Freezing

You can freeze hot peppers .

Scotch Bonnet and other thin-walled varieties freeze particularly well, although thick-walled ones can be frozen as well.

I think the recommended storage time is 6 months, but I know I've had ones that were fine after a year or so.

So long as you're going to be using them in slow cooked applications, you can just drop them in frozen.

For other applications, they might be a little bit mushy.

If you want to cut them up, it's easiest to use a really sharp knife or scissors, and cut them up while they're still frozen.

Pickling Pickling works better for thick-walled peppers, like the jalapeños.

It will also affect the temperature, but as a function of time (the longer, the more mushy they get ... slower for the thicker walled varieties)

The vinegar gives a nice brightness to the peppers which may not be desired in all recipes.

You'll want to cut up the peppers before pickling, to ensure that the liquid gets to the flesh from both sides, but you can leave it in slabs to give more options for later.

Drying

I've had mixed luck with drying peppers, but it might be an issue with the local climate.

It generally works better with thin-walled peppers.

Once you think they're dried, you'll want to put them in a tightly sealed glass jar and check for signs of condensation on the inside after a day ...

if there's any, they're not dry enough to put away for long-term storage.

To use, you'll either have to pulverize them (to make your own version of 'crushed red pepper), or soak them to soften them up enough to use.

You can cut up dried peppers into stripes fairly easily with scissors before soaking, but dicing is a bit of a pain.

I really like Joe's answer.

My preferred method for long term storage of any kind of pepper is to freeze it.

But, in every case I can think of (that's a lot), the peppers benefit from being roasted and peeled before freezing.

Thick walled peppers do well roasting in the oven or charred on the gas stove; then steaming loose the skins by putting the whole, hot (temperature-wise) pepper into something air-tight.

Like this: The Kitchn Smaller, thin walled peppers also are better frozen after they have been roasted and peeled.

Check this out!

I'm pretty happy with the results of this experiment:

Roasting smaller, thinly skinned peppers - removing peel

Don't lose sight of fermentation as a preservation process.

It is the method used to make Tabasco sauce, for example.

I grew a lot of scotch bonnet pepoers and my neighbor suggested freezing them whole.

When I am ready to use then in a sause, beans, rice etc.

, I take out what I need, put them in a plastic bag take a hammer and hammer them until they are crushed.

Then you can shake the amount you want into the food you are preparing.

I made spaghetti sause the other day using the peppers and it gave the sause a great flavor.

The next day it was even better.

I personally think that pickling chillies is the best method as this retains the chilli "taste" and not just the heat as when dried or flaked.

I tend do use green chilli's as I feel they have more flavour.

A simple pickling recipe is best, so as to not destroy the flavour with too many other spices or ingredients.

Here is a site showing different methods of preserving chillies

I think freezing is the option .

I have tried it and it doesn't affect the texture and taste when added to food.

Question: I've been given three chilli plants:   Bulgarian Carrot  Jalapeño  Scotch Bonnet   I'm not going to be able to use them fresh before winter arrives.    What methods of preserving would be appropriate for chilli?What would be the effect on them in terms of taste, texture etc.

What are different methods of preserving chillies?

Freezing is a good option, especially with thin-walled varieties like Scotch Bonnet, while pickling and fermenting work better with thick-walled peppers. Success with drying can depend on the local climate.

The main methods recommended for preserving peppers are freezing, the most popular, pickling and drying.

Many people recommend freezing for preserving peppers.

Pickling and fermentation are options for preserving peppers.

Dryingis a method of preserving peppers.


This can have different reasons.

How long did you mix it?

The transition between grainy and creamy can come late and suddenly, but it should happen eventually.

Was the butter cold?

I have been getting the best results with room-temperature butter.

Did you sieve the powdered sugar?

If not, that may be the problem.

Or did it perhaps get wet at some point and crystallize again?

If all these are NOT the problem, try adding some milk, or if you plan to use it anyway, vanilla essence, in small drops, while stirring.

I hope one of these will help :).

Just like when making fudge, Mother used to fold this by hand in a metal bowl on her lap.

Honestly I think it's the slight impartation of body temperature which induces the sugar granules (microgranules) to break down a bit, you know, just this side of syrup.

The smallest taste every once in awhile marks your progress.

(It was really nice to be reminded of this.)

Follow all of Layna's answer , and also sift the sugar, and keep everything at room temperature.

If you use milk, only a half teaspoon.

Remember you can't rush perfection.

The trick with all cooking baking and even life is patience.

Grainy is a texture, not a flavor.

Start with room temperature butter.

Beat it for 2 or 3 minutes.

Put the splash cover over the mixer bowl.

Start the mixer and then ...

THIS IS THE KEY ... add the sieved icing sugar (powdered sugar) TABLESPOON BY TABLESPOON beating well between each addition.

I searched the internet trying to find out how to lose the grainy texture & the above 'be very patient' method worked!

This was an issue I had that drove me crazy for such a long time!

We're talking throwing-spatulas-across-the-kitchen-frustrated.

The magic fix is to use ONLY PURE CANE SUGAR.

I know it sounds too easy, but after reading labels on the sugar I was buying (store brand because, hello, it's cheaper and what's the difference, really?)

I noticed that the ingredients only say "sugar".

Which likely means that it comes from beets, rather than sugar cane.

Yes, it's a thing.

A very common thing, and after delving more into it

it turns out that beet sugar also browns differently from cane sugar.

Unless the ingredients label specifies "cane sugar" it's likely not made with sugar cane.

I don't know the science behind it, but it has been a game changer for me.

This, coupled with making sure the butter is (cool) room temp before creaming it and adding the vanilla very last thing have improved my buttercream more than I ever could have imagined.

Graininess is a matter of perspective.

Unfortunately, the American buttercream you're going for is inherently on the grainier side.

There are ways to adulterate it so that it's smoother, but in doing so, you'll get away from a pure American buttercream.

Contrary to what one commenter said

, butter/powdered sugar as a frosting is purely an American invention, popularized by Wilton decorating.

French buttercream is made by dissolving sugar in an egg yolk mixture over a Bain Marie and then beating room temperature butter into the cooled mixture.

Swiss and Italian meringue buttercreams are similar in that they require dissolving the sugar crystals completely, leading to a perfectly smooth texture.

The other European option is German buttercream, which requires a pastry cream which you then beat butter into.

The difference between German and french styles is the inclusion of cooked starch in the pastry cream.

The last semi(?)

American version which is probably easiest (and does not include eggs) is ermine buttercream...

I generally see this referred to in older recipes as trailer park frosting, so I wonder if it's German buttercream made without eggs because of poverty.

This requires cooking a pudding with water or milk, sugar, and starch, which also dissolves the sugar completely, giving a perfectly smooth texture.

However due to the increased moisture content, and relatively low sugar,you should refrigerate this frosting if you plan to keep it more than a few days.

If you seriously want to avoid cooking, you can experiment with using more shortening to replace part of the butter, and sugar syrup to replace part of the powdered sugar.

However I don't have as much experience with those ingredients.

Good luck!

Question: I am making buttercream icing, but the powdered sugar does not dissolve with the butter and shortening. The icing is grainy. How can I prevent this?

How can I keep my buttercream from becomming grainy?

American buttercream tends to be grainy by nature, but using pure cane sugar and adding the sieved icing sugar tablespoon by tablespoon, beating after each addition, will give a smoother result.

Using pure cane sugar and adding the sugar one spoonful at a time are ways to avoid a grainy buttercream. Keeping the mixture slightly warm may also help. However, American buttercream is grainy and trying to make it smooth is changing the product.

Keep the mixture slightly warm while mixing to avoid grainy texture.

American buttercream is grainy and making it smoother is really making a different product.


To eliminate any off flavors that may have been absorbed, soak them in warm water for a few hours.

Be sure the stones are covered by at least a couple of inches, so that there's plenty of volume to absorb flavors.

Agitate them every now and again as well.

When you place them back in the freezer, be sure they're dry (any surface moisture will more readily absorb flavors) and keep them in a sealed bag or container.

For what it's worth, it sounds like your sub-par experience is similar to that of many whiskey nerds and my own.

There's really not much need for these things.

You can get a similar amount of chilling by using a thick-bottomed glass placed in the freezer for at least 15 minutes or so.

If your "whisk(e)y stones" are actually stones, they are pourous all the way through.

You'll need the thouroughly saturate them with water and a bit of vodka to rid yourself of the water- and alcohol-soluble flavors that have been absorbed.

If you don't have the patience for the repeated soakings that will be required, I had good luck putting mine through a self-cleaning cycle in my oven.

You have to make sure that they're completely dried out or they'll crack/explode.

Soapstone whiskey rocks are a thing of the past.

There are much better whiskey stones out there that have a much better cooling power and have no taste.

I love my whiskey, but I love it cool.

I have tried whisky rocks made of soapstone and to tell you the truth, they are terrible.

I have also tried the glass and granite ones and those also do not provide much cooling power.

The stainless steel ones are by far the best I have ever tried, but it is important to make sure they are not just a plated version, also the majority of them are only 3/4 of an inch, but those are still too small to give the desired outcome, the best ones to use are 1 inch cubes.

The best ones I have ever tried are called Great White Ice whiskey stones.

They are 1 inch cubes and are pure stainless steel with a liquid cooling gel in their centers, are smooth and highly polished and they will never scratch anything.

They remain colder way longer

then any other type I have tried, and the best part is, they only have to be frozen from 1-2 hours.

They can also be used in any other type of drink, I also use them in my wine.

They have no taste and they will never break or rust.

Trust me you will never use soapstone whiskey rocks again after trying these!

You can get them on Amazon.

Here is the link [ http://www.amazon.com/Great-White-Ice-Whiskey-Stones/dp/B00CIXQ5C4][1]

Your experience and other answers are very different from my experience; for me, they work well to temper a wee dram.

:) If they're made of proper soapstone (a common material for whisky stones), you should be in good shape.

If it's something absorbent like limestone or something (which is sometimes used for coasters, and inappropriate for putting in anything)

you've got the wrong substance to start with.

Here's my thoughts, if it's soapstone: Good quality soapstone is essentially non-porous and generally resilient/resistant to staining/smell on its own.

