Frying in a wok doesn't necessarily imply a single particular oil for all foods you cook.

It may vary up to the ingredients, the technique (yes, there is more than one wok technique), the recipe, personal preferences, price etc.

As a general rule, as you've mentioned in your question, wok techniques require relatively high temperatures so oils with reasonably high smoking points should be preferred, for sure.

Depending on its type and the temperature you want to reach, peanut oil may be or may not be suitable for the task.

This table and this list reveals that peanut oil is not the one with the highest smoking point and there are significant differences between the smoking points of the types of peanut oils.

As a result, I don't think that a "best oil" can be named, but I believe

-some type(s) of-

peanut oil would be fine for many purposes

--and

it is a must for some recipes.

Still, some other oils can be used in the light of what I mentioned above.

For example, I prefer sunflower oil in many cases.

peanut oil is considered the "best" oil to use in the wok because of its high smoking point.

We buy large containers of it from our local asian market.

I also use grapeseed oil because it also has good smoking point qualities, and you don't need to use as much oil where you would with other varieties.

I use either vegetable, ground nut or peanut (think they are the same/simliar).

I also add a splash of seasame oil at the end of cooking for flavour.

Look at this question and answers.

Beware of health issues with saturated fats.

My typical goto oil for my wok is grapeseed oil.

It has a fairly neutral flavour and is supposedly good for you.

If in doubt, grapeseed oil is your best bet for any high-heat cooking for 2x specific reasons: Grapeseed can be heated to a higher temperature before it begins to smoke, allowing you to use it at a higher temperature before imparting a burnt flavor.

It has a very mild flavor that blends easily with whatever you're cooking.

It's perfectly suited for stir-fry, pan-frying, sauteing.

Add to that that it's a healthy oil and the only reason not to use it is that it's more expensive--but nothing crazy.

Question: I like cooking a lot of stir-fry which I generally cook in a wok at high temperature. I generally use vegetable oil but I've also heard peanut oil is better for wok cooking because of it's high smoking point.  Is peanut oil the best option for wok cooking or are there better oils to use?

What is the best oil to use when cooking in a wok?

Peanut oil would be good for this purpose due to its high smoking point, but grapeseed oil has many of the same advantages. A splash of sesame oil at the end of the cooking process is good for flavour.

Both peanut and grapeseed oil have high smoke points for frying. Try adding some sesame oil at the end for frying.

Peanut oil has a high smoke point for wok cooking.

Grapeseed oil has a very high smoke point and won't give you a burnt flavour.


Soak them for a while in warm water, and you'll be able to use them, yes.

However It is equally important to know that you should reserve the liquid for its essential mushroomness, and yet also that said reserved liquid should be run through a coffee filter to remove grit.

I guess you must be referring to dried Shiitake Mushrooms.

I agree with all the answers above, but I must make some additional steps to it.

I also believe we are talking the whole mushroom.

If it is sliced mushrooms, you will need to soak them for less time.

Yes, it's best to use cold water and it will take at least couple of hours.

I would soak them in cold water for about 15 mins Pour all the water out.

Put in fresh water and keep soaking it.

I will do this step couple of times.

Remember you may save the water to use as flavouring, but you have to clean the mushroom and make sure the bitterness is gone.

Also, I must say the imported Chinese mushroom must be handled carefully as there have been reports that they may contain dangerous chemicals.

After a couple of hours, make sure the mushrooms are soft, take them out of water, and drive them thoroughly.

You may keep the water if you wish.

The mushrooms are good for foods that are steamed or stir-fry.

Hot water

If you are in rush, then you may use hot or warm water.

You still have to go through the cleaning process, but the time will be less.

Soup

If you use mushrooms for making soup, you may not need to soak it.

I would soak them for quick 10 mins and give them a clean.

Throw them straight into water and boil them to make soup.

The flavour of the mushrooms will come out nicely.

Perhaps not the 'best' way to use dried mushrooms, but if you powder them up in your spice grinder, they make an excellent thickening agent for soups/sauces.

You won't get thickening at the level of cornstarch or arrowroot, but it will thicken things and impart a mushroomy goodness.

For some a few minutes in warm water will reconstitute them.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670/dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten

Depending on the mushrooms, it may take a little longer.

You could soak them in warm/hot water and it'll be quicker, but if I have the time I generally soak them in cold water for about an hour.

I'm told it retains much more of the flavour when you do that.

Question: I was recently given a bag of dried mushrooms and am unsure how to work with them.  What's the best way to use them?

How to work with Dried Mushrooms?

You can soak them in warm water for most recipes, or use them without soaking in soups. You can also grind them up as a thickening agent for soups and sauces.

