acts as a preservative, but is by no means essential.

Sugared bread is something mostly specific to the US.

There might be a little sugar in European bread, but not much.

From a personal opinion as a Belgian, I have to say that the few time I ate sugared bread (Harry's American bread), I found that it completely ruined the taste of the condiment on my bread, as well as make the bread less suitable to be used in a toaster.

And I'm not alone, because I've heard a number of immigrants from EU to US say that they didn't like the bread in the US and had to go to specialty bakers to get sugarfree bread.

So not all modern bread recipes contain sugar.

And as others said, we had non-sugar sweeteners in older days.

Raisin bread, honey bread and milk bread used to be common and are still eaten in a number of European countries during certain periods.

I would assume the sugar is added for more "optimized" and foolproof bread making (industrialized)

It is not necessary at all.

Also in the "old time", people had access to other types of sugar ( honey,fruits, ... ) and as far as I known, big fluffy bread is quite recent in the history of time.

Yeast can start faster given simpler carbohydrates (not just plain sugar but also milk sugar and dextrose).

However, it breaks down starch into such simpler sugars with some of its enzymes anyway.

Since most of the leavening is supposed to happen after the loaves have been properly worked and formed, fast fermentation is not all that desirable anyway for achieving consistent leavening without holes or boils.

They used malted barley (diastatic) flour--just a little goes a long way--and is usually present in "bread flour".

It makes bread rise as the yeast feed upon it.

Also, you can use a starter (called a polish or biga in Italian (though they are slightly different from each other), an active yeast culture maintained separately from a bread recipe but that is used for making bread.

Similar to sourdough starter, but a biga only takes a few hours, while sourdough takes days.

Biga is not sour, though it is fermented a bit, which causes a better rise.

Question: Modern recipes (as far as I know) for bread includes sugar.  Sugar gives the yeast a food source, which supports it growth and allows yeast to give bread many of its qualities.  It hit me the other day that sugar (produced from sugar cane) is a relatively new commodity.  People did not have this kind of sugar 1000 years ago in Europe, the middle east, etc.  How did they manage to make bread without it?

How did people make bread before sugar was 'discovered'

Sugar is not necessary to make bread, although it does slow down gluten development and act as a preservative. Many European breads use little or no sugar, and may have a starter, sweet ingredients like honey, milk and raisins or malted barley flour.

Sugar is not essential to bread making. Traditional recipes do not contain sugar, except in the US. In the past dried fruit, honey and malt flour were used to enrich the dough or a biga [starter] was used to cause the rising.

Sugar is not needed to make bread and not all modern recipes contain sugar.

European bread has little or no sugar. Sugar in bread is mainly an Amrican tradition.

Alternatives to sugar in bread-making include honey, dried fruit, malted barley and biga or Italin starter.


I made myself some spicy chicken and macaroni soup, and put it in a bowl while it was still boiling.

I put a thermometer in it as it cooled and I started to eat.

I figured the soup was a good thing to test as I could take big bites that included liquid and solids that required chewing.

I took a bite every minute or so and noted the temperature, and I repeated with boiling soup after it had reached "too cool to enjoy".

At temperatures over 190F (87.8C)

I couldn't put it in my mouth without giving it time to cool on the spoon and "blowing on it".

At 180F (82.2C)

I was still "blowing on it", but not in an unpleasant way for the first bites of soup.

I would consider that to be optimum serving temperature for this kind of soup (see quote concerning Chinese noodle soup below).

At 170F

I could put the bite straight into my mouth without pausing or "blowing on it" but it was still a bit hot, if I were eating without paying attention to the temperature, I would have "blown on it" At 160F (71.1C)

I can and did eat comfortably.

It was just pleasantly hot.

At 150F (65.5C)

it was still pleasantly hot.

At 145F (62.7C)

It was still quite warm, pleasant for soup.

At 140F (60C)

it was still fine, but not hot at all.

At 135F (57.2C)

it was still OK, but definitely getting on the cool side for soup.

At 130F (54.4C)

I was glad to be almost done.

At 125F

I was thinking seriously about the microwave.

At 120F (48.9C)

It was too cool to enjoy this particular soup.

Obviously, different foods are going to have different optimal temperatures.

I wouldn't want steak to have ever hit over 130F (45.4C).

Also, consider that I have been cooking for 35 years.

I am accustomed to sticking a spoon into something boiling on the stove in order to taste it.

Consider too that there is (at least there is for me) something fun and vaguely comforting about soup that's still a bit too hot to eat.

Some of us blow on it, noodles are often slurped for that reason:

Slurping is de rigueur among the Chinese, for practical reasons.

“It’s a way of introducing cool air into your mouth to cool off the noodles and the broth if it’s a noodle soup. …

Chinese food is generally served hot, often served piping hot.”