If you think the smell/taste is in the water/ice that has condensed on the outside, give it a quick rinse in cold water after removing from the freezer and before putting in your glass.

This will rinse off the ice crystals and not meaningfully warm the cube.

Soapstone is rather soft (perhaps 4 on the Mohs scale for good quality stuff), and can be polished using conventional methods.

You can scrape and polish off some of the surface with stuff like green scrub pads (e.g., "Scotch Brite"), regular cheap sandpaper, and maybe steel wool or so.

If you think some bits are clinging to the outside, polish them off.

Finish with really fine grit to polish smooth.

Best not to breathe the dust...

This is how I treat my soapstone.

I find that they don't even absorb stuff like bitters.

They work for me, and I like them!

Tried soaking my whisky rocks (which I think are soapstone) in lemon juice sealed in a Tupperware container.

Seems to have worked so far.

Gonna dry them out & keep them inside a container in the fridge.

Fingers crossed.

Question: I made the mistake of buying these  awesome  whisky stones (soapstone) to chill my drinks. Besides the fact that they don't cool the drink down a lot, they acquire a freezer taste and ruin the flavor of the beverage. How can I eliminate this taste? I tried to wash them with soap and water, but I can still taste them.

How to remove the flavor from whisky stones?

When freezing the stones, make sure they're dry and in a sealed container to prevent absorption of flavours. To clean, soak in warm water or a mix of water and vodka, and rinse quickly in cold water when removing from the freezer to clear condensed water on the surface.

Whisky stones should be kept in a sealed container. If they have a smell/taste clean them with water and/or vodka. Rinse any ice off the outside before using them.

Clean whisky stones with water or water and vodka to get rid of the smell. Rinse the ice off the outside to ensure that is not the cause of the smell/taste.

Keep whisky stones in a sealed bag or container and make sure they are dry when you put them in the freezer.


This coating , which wipes right off and is indeed harmless, is called the "bloom" of the grape or sometime the "blush".

As described here , (the wiki for Fermentation in winemaking), it contains trace amounts of natural yeast, though thought to be the result of ambient yeast rather than the result of growth process proper.

Here we find a more thorough answer, It’s mostly harmless wax, says Kay Bogart, a winemaker who works in outreach for the University of California at Davis’s viticulture program.

The grape plant produces it to protect the berries from moisture loss.

It’s also often just plain old dust, adds Jim LaMar, a professor of wine sensory evaluation at California State University, Fresno.

Until recently, winemakers believed the white stuff was yeasts, responsible for wine fermentation.

Now they believe such yeasts are airborne.

In any case, that white stuff isn’t pesticide residue.

Which is not to say that there isn’t pesticide residue on the grape, so wash it anyway before you pop it into your mouth.

In the book Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane by Andrew Graham-Dixon, we find of Roman mythology the following statement regarding Bacchus, the ancient god of wine and intoxication,

The bloom on the grapes, which dusts them with a layer of whiteness and dulls the reflected light caught in their opalescent skins, is echoed by the dry and whitish lips of the god himself.

I lived in Cyprus for many years and the white dust on the grapes bought there was the residue from all the insecticides that are sprayed or puffed onto the grapes to prevent disease and insect attack.

The locals when asked would say its poison!!!

No one would eat any fruit without thoroughly washing it.

My plum tree had its first harvest this year.

They all have a powdery coating.

I have not sprayed them with anything

and i dont live anywhere that they could get covered in dust.

It wipes of easily if you do it before cleaning.

After i put some in a bowl of cold water it was hard to remove it, so best to wipe them before rinsing.

I have experienced two kinds of white coatings on grapes - one is called "bloom" and although it appears to wipe or wash off, it often reappears immediately.

This is a natural part of the grape.

The powdery substance that really wipes or washes off completely, must be pesticide or fungicide.

Wash thoroughly!

I buy red organic grapes and the white coating is on them, too, so it must be something natural, however, I've not seen it on regular grapes.

I've been told that the white powdery coating on purple grapes is naturally occurring acidophilus.

You can also see this same thing on other deeply colored fruits and vegetables, such as plums, blueberries, and purple cabbage.

It is actually on all produce and other living things - green grapes, green cabbage, cauliflower, etc, but you can't see it as well on light colored plants.

It exists on healthy human skin, too.

I think it is a good thing to have this because it is a beneficial bacteria.

Question: I bought some red grapes, and they have a thin layer of white dust on them. What is this? It has no flavor and seems to be harmless, but sources differ on what exactly it is, so if anyone has an authoritative source, I'd be interested to find out.

What is the white dust on red grapes?

Until recently, winemakers believed that the white 'bloom' or 'blush' of the grape was yeast responsible for fermentation, but it can have several causes including naturally occurring acidophilus, dust or even pesticide residue.

The powdery coating on red grapes is believed to be a natural product and harmless. Moreover, winemakers used to believe it was a naturally occurring yeast. However, it could also be dust or even pesticide residue.

The white powdery coating on red grapes is a naturally occurring product known as "bloom".

The white powdery substance on grapes could be dust.

Winemakers believed the white powder on grapes was yeast.

The white powder on grapes may or may not be pesticide, the test is if it rubs off completely it probably is.


If the glasses are at all damp, it may make sense to store them up-side-down.

In bars and restaurants, you often see plastic mesh like this: That webbing lines trays, shelves and the area beside the sink for drying dishes.

The mesh keeps the dishes or glasses, which may still be damp, from actually touching the surface they're sitting on.

In the case of glasses, it also keeps the glasses from forming a seal to the surface beneath.

That mesh often gets cleaned, as does the surface under them.

In that case, it makes sense to store glasses up-side-down.

Do you have mesh lining your cabinet?

Are the cabinet shelves wiped down regularly?

If not, it is far more sanitary to store your glasses right-side-up, and to be sure that they are dry before they are put away.

Where did this urban myth start?

Storing a cup upside down has few real advantages.

The usual story is that it prevents cockroaches from crawling all over the cups.

If this is the problem, then why don't people store their plates and bowls upside down, which roaches etc would definitely crawl over.

I might be wrong, but, my experience is that roaches that fall into a cup, stay there.

Evidenced by the poor woman who discovered an upturned roach in the bottom of her parfait glass under the trifle, at a wedding reception where I was working.

The trifle was brilliant up to that point.

I'll never forget the muffled squealing!

Sorry.

I do store glasses or mugs upside down, sometimes, if the base is small and the rim large, to avoid them toppling over.

Storing cups, glasses, mugs upside down: Pros May save some airborne dust, but, in a cupboard and used regularly, dust rarely has time to accumulate.

I swill out my cups with left over boiling water (in the case of tea) anyway.

Would stop roaches etc from entering the cup but, negated by the fact that the rim is definitely exposed to a dirty surface.

Prevents cups toppling if base is significantly smaller than the rim.

Incidentally, if none of this matters to you, cups/mugs stored alternatively, in both orientations, may allow for more efficient storage.

This allows people the option of both preferences.

Cons

Rim of cup exposed to dirty, unhygienic dirt and cockroach surface, rarely cleaned.

Traps remnant moisture possibly allowing the dirty cupboard surface particles to stick to the rim of the cup much like the salt on a margarita glass.

Bars and restaurants store glasses upside down to keep them clean from splashes of drink/food

while in racks in the busy production areas.

There is little chance of trapped moisture causing mould etc.

as most glasses are used every day.

It is more awkward to turn glasses over as they are served, but saves having to cover them all the time This is generally not a problem in a domestic environment, and glasses should be stored in normal position to ensure they do not retain any trapped moisture and therefore grow mould etc.

Some people don't want to put the part of the glass your mouth touches on the possibly dirty cupboard bottom.

Let's assume that the insides of your cupboards are clean enough (you have no mice, rodents etc) that this is not an issue.

Further, let's assume that you have cupboard doors and the aforementioned lack of vermin, so worrying about dust and pests getting into an upturned glass is not an issue.

What does that leave you, if cleanliness is not a problem?

I stack many (but not all) of my cups and glasses.

Grabbing the top one from an upside-down stack is easy - you have the whole cup surface to grab.

Grabbing the top one from a right-side up stack is hard - you have to grab just the little bit that sticks out the top.

Therefore all stackable cups go in upside down.

For the sake of consistency, so do the others.

If you ever spent time in a hospital setting, you would have been instructed to place cups/glassware right-side up in cupboards to prevent contamination from germs.

It makes sense.

You put your lips against the rim, but never ever lick the bottom of a cup or glass.

rim side down.

i was raised in a household where my parents were depression era kids.

they got in the habit of putting glassware rim side down to avoid the glasses filling with dust from the dustbowl clouds that blew through on a regular basis.

it just stuck over the generations and became how you do things in our house.

I get the stated question is more sanitary Consider what is easier.

A lot of people do what is easy.

They come out of the dishwasher up side down.

I worked a dishwasher in a restaurant and I could pull 4 out of the rack at a time and put them on the shelf.

If I had to grab them one at a time and flip them it would take 4 times as long.

If you are stacking them and bringing them out in a stack the stack is more stable.

Can pull them off the stack more easily up side down.

If they bind and have to wiggle it is easier up side down.

Logically, I would choose to store them upside-down, both to 1) Maintain a cleaner/more sterile glass interior, and 2) having slightly hard water, to avoid a cloudy spot drying in the bottom of the glass (if they are stored before being fully dry).

That being said, I still tend to store them right side-up for aesthetic reasons.

Question: I believe that it's better to store glasses/cups right-side-up in the cupboard, but at work everyone stores them upside-down.  Which is safer/more sanitary?

How should glasses/cups be oriented in storage?

Storing upside down may prevent accumulation of airborne dust and unsightly spots if the glasses are not completely dry, as well as to prevent some glasses from toppling over. However, the risk of contamination from dust in a cupboard is low, whereas storing upside down exposes the lip to cupboard surfaces that may be contaminated.

Many people believe storing glasses rim side down is the more hygienic option as it stops bugs crawling inside and moisture and dust collecting in the bottom. On the other hand, people say that the rim may be contaminated from contact with the surface and so right way up is the more hygienic option.

Glasses are stored upside down to prevent insects from climbing inside, to stop dust and stop any moisture collecting in the bottom.

Storing glasses the right way up stops the rim from getting dirty if the surface is not clean.


Freeze one, thaw it and see.

The liquid separates out and leaves a pulpy structure behind.

Tomato sauce (no chunks) thaws much better and separated liquid can be stirred back in well enough.

Canned works as we all know

so no one is bothering trying to grow a freezer-friendly tomato, yet.

They are :)

(site in French).

However, if you look at the reviews, the average customer isn't too pleased with the product, essentially for the reasons mentioned by @PatSommer

(watery, poor texture, etc.).

Don't forget that canning transforms tomatoes in a way which makes them particularly useful for sauces and the like, which is another reason why it is such a popular method of conservation.

There is no advantage to freezing over canning, and from many perspective there are disadvantages (discolouration, mushiness, overall general cellular destruction)

The embodied energy required to can is also much less than to keep them frozen, so this combined with disadvantages of freezing tomatoes, manufacturers choose to use canning

Yes, you can freeze dry tomatoes into a powder, it's not that great compared to freeze dried fruit powders though Dried tomatoes

(think sun dried tomatoes) are excellent, but are generally not a useful substitute for fresh tomatoes

Beside the reasons in the other answers, tomatoes really don't like low temperatures.

They change their aroma and texture already at fridge temperature.

They will go through the same temperature region when freezing and thawing, so they will get that bad taste of a cooled tomato.

They won't have the texture of a fridge tomato though, because the freezer will do a larger change - instead of getting unpleasantly hard, they'll get limp and their juices will separate.

To sum it up, canned tomatoes don't taste like fresh tomatoes, but at least they taste like cooked tomatoes.

Frozen then thawed tomatoes don't taste neither like fresh, nor like cooked.

They are just not that good to eat.

Frozen tomatoes will lose all their structure, so are only of use for cooking.

Canned tomatoes works very well for cooking and are cheap.

The taste is also improved by the canning process, but not by freezing.

So I can’t see how anyone can charge enough for frozen tomatoes to as to make a profit.

But I have frozen my own tomatoes.

To do so, blanch them in boiling water, or cook them down into a source before freezing.

Question: Why aren't frozen tomatoes available like frozen broccoli, peas, peaches, or strawberries? Why are tomatoes only canned or fresh?  Example:  http://www.peapod.com/search_results.jhtml?searchText=frozen+tomatoes

Why don't they sell frozen tomatoes like other frozen vegetables and fruits?

The structure, colour and flavour of whole tomatoes is harmed by the freezing process, although frozen tomato sauce and freeze-dried tomato are possible. More importantly, canned tomatoes are cheap and the process makes them more useful for making sauces and similar dishes.

Canning is considered a better way of preserving tomatoes than freezing because it produces better results and is realtive cheap.

Tomatoes do not freeze well. Tomatoes do not like low temperatures and lose taste and structure when frozen.  They can be freeze dried in a powder.

Canning tomatoes are much better than frozen tomatoes. Canning is cheap and gives good results, the same can not be said for freezing.


Let me suggest a totally different approach: Why not work with the cool conditions instead of against?

You could let the dough proof for a long time, e.g. overnight in the fridge.

This allows for a lot less yeast and hence a less yeasty taste, which is usually desired.

Also, more complex flavors develop during long proofing times.

(There is a reason french baguette may wait for two days before baking.)

For a start, aim for about 5% yeast 1 and use cool instead of lukewarm liquid.

You might have to adjust your attitude, because this requires some planning ahead, but gives you more degrees of freedom on the other hand:

Fresh bread / cake in the morning without having to get up before dawn and more tolerance with regard to proofing / timing - the dough can handle an extra hour or two in the fridge easily.

(Especially nice if you have a baby or a crazy schedule...)

You could also dump the dough in cold water and proof it there.

As crazy as it sounds, it works.

See more here .

If you'd rather stick with warm conditions, I'd aim for 30°C for optimum (=quickest) activity.

Yeast starts to die at about 45°C, completely dead at 55°C.

Also, warmer dough tends to proof unevenly and have a "flat" taste (can't find a better word).

1 fresh yeast, percentage based on flour weight.

Adjust dry yeast accordingly: fresh to dry conversion rate is 1:3, so use 2% dry yeast.

50C (122F) would be a very high proofing temperature.

The thermal death point of yeast is 55C, and you'll definitely hit a point of diminishing returns if you get too hot (most likely, you will have really rapid proofing on the outside of the loaf and an underproofed "core").

I would recommend setting your oven to the lowest temperature, and then once it feels perceptibly warm, turn it off and use it to proof.

If you're doing a long proof, you can turn it back on for a minute or two every so often, but I wouldn't ever let it actually get up to temperature.

In the winter, I usually get fine results proofing in a bowl with a second bowl inverted on top of it, and then putting the whole thing in the oven, turned off, and just the light on.

The light bulb usually produces enough heat to keep the inside of my oven at about 90˚F (32˚C?), and that gives me a good rise.

Rise from chilled @ 32C and keep rising until around 80-85% of desired height has been achieved.

Return back to the chiller, it will continue to rise for a short time, keep in the chiller until dough is firm again and stable enough to take the weight of toppings.

A commonly quoted temperature to never exceed with warm ingredients or proofing environments is 43°C.

If using an oven, cover your dough container, check oven with a thermometer beforehand, and be aware of radiated heat effects from the elements themselves.

I use the pull-out warming tray on my oven set on its lowest temperature.

I've never actually checked the temperature, but its rather cool.

I can easily touch the bottom of the drawer without any discomfort.

I've done this a few times, kinda - we have a baking stone, and I'll preheat that, make sure it's cool enough to touch, and set the dough on the warmed stone.

It works pretty well to give a warm environment, the warmth lasts because the closed oven contains heat, and there's little to no risk of overheating the yeast.

I have both gone with regular preheating for ~5min, and the lowest-temperature-preheating for a bit longer, the former is quicker to heat but more likely to overshoot (or needing time to even the heat out), the latter slower and more controlled.

Another potential alternative, depending on your oven, might be to turn the oven on (bake setting, usually) but keep the temperature set to zero.

In our oven, that turns on the light, the machinery is humming, and the oven gets kinda warm - not hot, but just warm, preparing to heat but not doing so.

I've used this to dehydrate things before, because I can leave it going for quite some time without needing to re-check or re-warm.

It wouldn't work for me with bread dough, since with aforementioned baking stone it would take longer to warm up than it would for the dough to actually rise (since especially the bottom of the dough, against the stone, will rise very differently from the top) .

But if you don't have a baking stone it may work very well for you.

Question: During wintertime it is often cold enough in my apartment that proofing takes much longer than in summer. I'd like to use my oven to create a warmer environment, in which the dough would rise faster. I can go 30-50 degrees celsius, the question is what temperature is safe and at what temperature will I actually start baking the dough. Is 50 degrees celsius still ok or not?

Using low oven temperature to accelerate proofing

Yeast starts to die at about 45°C, and is completely dead at 55°C, so even an oven on low might easily be too warm to ensure consistent rising. You could try turning your oven to the lowest setting until it feels perceptibly warm, then turning it off and adding the (covered) dough. A slightly warmed baking stone could also work, or even leaving the pilot light on. When using an oven, check the temperature with a thermometer and be aware of radiated heat from the elements. Alternatively, you could work with the cooler temperatures and allow the dough to rise overnight in the fridge.

The oven can be used in many ways to create a suitable warm environment for rising bread dough but care must be taken not to let it get too hot and kill the yeast. Moreover, it is possible to rise bread dough in cold conditions, it just takes longer.

It is possible to rise bread dough in cold conditions. It takes longer but it works.

There are a number of oven settings recommended for rising bread dough. The most important thing is to make sure it does not get too warm and kill the yeast.

Yeast dies at 55°C so bread dough needs to rise at a much lower temperature.


Simmer/Burner Plate

You can use a simmer plate or something to diffuse the heat.

For example: http://www.thekitchn.com/good-tool-burner-plate-for-low-107122 Google: Heat Diffuser From the first link, a suggestion is to use a cast iron skillet as a heat diffuser.

That should work in a pinch.

Adjust the Flame Alternatively, some stoves allow you to adjust the flame level .

I'm not a technician, so please do this at your own risk, read the manual, etc....

Since this is a new gas range, I'd suggest that you have the supplier confirm that the correct size orifices are installed.

Generally speaking, most gas ranges come with two or more sets of orifices: Propane and Natural gas.

Not only do those have different BTU ratings per unit of gas, they also normally run different pressures.

In North America, natural gas is usually at 7" water column pressure, Propane runs at 11" water column pressure.

Propane also contains more energy than Natural gas, which exacerbates the problem if you are running from Propane with Natural Gas orifices installed.

This is a common problem for single cooks who cook in small portions.

A burner produces a constant energy output, which will bring different amounts of food to different end temperatures.

You can consider cooking a larger batch of food at once.

This will give you a simmer and lots of tasty leftovers.

Many liquid foods such as soups also freeze well.

Of course this is not the right solution for every case, but it's worth taking into account.

I'm surprised nobody has suggested turning up the heat until the burner is almost off.

Just between being off and being at full is the smallest flame possible.

If you can't adjust or diffuse the heat enough, consider a separate electric cooktop.

Single place electric burners are very common, inexpensive, and you may be able to adjust the heat output better.

Look into induction

cooktops when you do, you might be surprised at the control you have over your cooking with one of these.

I wanted to comment on another answer, but I don't have enough reputation.

On my stove, I am able to achieve a lower output towards the "off" position, than in the lowest output position.

The risk is that the flame may go out, especially if it is windy.

This could essentially fill the room with unburned gas and be an explosion risk.

But that is why most stoves have a thermocouple.

If your stove has a thermocouple, it should be safe to use this method, since it would turn off the gas supply if there isn't any flame.

Question: I have a new gas cooktop and the lowest setting on the smallest burner still produces afast rolling boil rather that a very low simmer. How can I reduce the heat?

How to reduce the heat on a gas burner

You can use a simmer plate or something else to diffuse the heat, or cook larger quantities of food at a time. Sometimes you can get a lower flame with the gas knob past maximum rather than on the lowest setting. If this is a new range, you could contact the supplier to confirm that the orifices are the correct size.