- Chow.com

So, I don't think there is really such a thing as too hot to serve soup to "consenting adults".

Other types of food are cooled or rested before serving for other reasons.

Meat should always be rested to allow the fibers to relax so that the juices stay in the meat instead of running all over the plate.

Cheesy things like pizza are easier to cut and serve after they have cooled a bit.

Some things are just (subjectively) better after cooling (I prefer fried chicken barely warm, for instance).

So, that's my $.02 on the subject, the answer of "best temperature" is largely subjective.

This most definitely is a food safety question.

I work for a school district, and we have had several instances of small children burning themselves on the soup.

We needed to write the proper serving temperature into our HACCP recipe to ensure that this would not happen again.

We did some testing ourselves and found that the 145-155 temperature range was optimal for best quality and safe transport on a lunch tray.

I worked under a chef in Seattle for about six months.

He tended to recommend serving at about 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

The soup I ate tonight was too hot until it cooled down to 140 degrees.

At 145 degrees I had to blow on it first.

You can order starbucks lattes at specific temperatures.

I find that 140 is about the hottest I can handle without having to wait, but I also have a sensitive mouth.

Thanks for the well considered answers- apart from the comments above, please consider the following which I have observed in forty years of restaurant ownership: Older people definitely require hotter food.

The temperature that a meal leaves the kitchen is way different to that of the last morsel eaten.

I hat heavy plate is a great help here.

Certain foods which have a large surface area and small mass (like grilled calamari)

cool very quickly.

In sous vide cooking, items like trout or rare meats which are cooked at about 52 deg C (125 deg F) are too cold to serve.

They will need searing or a blast of higher temperature to elevate them to the optimal eating temperature.

If the first few mouthfuls are pleasantly warm, the eater will seldom be unhappy with the cooler remnants.

Happy cooking Chef Nic

Well in the past year or so, I heat soup to 170F. Two reasons, one this temperature is about the temperature, once plated, that the soup is edible immediately, never burn your mouth again.

I hate to wait.

Second, per the USDA, at 170F, virtually all pathogens are goners.

Third, this temperature will destroy less nutrients then heating to boiling, a bonus.

Knowing this, I would think that restaurants that are concerned with table turnover should bring soup out at this temperature, this would allow people to eat quite hot soup, without waiting, and decrease the time they are at the table.

Just a thought.

Question: I'm trying to get a temperature range for knowing when food is too hot to eat.  Most of what I am finding is temperature ranges for food to kill bacteria instead.  For example, if I'm serving a hot drink or a soup/stew which was recently simmering or boiling, what temperature should I let it cool to before serving?

What is the temperature range for food not to burn your mouth?

While 170F is the temperature at which virtually all pathogens are destroyed, 140F is about the temperature where it becomes cool enough to eat. For this reason, 155F may be a good temperature when poured into bowls on serving trays, to allow it to be pleasantly hot when it arrives at the table.

140 to 155 seems to be an acceptable temperature for eating food. However, it needs to be heated above 170 to kill pathogens.

Soup can never be too hot for adults. Other foods are cooled before serving for various reasons.

Between 140 and 155 seems to be an acceptable temperature for eating food. However at 170 all pathogens are killed.


When we have had garlic in our garden I have used the garlic leaves.

They do have a garlicky flavor but are milder than garlic cloves.

I tend to use them more as I would chives or garlic chives as in addition to having the milder flavor than the cloves they make for a quite nice presentation.

Regarding drying them, I have never tried it.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any reason not to dry them for later use but there may be issues that I just don't know about.

The green tops of garlic are called 'garlic scapes' (or sometimes, just 'scapes').

They are edible (a kind of garlic/chive mix) and there are plenty of recipes available online that use them.

One reason I love to plant garlic (In October in the NE US), is that I can use it 3 times during its life-cycle.

After planting garlic sprouts.

These sprouts (what you might be calling a leaf) can be cut back to ground level before winter and used in cooking...

garlicky chive-like flavor and application.

Then in the spring, they sprout again.

After a while the scape will emerge.

The scape is identifiable by a bulge at that top and the stalk is cylindrical, but tends to spiral after a while.

Again, the scape can be cut off.

These are best sauteed, but have other applications as well.

Finally, the mature garlic head can be unearthed, dried/cured and used.

Save a head and separate in to cloves for planting again the next fall!

The garlic sprout (or as we call it in persia, leaf) is very popular cooking ingredient in northeren Iran.

The northeren Iran cooking style and speciastylehe city Rasht has been aproved by the Unicef as a influencial city in field of cooking and one of our very popular ingredients is the garlic sprout.

We take it fry it and then use it in various kinds of omlettes, stews, and so many things.

It is very tasteful and uplifiting.

I recommend it to all.