There are a number of ways to reduce the heat when cooking on gas. These include using a simmer plate, reducing the flame to its lowest setting and cooking larger batches of food at a time. It may also be necessary to check the cooker settings are correct. If it is not possible to diffuse the heat, an electric plate is considered another option.

Use a simmer plate.
Adjust the flame to its lowest point.
Check the cooker settings are correct.
Cook larger batches of food.
Buy a separate electric plate.


Yes!

I just came across this, and it just so happens I could use an orange in a slaw I'm making right now.

Tablespoon Orange Hack

Simply lop off the ends, make a small incision in the side and carefully open to reveal easy-to-eat orange segments.

(Or as I prefer to call it, an orange caterpillar.)

I did it with my orange, and I had never peeled an orange so quickly: Now if you just want to eat the orange, you can just pluck off the segments as you pop them into your mouth.

If you roll the orange around a bit first, before you lop off the ends (as in @Barry Staes' answer), it should make it even easier and more pith-free.

But what was really neat is that by prepping it that way, I had a pretty close approximation to supremes, supremely easily!

(haha)

With two passes of the knife and 5 seconds of picking at it, this is close enough for my slaw.

Just flatten the "caterpillar" as much as you can with one hand, and with one slice (or two), cut between the peel and the segments.

I just picked away most of the remaining connective "stuff" and membranes with the knife and my fingers at this point, but a pair of kitchen shears would make even quicker work out of it.

It's not absolutely perfect, the traditional method of supreming seen here would be the way to go if you're gunning for a Michelin Star, but this is fine for more casual applications.

With the practice of a couple more oranges, I think I could go from an intact orange to "cheater" supremed segments in less than a minute (and without getting my hands sticky!)

Pretty cool.

BTW, there is a pretty neat animated GIF on the linked page that will make it all clear if the pictures don't.

EDIT:

It works even better with grapefruit!

Open the grapefruit just enough to use a pair of kitchen shears to cut away the the connective membrane from the "points" of the segments

(what would be at the center of intact fruit).

While you're at it, remove any seeds.

Be careful when you roll out the "caterpillar" to separate every segment and to put pressure evenly on all parts of the peel.

The peel is a bit more prone to tearing than orange peel.

Since the membranes between the segments are more like leather and less fragile than the membranes on orange segments, they are very easy to pluck away.

This makes the supremed segments perfect.

This gives better results even than the traditional method of supreming!

First i roll it a few times on the table while pressing it gently.

This loosens the skin from the meat.

Then i make 4 (shallow!) incisions and peel at least 2 of them away including the top and bottom.

(so let these stay attached somewhat)

Since the skin is already loose, they almost fall off.

All pieces stay whole.

I then unroll the pieces, and voila.

I do keep a napkin at hand, but a fork might work.

You could always just use an Orange Peeler .

It's a simple, easy-to-use tool you can find in many kitchen convenience stores.

For those who can't follow the link - an orange peeler is a tool (usually orange, appropriately enough) with a hook on one end that digs into the orange peel, and a long partly-bent 'lever' at the other end.

How you use it is simple - you dig the hook into the top of the orange, and run it down the peel from top to bottom.

You make four even 'cuts' like this down the peel, then use the lever to pry each 'part' off.

Or, if you're more of a utility-type person, a simple knife will do.

Just run the kinfe down the peel as you would with the orange peeler (from top to bottom)

then lever the peels out with the knife.

A pairing knife would be ideal, but any sharp knife would do.

There is an orange peeler tool that works well:

But I find that using my teeth to remove the peel is easiest and least messy.

First use a small knife to cut the shell vertically from top the bottom like meridians of earth.

But cut only until fruit part, so not so deeply, 5-6 cut is enough, unite the cuts in the top and bottom of orange then you can peel them by pulling shell parts.

If you extract the pole parts before peeling it is easier.

I found this method (includes step by step pictures) for peeling citrus fruits while researching candied peel: http://www.thehungrymouse.com/2009/12/02/how-to-make-candied-fruit-peel/ I've tried many different ways - hands down

this one is the easiest for me.

For candied peel, I want as much of the pith as possible to remain with the peel.

The end result is that there is very little left on the fruit which sounds like what you are trying to achieve.

I'd suggest trying it once - my first impression was ho-hum but the first orange proved me wrong.

Good luck.

This works well enough: How to Peel an Orange the Russian Way You cut through the peel all the way around the equator, then start from there and peel the two halves.

Once you get started a bit on one half you can work your thumb under then around, and get each half off mostly in one piece, as you see in the picture below.

Question: Just what the title says, I don't enjoy getting my fingers all messy and I don't like getting a lot of pith. Is there a better way than just...peeling?

Is there a quick, easy, mess-free way to peel an orange (or grapefruit)?

Cutting off the ends, making a small incision in the side and carefully opening reveals easy-to-eat orange segments, or you can use an orange peeler or your teeth to remove the peel. The Russian way to peel an orange is to cut through the peel all around the equator, then peel the two halves from there.

There are a number of ways to peel oranges including using an orange peeler tool, using your teeth, cutting off the ends and making an incision in the side and the Russian method which involves cutting round the center and peeling the two halves.


Yes, it makes it less flavorful.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea.

Often it'll still be plenty flavorful even with a decent amount of ice in it.

So by using ice, you save the trouble of having to freeze some ingredients first, and don't go through your fruit quite as fast.

You can avoid having to keep fruit juice on hand.

It also lets you pretty easily control exactly how cold/icy

you want the smoothie.

If you live in a hot area, smoothies with a decent amount of ice are actually pretty nice - they stay cold much longer, and the icy graininess can make them more refreshing.

I'm sure plenty of people would never dream of using ice and some people do all the time; feel free to go on doing whichever suits you!

(I'm originally from Texas, and honestly, in addition to blending some ice in, I used to put whole ice cubes in after blending just to make extra sure it stayed cold.)

For a helpful comparison: a lot of really good sorbet recipes use a decent amount of water.

For example, David Lebovitz's mango sorbet (from The Perfect Scoop) uses two large mangoes and 2/3 cup of water.

Sure, it could use some kind of fruit juice instead, but I promise, it really really tastes like mango, and doesn't taste watered down at all.

I make smoothies almost daily and have made them both with and without ice.

You can add ice for a variety of reasons but they all come down to personal preference.

Some of the reasons that I prefer adding ice include:

Adds bulk so it takes longer to drink and fills me up more Gives the drink

more texture similar to small cubed ice which I prefer Keeps the beverage colder for longer Ice is very inexpensive when compared to fresh fruit, and is still refreshing

I can leave larger chunks of ice if desired to slowly melt depending on when I will consume the smoothy

Allows me to add warm/warmer ingredients but still end up with a ice cold beverage

I think the central argument for ice is efficiency.

Sure, using "4 oz acai, grape, or pomegranate juice" as well as 4 oz amounts of rather potent fruits such as "strawberries, blueberries, peaches" will result in a fantastic smoothie.

But the ingredients in the quoted recipe are packed with flavor, and some of them are also quite expensive.

Adding ice releases the possibility of using 2 oz amounts of those frozen fruits, using just two of them, or skipping the fruit juice while still having a great smoothie.

If the fruits are fully ripe there is often flavor to spare and the taste won't be watered down.

Ice, if used wisely, can help create a delicious, cold smoothie that costs less.

Personally, I can't drink thick liquids if they are not icy - I gag.

Drinkable yogurt, milkshakes that have melted, ice-less smoothies, etc.

are all a complete no-go for me.

Sure, most people don't have this reaction, but I'm betting

I'm not the only one.

For whatever reason, the ice particles make it far more agreeable to me.

Additionally, it can help to cut down on calories in two ways.

One, obviously, water/ice has no calories, whereas the same volume of additional fruit/juice does.

Second, when it's so cold from the ice, you can't chug the stuff quickly, lest you get brain freeze.

Prolonging the drinking of it gives your stomach time to process that it's getting filled up, so there's less of a chance you end up grabbing additional food/calories after the smoothie.

My 2 cents...

It makes no good sense to use ice in smoothies.

Alton Brown's smoothie recipe is the highest reviewed on Food Network, and uses no ice at all.

4 ounces plain, low-fat soy milk 4 ounces acai, grape, or pomegranate juice 4 ounces frozen banana 4 ounces frozen strawberries 4 ounces frozen blueberries 4 ounces frozen peaches Directions

Combine the soy milk, juice, banana, strawberries, blueberries, and the peaches in the carafe of a blender.

Cover and refrigerate overnight or up to 8 hours.

In the morning, or when the fruit is partially thawed, put the carafe on the base of the blender, start at the lowest speed and slowly accelerate to medium, until you achieve a vortex.

Blend on medium for 1 minute.

Increase the speed to high and blend for an additional minute.

Serve immediately.

As you say, all ice is going to do is water the smoothie down.

As Catija says in comments, you can make ice cubes out of the juice and/or freeze the fruit, but it makes no sense to use frozen water.

I do prefer using ice in my smoothies as it gives it that thicker, but cool and refreshing texture, with a hint of your fruit flavor.

Of course I totally see where you're coming from without wishing to use ice, in the end

however it all depends on your personal opinion as opposed to the other's.

Question: I usually make smoothies with frozen fruit berries and a banana with a liquid like orange juice or home made kefir.  I notice lots of smoothie recipes online call for ice cubes and fresh fruit. Is there a benefit to making smoothies that way? Since half your volume is crushed ice it seems like the result would be less flavorful.

What is the purpose of using ice cubes in smoothies over frozen fruit?

Ice water will dilute the smoothie and can be replaced by frozen fruit or juice. Some prefer the different texture, milder taste and efficiency of adding ice to room temperature fruit, or they might not want to use as much fruit. The right option is based on personal preference, so try different methods to see which you prefer.

Using ice in smoothies is a personal preference. On the one hand, it saves on the cost of fruit and creates a texture many people like. It also greatlt appreciated in hot areas. On the other hand, the flavour may be diluted by the ice. This issue may be overcome by freezing fruit juice instead of water.

Using ice in smoothies makes them less flavorful. You can freeze fruit juice instead of water to solve this.

Smoothies with ice can still have a lot of flavor. In hot places, the ice is especially appreciated. Many people also like the texture.

Using ice means you do not have to freeze your fruit first.


Yes, all it is, is flavour.

Apple juice and grape juice are 2 things I've used in the past for non-alcohol people.

You can also get away with not using anything as a replacement as long as you use enough of everything else (butter and Parmesan etc).

Wine just gives a little depth and a sort of 'freshness'.

Edit:

I just read the vegetarian part of your question.

I'm assuming you already know, but Parmesan isn't vegetarian, as it is made from rennet ( rennet is extracted from the lining of the inside of the stomach of mammals ), and most commonly from the fourth stomach of young calves.

The vegetarian substitutes I've tried in the past (Called pasta cheese), are not great.

However, unlike Parmesan, Gruyere is allowed to be made with vegetable rennet and tastes great

(I personally prefer it over Parmesan).

I've made risotto plenty of times without wine (as it's not something that I typically keep in my house).

The main issue is that wine is both acidic (which can affect how quickly things break down when cooking, like onions), and it's a solvent (so it helps to distribute other flavors).

Although it does add some flavor on its own, you typically won't miss it.

Personally, I just use extra onions, and sometimes add a splash of a sweet vinegar (rice or cider) with the first addition of liquid.

I don't use butter or cheese in my risotto, as I find that those can dull some of the other flavors.

You can usually substitute vegetable or meat stocks for the wine/alcohol in savory dishes.

It's not necessarily the wine that is necessary, it's more of the freshness and acidity.

You can imitate this by adding a little bit of citrus (lemon) to brighten it up.

Fresh herbs may help too!

Since I'm a picky Risotto eater, I usually only make the one kind of flavoured Risotto (Cranberry,Mushrooms, Ramson, PineNuts,S&P) & I use my granny's foundation recipe, that does calls for wine, but she and I both substitute the wine with juice made from Elderberries.

But if I don't have EBjuice at hand, I add a splash of Lime or Lemon, and up the broth for liquid and acidity.:)

I have an Italian recipe that my mom had and her mom had and it goes on and on.

I have never seen any recipes online that has my moms and

I'm surprised.

It is a great creamy risotto and I make it.

I'm a full-blooded Italian.

My dad was and so was my mom.

This risotto is the best I have ever had.

It doesn't have wine in it.

I make a sauce with my spices.

It's only 1 can.

Most people just use wine.

I think sauce is much better.

I boil a chicken for the broth.

I add the rice to the sauce in a large pan.

I continue to add the broth to make it thicker.

I stir steady on medium for 45 mins.

straight and at the end I use Asiago cheese after I grate it.

The meat in my sauce that I use is gizzards.

It has the best flavor ever.

Question: I want to make risotto without using any alcohol. I am a vegetarian and I want to use vegetarian or mushroom stock only (without any meat).    What is the role of wine in making risotto? Does it help in getting the consistency or does it add flavor?  What can I substitute instead to get a comparable flavor?

Can I make risotto without wine?

The main function of the wine is adding flavour and acidity, so it can be left out and replaced with apple, grape or elderberry juice, stock, sweet vinegar or other liquids, or compensated with other ingredients like parmesan, onions, butter and herbs.

Wine is generally considered unnecessary in risotto. It simply serves to add flavour and acidity that can be achieved with other ingredients such as lemon juice, stock and fresh herbs.

It is quite possible to make risotto without wine. The wine simply adds flavour and acidity.

Possible alternative to wine in risotto include fruit juice, lemon juice, fresh herbs and stocks.


Round lo mein noodles look veeeeery similar to spaghetti: Spaghetti Lo mein

The biggest difference, ingredient-wise is that dried pasta (mostly?) does not contain eggs and lo mein noodles do.

I know that at least once shopping mall food court chinese food place I've eaten from uses spaghetti for their lo mein.

It's kind of obvious, but it's not bad .

I feel that lo mein typically has a denser, chewier bite than spaghetti.

In a pinch, spaghetti will make a tasty noodle dish.

It won't quite be lo mein, though.

My advice would be to try it and see what you think.

Be careful to not over-cook your spaghetti.

I do it all the time, but I always use whole wheat spaghetti.

Regular spaghetti is too mushy for Lo Mein.

Also, in a regular grocery store Lo Mein is about $4 for half a pound whereas spaghetti is about $1 for a pound.

While the other answers seem to have focused on the eggs, the biggest difference between Italian noodles and many Asian noodles (especially wheat-based noodles, like lo mein) is that the latter are often treated with alkalies like lye-water or alkali salts (potassium/sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate).

This can enhance any preexisting yellow pigments in the noodles ( e.g. , if egg yolks are used), but more importantly it also significantly affects the texture of the cooked noodles.

Whereas Italian noodles are optimized for an al dente texture, alkali noodles have a distinctively springy texture.

They are simultaneously soft and doughy, yet springy and resilient.

Achieving that texture is nearly impossible from non-alkali noodles.

To replicate that texture, one might consider substituting another alkali noodle like lo mein's cousin, ramen, which is more readily available at most supermarkets these days.

Serious Eats has a very good article on the subject .

It is also relatively easy to make your own alkali noodles at home.

You probably already have all of the ingredients necessary: baking soda, water, flour, and optionally whole eggs.

Here is a good instructional video .

It's almost the same thing.

Dry pasta is

eggless fresh pasta has egg Dry Egg Noodles have egg.

You can buy egg noodle spagetti.

If you want to be vegan, then stick with regular dried spagetti and your "lo mein" will be egg free.

If you want your spagetti to be more "lo mein like", learn to cook the pasta with the dried spagetti being added last and absorbing all the moisture very similarly to cooking rice.

Plenty of Asian restaurants in the US do use spaghetti, cheaper.

People don't know, and do not notice.

Fresh pasta vs. dry pasta does not mean it contains egg.

Egg is just an option, rare in the US, more frequent in Europe, no matter fresh or dry.

I don't know about stores in Asia.

Finding dry or fresh pasta with egg is a real challenge in the US, including in Asian grocery stores.

Most contain food coloring Yellow 5 (chemical) or turmeric (natural), rarely egg powder or fresh eggs.

So many people have it wrong here!Besides, you being in South Carolina, as opposed to California or North-East, good luck finding Asian egg noodles containing egg.

Asia invented noodles and everyone has been playing with the recipe for thousands of years.

Here in louisiana every region and even every household has a different gumbo recipe...

Noodles are kinda the same, all across Asia there are a thousand different recipes with hundreds of different noodle recipes.

In short, try it out and see if you like it.

Happy cooking!

I am going to use Pappardelle (has egg) because I love the texture.

They'll be boiled aldente, drained and then tossed with garlic in olive oil.

I'll add some well fried Applewood bacon that has been well drained and cut up into small pieces.

I also like a bit of soy sauce.

It's sort of my version of an Italian/Chinese version of Lo mien.

Add lots of black pepper and parmesan cheese.

if you like. Bon Appetite!

Spaghetti can definitely be used when making pan fried noodles, and they are more economical as well.

First, boil the spaghetti as you normally would, being careful to not overcook the pasta.

Drain and lightly dry the noodles

, then fry -- it is as simple as that.

Also, you can adjust the cooking time as needed in order to get the results you prefer.

Although the Serious Eats article just mentioned previously is good overall, I believe it wrong about sodium carbonate being responsible for the Yellow color or "hue".

Among other things like texture which is why it is principally used, it might fix the dye but it is not the dye.

The real problem is the very difficult to avoid Yellow 5 (E102) which the article does not mention at all, while Turmeric or Beta Carotene are the natural but rare acceptable substitutes.

Back to the Spaghetti, the best way to me is to first

well dry the pasta, including a quick high heat round alone in the pan before tossing with the other ingredients in the end.

Lo mein is tossed, chow mein is fried, let's meet half way, while trying to avoid bucatini but try to experiment with thin spaghetti instead of thick for a change.

(note: Both Bucatini and Thin spaghetti are tougher to find than thick/regular ones.)

What about the eggs?

Forget about it!

Keep the concern for the day you'll be making you own fresh pasta while preparing your next Italian dish or German Spaetzle.

I use thin spaghetti but pan fry to crisp up with possibly some red pepper flakes and garlic.

Putting sesame seeds into oil before the noodles seems to reduce sticking.

Or oven crisp with a little oil.

Just plain spaghetti doesn't sound very good.

Question: Let's say a family member asked me to try cooking lo mein for dinner, but I don't have time to stop by a big enough grocery store to get Asian noodles. I do, however, have spaghetti in the cupboard.  Are spaghetti noodles a reasonable approximation for lo mein noodles? (As far I understand it, they're both wheat-based.) What textural or flavor differences would I encounter with this substitution?

Can spaghetti noodles replace lo mein noodles?

Regular spaghetti might be too mushy when cooked normally, but the two are very similar and spaghetti is cheaper and often used in Asian restaurants. Try using wholewheat spaghetti and pan frying or adding dried spaghetti later to allow it to absorb moisture like rice. Lo mein noodles have egg, unlike spaghetti so they can be used in vegan cooking.

Spaghetti is considered a good alternative to lo mein noodles, especially thin spaghetti and wholewheat spaghetti. It may be necessary to cook the spaghetti differently to make it more like lo mein. On the other hand, spaghetti can result in a mushy dish. In the end, it is personal preference although spaghetti is used by Asian restaurants in the US because it is cheaper than lo mein.

Spaghetti can be used to replace lo mein noodles. Thin spaghetti and wholewheat spaghetti are recommended. Spaghetti is cheaper and used by many Asian restaurants in US.

Cook the spaghetti in a different way to make it more like lo mein.


One possibility is that the meat was cooked in a crock pot.

This would make sense on a few levels.

First, since it is a hospital and presumably they have a large amount of people to feed, cooking multiple steaks in a large crock pot at once would save time and still produce quality food.

Second, cooking the meat slowly in a crock pot (or in liquid) over the period of 10 hours will produce incredibly tender meat, especially if the steak was already of good quality to begin with.

Similar process is used to produce various roasts and also pulled pork, for example, which will literally fall off the bone once done cooking.

First of all: this is the first time I've seen anyone ask to recreate hospital food...

I'm happy your dad didn't have the same experience most people do with hospital food.

One technique that can give meat that tender is velveting the meat.