I just started growing garlic, and I tried the greens.

They are very good.

Chive like, but, a bit more flavor

and it definitely has a subtle garlic taste.

I just keep cutting when I need them.

I am assuming the bulb is not hampered in growth.

We make good mixed stir fry potatoes and green garlic leaves.

We often use fresh leaves in different days (soup) , use as toppings on pizza, make green garlic chutanies.

Air dry garlic leaves after cutting, wrap in a cloth and then refrigerate or freeze in off season.

Yes, you can use the "leaves" of growing garlic.

The subtle flavor is perfect for chicken gravy.

In fact, I use them much more than the actual garlic itself simply because of their refined flavor.

You will use the fresh garlic leaves in any (mixed in ingredients) dumplings.

Most popular is Gyoza of Japan.

This is likely similar to Nira Leaves.

I cut the stalks off and take out the hard center part then dehydrate the rest of the leaves.

I then put them in the blender when dryed and put it through a sieve.

They are milder tasting then

garlic

but we love it in soups ,sauces etc.

Also good to sprinkle in salads etc.

Why waste the stocks when you can put them to good use.

It's good to keep in all vegetables and non vegetables.

We gring it with other spices including salt and make powder to put in salads etc.

Its so tasty.

We use it in potato vegetables too.

Question: I planted a garlic clove and now I have a nice garlic plant. The question is: Can I use the leaves to season food safely?  The leaves smell like garlic and I wonder if it's okay to use them dried, like oregano and other seasoning herbs. I don't know if will taste like garlic, or if it is dangerous to eat.

Can I use garlic leaf for cooking?

Garlic leaves are edible and popular in northern Iran and other places. You can use them in omelettes, stews, on pizza, in chutneys or in dumplings, and they can be dried, refrigerated or frozen for the off season.

Garlic leaves are edible. They are very popular in many different cultures, including Iran and Japan. They can be dried and used like dried herbs.


Sure it's safe.

You are about to char the outside at very high temperatures, nothing's going to survive that, so cleaning it is more about flavor than safety.

I wouldn't just wipe it though, clean it with water or you might get a dirtier steak flavor than you'd like.

This depends completely on the context.

Are you at a grill in

let's say..

Outback Steakhouse?

If so, please throw it away.

Are you at a social event or home cooking for yourself/others?

clean it off with water and you're good, maybe even feed it to someone you don't like afterwards (unless it's the biggest and best steak, then you gotta eat it.)

It depends on what it is likely to pick up.

If it's an interior floor surface that is usually kept clean, you're unlikely to suffer any ill effects.

If it's outside on the ground next to the gas grill and you regularly fertilize/pesticide/herbicide the lawn, or sealed/stained your deck/concrete recently, or have a number of animals that use the space as a restroom and play area, I'd suggest throwing it away and being more careful with your food.

I don't believe one could safely answer, "Yes, it's generally ok regardless of other factors."

That said, washing it off after contamination, and ensuring it reaches safe cooking temperatures after washing it will probably prevent most significant opportunities for poisoning or illness.

Whether it's worth the risk depends entirely on how risky it is, and how risk averse you are.

5 seconds under the tap, then back on the grill.

If you have any organisms on the floor / ground etc.

capable of surviving proper cooking of meat within 30 seconds of being exposed to said meat, your guests are doomed.

("The Salmon Mousse!")

They won't be on warm meat long enough -

E.Coli (the bad one) needs 20 minutes to divide, and that's after a zero-growth lag period.

To take this to a logical extreme, rubbing your raw, wild rabbit medallions (that you shot out of season and butchered 30 minutes ago) on a nearly-dead ebola victim's face and then cooking it medium-well will still produce edible food.

Wash your hands before sitting down at the table, please.

However, as others have mentioned, inorganic chemicals will not be affected so you could have taste or toxicity issues.

I would hope that your kitchen floor has not been dusted with arsenic powder, nor that you are barbecuing outside mere hours after the people in moon suits sprayed your yard (and hopefully removed the ebola victim).

If a steak hits my deck, I rinse it with the garden hose and return it to the grill.

That's if no one is looking.

If people are watching it goes into the kitchen, gets rinsed there, trimmed so it looks different, and then the "replacement" goes back on the grill.

If you work in the open grill at Outback, make a big show of the meat's disposal and floor cleaning.

A caveat to the washing off suggested by others, I would add: Do not wash so thoroughly that the flavor is lost - you may as well throw it away then.

Just pour water for 3-4 seconds.

After that, if you feel it is still dirty, then take a serrated knife and thinly scrape off the part that touched the ground.

It is safe if you take some measures to clean the dust and other particles that might have sticked to the meat.

Rinse the meat with lots of water, no soap.

If you have some sauce to spare, after rinsing the meat, set apart some sauce (throw away that sauce afterwards) and use it to season the meat throughly.