This is a Chinese cooking technique where the meat is marinated in egg white, wine and corn starch before cooking.

This will give a velvety smooth texture to the meat, and it will basically melt in your mouth.

This is my recipe for a sublimely tender roast: Grab a large chuck roast or brisket.

Start in the evening by smoking or roasting the meat at 225 F until an internal temp of ~150-160 F is reached.

Place the meat inside of a covered roaster on a metal rack (important)

then place in the oven at a rendering temp (say 170 F)

overnight and all day until you get home from work.

Your oven needs to be calibrated, because holding meat at too low a temp is a safety concern (see the bottom of answer for more).

Chill over night before slicing and portioning for the most cohesive, moist and unimaginably tender product.

You could rest it on the countertop and slice the night of.

Just know that the resting time on a large roast is considerable.

You can adjust the time and temperature variables to simplify the recipe further: roast in the oven at 350 F till ~150-160 F internal temp is achieved.

Drop oven down to 170 F in a roaster till tender.

The long answer: (Nerd Alert)

Achieving the perfectly tender roast is a complicated subject because the temperatures at which different meat tissues break down are complicated.

Above 140 degrees F

you are out of the food safety danger zone.

This means you can take your sweet time as long as you are above this mark

(this is a broad generalization, see the bottom of answer).

At around 160 degrees, collagen and fats begin to break down or 'render', causing meat to become tender and juicy.

However, there is a point where the proteins will begin to tense up and toughen (Don't know this off the top of my head, but the hotter you go the tighter they get).

There is a special temperature zone where you can achieve full rendering (maximum tenderness) without encountering dryness.

This is achieved by getting the meat out of the danger-zone then holding it within the rendering zone for a very long time, without leaping into the tightening zone.

The reason that a most pot roasts are fall apart tender but dry is because the typical stock pot will eventually simmer on low.

Water boils at 212 F at sea level, at which point most meats are fully rendered but dry.

Safety

Adendum:

Food safety is a matter of temperature and time.

The FDA publishes charts that tell you how long a piece of meat has to be held at a given internal temperature to be safe to eat.

To say that beef is safe as long as it is over 140 F internal is not strictly correct, as time is also a factor.

What you describe sounds a lot like swiss steak, in which you use cube steak (an inexpensive cut that's been mechanically tenderized).

You sear the cube steak, then slow cook it in a flavorful sauce until it's extremely tender.

Maybe the meat was made with transglutaminase, a clotting agent that has the ability to bind protein-containing foods together.

As I understand it, the results are very tender, often being served as filet.

This from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/you-eating-fake-steak-customers-5856558

I have been served some very questionable filet, soft, mushy, and flavorless.

Though the guys at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhgOEsAd1xY say the glued together meat scraps cook up and taste like filet.

Watch the taste test.

Being a hospital, where food safety is even more important than otherwise, I'd imagine they step away from the more elaborate methods of tenderizing meat.

The first thing I thought of was the industrial version of slow cooking.

The may have used something like this Alto Shaam cook and hold oven : Manufacturer touts:

Halo Heat tenderizes even the toughest cuts of meat by activating their natural enzymes

Many restaurants use the above to slow cook products over night at low temp.

It yields better results than most home methods.

I've seen some pretty great product come out of those.

If the hospital used this, and I suspect they did, you'll have to try something like @Chee's Burgers answer.

(if you do, check the oven temperature with an oven thermometer for safety reasons)

Mechanical tenderizing is a possibility.

You can get home use tenderizers like these (I like the one on the left):

And... there is always the possibility the hospital purchased meat that had gone through some special processing.

I wish you had a picture of the cut :)

This sounds similar to something my mother used to cook, she would get oyster blade and put onion and gravy powder on top before wrapping it in tin foil and putting it in the oven.

The result was a tender piece of meat with a thick brown gravy on top, it tended to be more on the salty side due to the use of pure gravy powder, was the meat salty?

Question: My dad was recently in the hospital for intestinal surgery.  While he was recovering they served him some beef that he was very surprised to find incredibly tender.  He let me have a bite.  It was so tender you hardly needed to chew at all.   It was served as some kind of boneless fillet with a dark brown gravy on top.  I've cooked a lot of beef, but never was it this soft.  Can anyone help me find this recipe or teach me a technique with the same effect?

Extremely tender beef at hospital

The meat might have been cooked for a long time in a crock pot or made with transglutaminase, a clotting agent that has the ability to bind protein-containing foods together. A similar result can be gained by putting onion and gravy powder on top of oyster blade before wrapping it in tin foil and putting it in the oven.

Three methods of producing very tender meat are cooking in a crockpot, cooking in foil in the oven and using transglutaminase.

Meat cooked in a crockpot is usually very tender.

Transglutaminase produces very tender meat.

Cooking meat in the oven wrapped in foil produces tender meat.


The purpose of the water is to cook the custard slowly- essentially poaching it.

It takes out some insurance against it overheating and breaking.

Suspending the cheesecake over the water would not have the same effect- steam can get hotter than the curdling temperature of eggs.

It would be a thermal mass that might even out some temperature variation in your oven and it would keep things humid.

If your oven is working well these effects aren't needed.

Plenty of cheesecake recipes don't take out the water-bath-insurance.

My opinion is that suspending the cake above the pan would not be helpful.

I have to disagree with Sobachatina in this case: the thermal mass is not the sole purpose of the water bath.

Cheesecakes are prone to cracking, because the moisture of the outer layer of the filling evaporates.

They don't just form a skin the way a standard custard would, they get dry enough to crack later.

So, if you just suspend the cheesecake, you get half the benefits of the water.

It is entirely possible to bake the cheesecake without submerging it, or without using any water at all.

But you will get better results with water than without, and you will get better results if you submerge than if you just suspend.

You have to know for yourself whether the difference is large enough to matter to you, and whether the convenience gain would be worth it.

I just baked a cheesecake suspended above a water bath.

It seriously cracked.

I am trying the immersion method next time and hope for better results.

I bake lots of cheesecakes and have never used the water bath.

I always place a shallow dish of hot water under my cake.

The trick to baking a cheesecake is to use a low temperature and longer baking time.

Cool very slowly to avoid cracking.

I have baked cheesecakes both with and without waterbaths.

I also have used the direct in water method and the pan under the rack with the cheesecake.

By far, wrapping and placing the springform pan directly in the water is the best.

Even, non-burnt, and no cracking.

There's no comparison.

I will never cook a dry cheesecake again. :)

ok i treid last night.

baking pan full of hot water my spring form pan in a glass pie pan.

baked twice as long to get the top "crust" to brown, 2 hours instead of 1 hour.

oven set at 350 like i do with water bath.

results looked to be good as i inserted a long toothpick into thecenter that looked to be "set".

Oven off for 1 more hour with cake in oven.i looked great however noted these differences:-outer side what would have been a darkend "crust" (since I use buttered pan coated with powdered sugar, no bottom or side crust) was just darkened on the part that rose above the pan edge while cooking.

seems like the metal side did not get enough heat to carmelize the sugar.- thecenter

was very custard like though solid enough to cut slice that held together, however the part of the cake closer to the pan edge had been cooked more and was more like what i get in a water bath cooking cycleso

now I move to use a metal pan between the spring form and the baking pan water.

I figure it would get a little warmer than the glass pan but still not as warm as a direct water bath.

I might do another after that one using my convection oven cycle with a lower oven temp

say 300.

i love my NY

cheesecake an don't mind eating all of my experimantal bakes.

My wife however wants the water bath ones that is the goal to be measured against.

i may need to have friends over as 3 or 4 cheesecakes to eat by myself might be very ostentatious.

CI

I never use a waterbath, and my cheesecakes don't crack.

I wish I knew why--I guess we need a food scientist for that answer.

I do think that if you overbeat the eggs into the beaten cheese, you might get cracks.

I go heavy on the cheese and light on the cream; maybe that helps.

Question: I've heard of two separate ways to use a water bath when cooking a cheesecake: placing the cheesecake in the waterbath, or placing a roasting pan full of water on the bottom rack of the oven, with the cheesecake on the top rack. I like the idea of not putting my cheesecake in the water, which avoids the need to wrap the pan in foil. Do these two separate methods create any discernible difference in the final result? Is one better than the other?

Cheesecake in or next to waterbath

It is not always necessary to use a water bath if you bake your cheesecake on low heat for a long time, but of the two methods with water, wrapping your springform and placing it directly in the water is the best.

A water bath is considered an aid when baking a cheesecake and it is generally considered best to submerge the cake tin in the water. However, it is also possible to bake a cheesecake without using water. In this case a long baking time at low temperature is recommended, with perhaps a shallow dish of water beneath.

Using water helps when baking cheesecakes. Submerging the cake in the water rather than above it gives better results.

It is perfectly possible to bake a cheesecake without water. Long baking time and low temperature are the keys. A shallow dish of water can be placed below the cake.


Moisture-release is not a result of the cooking process but of the quality of the chicken.

Try the following experiment: Buy halal or kosher chicken breast

Buy the cheapest chicken breast you can find.

Now put two pans on the stove, and put the industrial chicken breast in the left pan and put the kosher/halal in the right.

Ensure both pans have the same heat setting, the same amount of fat (I prefer duck fat for frying chicken breast) and watch the amount of moisture coming out of the left one and the fat actually being soaked up by the right one.

So the easiest way to avoid this is to buy good quality chicken...

It sounds like you're buying a cheaper cut of meat - one that's likely been infused with water to plump and to rapidly chill the meat to a safe temperature after butchery.

Look for packages that state 'air-chilled' instead.

Most chicken breasts sold (at least the of the cheaper variety) that I have seen, say something about being infused with up to 15% chicken broth.

My guess is that most of the water you are seeing is the added chicken broth.

So look at the packaging of the chicken breasts before you buy them.

Most of the high quality chicken sold that I have seen

do not say that they are infused with chicken broth.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814/Echo says Reinstate Monica

Since every chicken farmer in America does it (plumping is the industry standard)

you should look for a brand that says "no added water" or "no retained water".

I have found only 2 brands that say this.

One is at Harris Teeter super market.

The industry standard is 12%.

That means you must assume all of the chicken is plumped unless it says otherwise.

The problem with chicken that is pumped full of water is it never gets to the right temperature for a proper texture, instead it is rubbery and the real chicken flavor is washed away.

If you decide to brine your chicken it will have a hard time absorbing because it is already pumped full of flavorless salt water.

Desiccate the outside of the chicken with salt for about 20-60 mins to remove the excess water and then brush off the salt after to make sure it isn't too salty; this should help concentrate the flavour and remove some of the water.

Sear the outside of the chicken on HIGH heat with butter or oil to seal in the juices and flavour.

You can also try dredging the chicken in flour to give it a crust.

Cook again in high heat with butter or oil to seal.

Personally I do BOTH

the first two options to get a crisp crust and a juicy tender inside

but you can very easily do all three.

The water infusion described above was news to me, but I have certainly observed this exact same problem when cooking chicken in a sauce (usually curries).

My solution (using cheap frozen chicken breasts that produce a ton of liquid) has been to cook the chicken separately – for example, grilling it on a BBQ or pan-frying it in a separate pan, or even boiling it in broth in a slow-cooker.

You don't need to over-cook it, but this gets rid of the excess liquid and then you add it back into the sauce to simmer and

you avoid watering the sauce down.

I suggest massaging the meat with flour and letting it absorb it for some time, that is, until the flour absorbs moisture from the meat and changes color from white to yellow-ish, and becomes sticky.

This should allow the meat to retain some of the water while cooking.

Question: I notice when cooking chicken breast in a pan, or in the oven, the chicken releases a lot of fluid, watering down the flavour.  This happens with fresh chicken as well as frozen (de-frosted) chicken.  How do I prevent this?

My chicken breasts release a lot of fluid when cooked. How do I prevent this?

It sounds like your chicken has been infused with water to plump it and make it easier to chill fast. When heated, much of this water is lost to the pan. Try dessicating the chicken with salt for 20-60 minutes to remove excess water before brushing off the salt, dredging the meat with flour  for a thin crust, searing it to seal in the juices or cooking it separately to prevent liquid running into the sauce.

Water released by chicken when it cooks is a result of plumping. There are a number of methods to prevent water release, including searing the chicken on a high heat and dredging in flour.

The water released from chicken when it cooks is the result of plumping - very common in the US.

There are a number of ways to counteract the water released by chicken when it cooks. These include dredging in flour, cooking chicken separately, cooking on avery high heat to sear.


Depending on how much salt is on them, and how it's been applied, you might be able to knock some of it off, and effectively decant it: Place the peanuts into a hard-sided container at least twice the volume of the peanuts that you can seal tightly.

Shake the peanuts.

A lot.

Not too hard, though, as the goal is to knock some of the salt off, not to smash the peanuts up.

Finish by shaking the peanuts side to side, or placing it on something that vibrates (like a washing machine) Open the container, and scoop the peanuts out, being careful to leave the excess salt at the bottom.

You save yourself some effort, you might be able to do the whole work on top of your washing machine, or leave the container in the trunk of your car for a few trips.

The larger the salt crystals, the easier this will be to remove.

If it was applied as a wet spray or while the oils were on the surface of the peanuts, it's going to bind more to the peanuts, and be more difficult to remove.

Although the diluting trick will work, you can also use the peanuts in a recipe that would have otherwise called for salt and leave out the additional salt.

You could also crush them up and use them as a topping for something that could use a little extra salt.

(ice cream, Pad Thai, etc.)

Remove all surface salt by quickly rinsing them and thoroughly drying them as fast as possible.

I have rinsed salted nuts well in water to remove the excessive salt and then dried in the oven.

Since salted nuts are already roasted, they don't "roast again" very well at all (or in general behave like raw peanuts when cooked) but you can certainly rinse to remove excess salt and dry at low temperatures.

If you want to just eat them immediately you can just eat them damp, but to preserve the quality or to use for something like peanut butter, they need to be dried again.

Getting them unsalted in the first place is more desirable, but not always feasible due to oddities of pricing (where unsalted nuts may cost 2-3 times as much as the same things with salt.)

Bring a saucepan of water to the boil, then add the peanuts and a small potato and simmer for half an hour.

The salt will travel from the surface of the peanuts into the potato, which you can then discard.

Since the peanuts are for peanut butter, boiling them shouldn't affect the final taste, though you can try a lower temperature if you're concerned, or if you want to preserve crunchiness.

I used to use this method when boiling super-salty gammon steaks.

In this case, it should actually be more effective, since the salt is only on the surface of the peanuts, rather than begin suffused through them.

You really can't un-ring that bell...

you can, however, dilute the "extra salty" peanuts with other, unsalted, peanuts until the you get the desired saltiness in your peanut butter.

You could put them in an industrial sifter and use that to knock the salt off and separate the peanuts from the salt in one step, but that's probably overkill unless you have a lot of nuts.

Instead knock the salt off first, either with the shaking method that Joe mentioned or by placing the nuts between two sheets of clean fabric or clean, food safe paper and rolling and gently scrubbing them.

Then do the sifting step using a normal kitchen sifter/strainer.

For eating in general, I took around 400grams of salted mixed nuts, followed Ecnerwal's and Charles Moore's Idea (thank you), rinsed it a couple of times, Preheat conventional oven at 350F, I used an aluminum foil sheet, and spread these nuts on them, Leave them for 3 mins, turned most of them with a couple of swipes with the hand, Leave them again for 3 mins and turn off the oven, Let it cool for 3-5 mins and take them to a plate and let it cool again, before you move them into an airtight container.

I prefer to do this few at a time, than the whole 2.5lb container.

Here are some pics. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzj_F7fR53q6NnlfanpmUloyWlE

Wash, shake off excess water, put in baking pan, place in oven for 7 minutes at 350 degree, remove and let them set until cooled rebag and eat.

Now I want to know how much salt is retained in the nuts?

Put similar types of these two bowls together and shake them vigorously above a sink or any receiver and after few minutes most of the salt will be removed

Question: I bought roasted peanuts from the market and they have too much salt in them.  How should I reduce the salt in those peanuts as much as I can?  My intent is to make peanut butter.

How to unsalt roasted salted peanuts?

You can try to sift away some of the salt or knock it off by shaking in a large container. Rinsing or boiling them can remove excess salt, and the peanuts can then be dried by heating in the oven for a few minutes. Alternatively, the salted peanuts can be mixed with unsalted peanuts.

There are a number of methods recommended for removing excess salt from peanuts. These include washing with water and drying in the oven, mixing with unsalted peanuts and removing the salt in an industrial sifter.

Rinsing peanuts with water and then drying/baking in the oven is one way of removing excess salt.

Diluting the saltiness of peanuts by mixing with unsalted peanuts reduces the overall saltiness.

Put salty peanuts in anindustrial sifter to remove excess salt.


In general, the chances of significant heat damage to granite are very small, though depending on the pan, the granite, and any products that may be on the granite (not only sealant, but residue from granite cleaning or polishing products, etc.), you might sometimes get some staining/charring.

I would also take into account the amount of heat that will transfer from the pan/pot/tray -- a small pan which is nearly empty and not very hot is a very different thing from a giant cast iron dutch oven filled with chili or superheated cooking oil.

I personally wouldn't risk injecting a huge amount of heat into a small area, because it will cause the material to expand and contract unevenly.

When done repeatedly, it could even lead to cracking.

Unlikely?

Yes.

Impossible?

No, particularly if the granite is thin or lower quality (e.g., with some minor fissures or weak spots already in the stone, etc.).

Another issue is a safety one

-- granite countertops that absorb heat from very hot pans can stay exceptionally hot for a quite a while.

Since there's often no visual cue about the temperature (unlike a stovetop), it can easily cause burns if you forget that that part of the countertop may be hot.

Other answers have mentioned that most references on the internet say it's safe, but with just a quick search in the first 10 links or so that came up, I see a number of places that actually manufacture or install granite do NOT recommend placing hot things directly on granite.

See, for example: here : "Trivets or cloths are highly recommended.

" here : "Repeated exposure to high heat can eventually leave black marks and gashes on granite slabs." here : "The darker the material the more dense and therefore the more heat it will hold.

The biggest issue with putting a hot pan on granite is that if you touched the spot it could be as hot as the pan itself and therefore cause you an injury.

You should especially be cautious with black granite since it is the most dense and with repeat exposure may actually crack." here in a list of myths: " 'Granite is heat resistant, so it is perfectly okay to place hot pots on a granite countertop.'

While it’s true that granite is quite resistant to the sorts of temperatures encountered in kitchens, excessive heat can damage or discolor some types of granite sealers.

Rapid heating can also generate internal stresses that could cause a crack at a weak spot, such as a natural flaw or fissure in the stone.

An easy way to eliminate potential problems is by using a trivet with feet."

Many sites agree with these cautions.

There are other sites that say it should be okay, or it's safe up to X degrees, or it's okay

but you shouldn't do it repeatedly, or whatever.

Everybody seems to have their opinion.

And you can find sources that claim the cracking is a myth.

This video , for example, heats small blocks of granite in a toaster oven and with a blowtorch and observes no damage.

But the heat damage (if it exists) is not going to be caused simply by heating, but by thermal shock created when a large slab is heated unevenly and thus expands and contracts unevenly (usually repeatedly over a period of years).

If you look around a bit, the internet does have anecdotes of people who have had granite countertops develop cracks or discoloration.

Personally, I have granite, and I avoid doing it on a regular basis.

However, in a pinch when I have a lot of hot pans or trays around the kitchen, and I need to set something down, I don't worry too much about doing it once in a while.

I think the chances of damage are quite small.

But with the cost of granite, why take any risk when you can just use a trivet or something (as you'd do on just about any other surface)?

That's just my habit anywhere.

Yesterday, my granite/quartzinite (mineral combination of marble and quartz) cracked by using an electric skillet sitting without a trivet or cutting board.

The material is 3 cm thick.

Although I've used hot pads/trivets for pans when needing to place on counter temporarily, it never occurred to me an electric skillet 2.5 - 3" above the counter at 350 degrees for approximately 20 minutes would cause the granite to crack.

Appeared to be plenty of air flow space.

I'm an idiot.

Do be like me.

Put something between the heat source and the stone.