This will remove almost all the particles and substances that the meat picked up, and re-add the spices the meat lost.

After that, grill the meat again.

According to the Fodsafety.gov , temperatures above 165F are enough to kill the germs.

And this link shows that most grills have a surface temperature over 300F anyway.

So your steak will be safe to eat, and if you season it well, nobody will tell the difference.

Even if you don't cook the steak afterwards

(that is, assuming it was properly cooked when it hit the floor), keep in mind that the human immune system is more capable than we give it credit for.

Moreover, pathogens that do make us ill, such as E. Coli and Streptococcus, prefer moist areas with an easy supply of nutrients; our floors and counter-tops aren't typically their first choice for an abode.

The YouTube video 5 Second Rule by the amusing yet educational What You Ought to Know covers this topic, and includes references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsYOGM7wyns

As already mentioned, I would probably rinse it off to get rid of the worst, as well as remove anything that may affect the final taste, but as my Swedish father always says, "Lite skit rensar magen."

Question: If I am cooking steaks at a grill and one of them accidentally falls down on the floor/ground, is it safe for me to wipe it and cook it for a certain amount of time (till it is pretty well done) and then eat it? Or should I throw it away?

Is a steak OK to eat if it fell down, but I cooked it afterwards?

It depends on what may be on the ground or floor — a regularly cleaned kitchen floor may be fine, but outside in places where it may be exposed to chemicals or animal faeces probably would not. Try washing it off and returning it to the grill, without washing so thoroughly that the flavour is gone.

Steak is usually safe to eat if it has been washed and cooked properly after being dropped on the floor. However, it may not be safe if it could have been in contact with chemicals and other toxic products.

Whether the meat is safe depends on the context. What kind of floor did it fall on? Could it have been contaminated by toxic products?

The steak needs to be washed in water and then cooked at a high temperature to kill any pathogens.

You have to decide if it is worth the risk.


First off, do not use sand paper.

The sandpaper grit will wear off over use (which is it's function) and possibly remain in the dough.

You don't want anyone eating sand paper grit, and I'm not even sure what it would do.

It might even be a hospital-level problem if the grit gets embedded in any digestive tract tissues and causes inflammation.

Ugg.

Please don't.

If you have a mandolin slicer and the cookies are soft enough, you could set it up on a very thin setting and slide the cookies across the bottom, shaving off a tiny bit.

I like the sandwich idea above.

I'd take a different approach entirely.

Throw out the cookies, or at least don't eat them.

Compost them, or build a cookie fort for small mammals, or make something decorative, or play cookie frisbee (probably outdoors).

Use your imagination.

Consider this failure a learning experience – remember to actually learn from it – and try again.

Take a sharp knife and scrape it off.

Easy: cheese grater.

Cleans off the bottoms flawlessly!

do what you would do with sand paper but with the edge of a blade at 90°.

i sometimes do that in toasts.

EDIT: agree with both comments below :)

Place the cookies in an airtight tupperware container with several slices of bread spread over them.

The cookies will suck the moisture from the bread and soften up.

The time it will take to work can be anywhere from an afternoon, or overnight.

It just depends on how hard the cookies are.

I usually do this with just one or two slices of bread to keep cookies from going stale.

But I have managed to save some dry cookies by using more bread slices.

I can't say it will do anything for the burnt taste, but at least you'll be able to either chew them (or cut the bottoms off).

When that happens with toast I just use a dull knife to scrap the burnt part off.

The thing about baking is most items are to be baked in the middle of the even

so there is even heat all around.

When there are two items on the same shelf just space them equally.

Another thing is to not oil the cookie sheet when baking.

Breads need spray coatings but cookies do not.

If you really do not want to toss them, use a clean brick-stone and use as if it were sandpaper.

:-)But not many people have those laying around...

Sandwich idea could work, also like the experience idea and tossing them.

You could always tell your friends that there is hasj stuck to the bottom! :P

Question: I made Cookies and they are burned at the bottom.  What can I do to remove the burned layer without destroying the cookies and keeping as much as possible from the good parts?  I was thinking of sand paper but I fear this leaves a taste from the "sand" and may be even not healthy.

Burned Cookies - Now what?

Do not use sandpaper, as some of the grit will wear off and remain in the dough. Instead use a mandolin, cheese grater, dull knife or even a clean brick stone to remove the bottom layer, or just throw them out or use them for something decorative.

Many kitchen utensils can be used to scrape burnt parts off food, for example a mandolin or knife. Burnt food can also be used as compost or maybe it should just be thrown away.

Do not use sand paper to remove burnt parts on food.

Mandolins, sharp knives, clean brick and cheese grater can be used to remove burnt parts on food.

Throw the cookies away or use them as compost or something else useful.