Granite is a naturally occurring volcanic rock so unless you've got tungsten kettles and a nuclear-powered stove, it should be very safe to put hot pots on there if its thickness is more then a few cm (>1").

If you don't know whether it's synthetically sealed, take an cotton bud and dab a bit of nailpolish remover on it and apply it to a small area on the (under)side of your counter.

If there are no stains left (either on the bud or on the counter), there is no synthetic sealer and it should be absolutely safe.

I know someone personally who took a pot out of a 450 degree oven and set it on their new granite counter, and the granite cracked.

That was enough to encourage me to ALWAYS use a trivet.

All the words on the Internet can't counter one personal experience.

Most reference on the Internet say it is OK to put a hot pan on a granite counter.

BUT.

If the granite slab is thin (YMMV), it might break due to thermal shock.

Personally, I never put my pan directly on the counter, always on a mat of some sort.

I have just broken my granite.

Hot pan.

I personally tested hot pots and pans on granite, and found even boiling pots of water will cause surface cracks.

A cast iron pan with oil will completely crack the slab.

Probably won't hurt the granite - but it can warp your pans, making them unstable on any stove and unusable on a glass top stove.

Question: Is it okay to put a hot pan/pot on a granite counter? Or will it burn it? I don't know if there's a sealer on it.

Is it okay to put a hot pan on a granite counter?

While granite is a volcanic rock and theoretically should be fine with pans at kitchen stove temperatures, in reality the granite may be thin and/or sealed and sensitive to heat. Granite countertops can crack when exposed to pans of boiling oil or water.

Granite counter tops should not crack when hot pots and pans are placed on them. However, on many occasions, people have experienced damage. This may be because their granite counters are made of a thin slab of granite.

Granite is a hard material and will probably not be damaged by hot pots and pans placed on it. However, doing this may cause your pans to warp.

A lot of people have experienced damage when placing pots and pans on a granite counter, with the granite cracking. This may be because the granite is thin.


I completely agree with Cascabel's answer.

I do want to add a bit.

Salt is an amazing flavor enhancer and most (sweet) baked goods use very little (1/4 to 1 tsp) considering that most of the recipes make 12-24 servings (more for cupcakes/cookies etc) but it does make a difference.

Most baked desserts gain quite a bit from having the added salt... and they don't even have to be baked.

Even in things like buttercream frosting, adding a little salt greatly helps to balance the overwhelming sweetness of the frosting and makes it more palatable to adults.

All of my favorite buttercream recipes have a small amount of salt.

Anyway, removing the salt won't cause the recipe to fail...

I'm sure I've accidentally omitted it several times in the past when I'm in a rush to get stuff in the oven...

it can just make the flavors not as strong or remove some of the flavor contrast, so things can taste a bit flatter.

In baking, salt is generally only for flavor: things won't taste as good without it.

So you can reduce it or leave it out if you want, just be aware that you may sacrifice some flavor.

This shouldn't have anything to do with the baking powder.

Baked goods that don't use baking powder usually contain salt as well.

I would just note that salt does sometimes play other roles in baking, particularly in yeast breads (but also in relatively lean doughs raised chemically, like soda bread).

Salt concentration slows down yeast growth, and it can also alter gluten formation early on.

It can also affect final texture and even browning to some extent (as a side effect).

It is possible to modify most bread recipes to bake without salt, but it may require altering the rising time (and perhaps how much you knead/fold/shape).

And of course there are notable bread traditions that are simply made without salt, like much bread in Tuscany.

I stopped using salt 40 years ago, therefore I never use salt in baking.

I have never noticed any issues.

Once your palate adjusts, you will enjoy the fresh flavour of food rather than the salty overtones.

I disagree with the other answers.

I've heard this opinion frequently, but never seen it work that way in practice.

I live in Europe, and baking recipes here rarely use salt in baking.

I certainly don't, and frequently omit it from American recipes too.

I don't notice much of a difference between making it with and without the salt.

My best guess is that If you are accustomed to eating baking goods with salt, you'll miss it if they don't have it.

If you're not accustomed, you won't.

This would explain my observations in salt being used in some local cuisines and not others.

Salt preferences can certainly be changed for savory dishes by simply changing the amount of salt eaten until one has grown used to a new level; I've done so myself, and I've known others who do it.

There is a good chance it works the same way for sweet goods.

So, if you want to eat less salt, just omit it.

Even if it is a bit unusual at first, it will likely grow on you.

Just note that if you're serving to a crowd which expects salt, the results can be perceived by them as underwhelming.

I know this thread is old

but I'm going to post anyway.

All the previous people may not be aware that people who are "reducing salt" might actually mean reducing sodium.

Check your baking soda and baking powder labels if you're thinking home baking is not a source of sodium!

This still adds up.

Consider my recipe that uses 2 eggs (70 mg sodium each), ½ tsp baking soda (600 mg), and ¼ tsp baking powder (70 mg).

Divide that by 12 (muffins) and that's 67.5 mg of sodium per muffin.

That is without any added salt !

And just as little as ¾ tsp salt adds another 1770 mg of sodium to my recipe, which would make EACH muffin have 215 mg of sodium.

Please be aware it does add up bakers!

Salt is generally used for flavor in cooking, but when it comes to baking it plays more of an important role.

In baking, salt is used to activate the leavening agent in the product-like baking powder or baking soda.

This means that if you omit salt all together your product won't rise as much or at all.

You should be able to reduce the amount of salt you use and still get your product to rise, but I would not recommend omitting it all together.

Question: I'm trying to reduce my salt intake.  I've noticed in baking recipes where baking powder is used they add salt.  Can I omit the salt or would the recipe fail?

Omiting salt in baking recipes that use chemical leaveners?

Many bread recipes in Europe do not use salt, and usually it is there for flavour rather than baking properties. However, it can affect rising, especially with yeast, and omitting it may make the bread taste quite bland.

Different baking traditions have a different approach to the use of salt. In some baking recipes it is merely a flavor enhancer and leaving it out will not affect the result. In other recipes, it is an active ingredient and therefore reducing the amount may be better than leaving it out completely. European baking traditions tend to use less salt and some, like Tuscany, do not use salt at all in bread.

Removing salt from a baking recipe will not affect the result. It will make a difference to the flavor. Guests may find your dishes a little tasteless.

Salt does play a role in baking and the recipe may need to be modified to leave it out especially for leavened goods. Some bread traditions do not use salt at all, like Tuscan bread.

Salt is used to activate the leavening process in some recipes, so leaving it out may affect the result. Maybe reducing the amount would be a better idea.


About 8oz or 225g/person is probably a good place to start.

Think about when you have a standard steak or a piece of chicken in a restaurant.

The pre-cooked weight will usually be in the region of 8-10oz.

A good rule of thumb is to allow 1lb of meat (before cooking) per person, not counting small children who will obviously eat less.

It's better to have too much than not enough - you can always use leftovers.

It depends in part who you are serving--hungry college students (or those with that mindset) eat considerably more free food than do wealthy health-conscious professionals.

You also need to keep in mind that while you don't want to overshoot massively, it also looks bad to run out of food.

You may also need to keep in mind that a significant number of people do not eat pork for personal/religious reasons, so you want to not run too short of other options.

That said, the best way to estimate is to see what people who do this all the time provide.

For instance, CityBBQ provides 8 lbs of meat for 20-24 people .

Famous Dave's seems to offer about 8 lbs also , if you can count their 60 chicken wings as equivalent to your lasagna.

(This is likely cooked weight, though neither site says.)

For entertaining purposes the rule of thumb I've most commonly seen in your case, where the meat is the primary food being served, is about 8-10 ounces per person.

That's size per portion after cooking.

You are making pulled pork and brisket, and each of those will lose just over 40% of their weight during cooking.

So if you assume 5 ounces of brisket and 5 ounces of pork per person, that's about 8.3 ounces of each meat pre-cooked per person.

So you'd probably want

(number of meat eaters times 8.3) divided by 16 pounds of each meat type,

plus or minus any fudge factor you wish to include.

In the past, when I host a party at home

and I serve Buffet style with sides, Rice, Potatoes, Mc & Cheese, Salad and veggies

, I end up with about 2oz of beef, whether is flank, tenderloin, etc per person.

Remember, you have appetizers as well before the main and I serve, Garlic Shrimp, plus an assortment of dips & chips.

Depending on where you live, your local government food or health departments will publish a food guide or food pyramid

In many western countries that eat red meats, you will find this showing about 120 g (4 oz) of red meat, about the size of a pack of cards or a typical hamburger patie

At many functions and restaurants the host will serve more than this, this is marketing, not love In the case of pulled pork, a generous tong load into an open roll is about 50 to 60 g (2 oz).

I did a 50

+ person event recently, and there was only about 1.2 pulled pork rolls per person consumed.

Pulled pork loses nearly half it's weight from raw to cooked.

See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/57059/3203

For brisket, the loss is less (depending on beef type).

And again about 50 to 60 g is a roll full, especially by the time you add some coleslaw, sauerkraut etc.

So even with if everyone has a brisket and a pork roll, you are still at 120 g cooked, or 240 g (8 oz) raw.

Always over cater, as you never know who is going to turn up, and pulled pork makes great left overs

I have grilled, barbecued, smoked brisket whole my life.

I would say you´ll actually need about 2 pounds/person.

This is because as this homepage also tells, http://goodporkbadpork.com/how-much-brisket-per-person/ the brisket will lose about 40% if you plan on trimming it!

Question: Catering a small event tomorrow for twenty people. Serving beef brisket, pulled pork, and veggie lasagna. Question is how much brisket & pork should  allow for each person? also serving  three sides, rolls, etc.

How much meat should I serve per person?

This depends on factors like the people being served, but a common rule of thumb is to prepare about 8oz or 225g of meat per person, and less for children. You should try not to serve way too much or too little food, but it is better to serve too much and have leftovers.

8oz to 10oz is considered an appropriate serving of meat when it is the main component of the meal. However, the typeof people you are feeding needs to be taken into account. Always tend towards too much rather than too little and use up the leftovers another day.

8oz to 10oz per person is considered the right amount of meat to serve if meat is the main component of the meal.

How much meat you serve depends on who you are feeding. It is always better to have too much food than too little. The remaining meat can be used as leftovers.