For most uses, soak the mushrooms before use. For soup, this is not necessary. You can also grind them up into a powder and use as a thickener.

Soak them in water to rehydrate them. For soup, this might not be necessary.

Grind them up to make a thickener for sauces.


A very simple answer why you prick sausages.

When the sausages get heated up, the fat content and also air pressure inside start to grow.

Pricking sausgaes allow the air and fat to be 'released', otherwise, the skin of the sausages will start to crack which eventually will result in losing more juice and 'fat'.

Yes, Pricking may lead to dry sausages, so you don't have to overdo it and also use the small toothpick to do it which will reduce the damages.

Here in Argentina is very common to bbq LOTS of sausages for big parties.

Just for reference: To ease the work of turning them, we usually hold them together with metal skewers, that also serve the purpose of draining the fat:

But if you don't prick them (besides of the aforementioned holes), they usually EXPLODE.

Note: here the skins are usually made from cow guts

I'd say no never prick the sausages if you can help it.

the fat inside helps to keep them succulent and moist, and if you have a problem with the splitting and are pricking them to release the pressure as was stated by @foodrules, then I'd say you are cooking them over too high a heat.

Lower the heat, or if you are

BBQing move them further from the source, then you will get to have unsplit, moist sausages.

When pan frying I prefer a very low heat for a long time.

This allows a delicious sticky crust to develop on the outside of the sausages.

mmm...

If they were meant to be pricked why would they not come pre pricked?

I always do when pan-frying - it's astonishing how much fat comes out.

I prefer the resulting texture.

Barbequed sausages really can't be pricked much because of flareups, and I usually try to eat something else if I have a choice, because I find them too greasy.

Perhaps my "just right" is someone else's "too dry" - it's certainly true that pricking them makes a very noticeable difference.

I think the whole point of putting the fat into the sausages is having the meat cook in it.

I would prick them as little as possible.

If you prick your sausages, you are in the wrong.

It defeats the purpose of fat in there in the first place.

If you prick them, they dry out.

If the casings burst, you're cooking on too high a heat.

Cook on a lower heat for an extended time, and the casings caramelise...

oh mama!

Do not season with salt or pepper before you cook them, the salt will draw the moisture towards the surface, and evaporate during cooking.

Season AFTER they have been cooked.

Question: Whenever I go to a BBQ and sausages are cooking, the chef will always prick the sausages while they are cooking. I have no idea what this does, I assume it's to get the fat out, however I recently read that you should never prick sausages as it results in them being dry inside?  So my question is, should I prick sausages with a fork or knife during cooking?

Should I prick sausages during cooking?

Pricking the sausages releases air and fat, which can prevent them from exploding. However, this also dries out the sausages and is unnecessary if you cook them at a lower heat.

Some people prick sausages to stop them bursting on the grill whereas other people prefer low heat and avoid pricking to keep the juices inside.

Pricking the sausages stops them exploding on the grill.

If you have to prick sausages then your grill is too hot. You should try to keep the juices inside the sausage.


Is there some dialectical thing going on here?

I have always known stews as stovetop and casseroles as baked, just as Jared said in his comment.

See for example on wikipedia: stew vs. casserole ; or in Merriam-Webster: stew (click the verb form) vs. casserole .

(Casserole refers to the dish as well as the food cooked in it; it's pretty definitely something you would only bake in.)

Now

and then I see things get muddled when I'm reading recipes, but these are definitely the meanings I grew up with and see in the vast majority of what I read.

In addition to Joe's great answer , in my childhood (where they were usually called 'bakes' (the food), but they came out of a 'casserole' (the vessel).)

I learned two other important differences: time.

A 'stew' was never done in less than 2 hours.

It wasn't uncommon for it to bubble away in the crock pot or a dutch oven for 4 or 5 hours.

A 'bake' by comparison was usually well under an hour in the oven and then done.

If the menu called for a stew, and it wasn't already bubbling along and the kitchen cleaned up when I got home from school, I made sure I got a decent snack for myself, 'cause dinner would be a tad later than normal.

meal vs entree.

A 'stew' was traditionally an entire meal.

It might be served with some bread or roles to dredge up the last bits from your bowl, but the stew was really the entire meal.

A 'bake' always had supporting dishes of some sort.

Chicken noodle casserole came to the table with green beans (sometimes in a casserole of their own.)

and carrots on the side, lasagna arrived with a salad and garlic bread.

etc.

As to your second question, I still see the distinction in my family, my wife's family, friends and many formally trained cooks.

But largely I think because I'm in the midwest, where hotdish is king, and everyone here knows what hotdish is; I see more blurring of the line between 'soup' and 'stew' than I do 'stew' and 'casserole/bake/hotdish' to be honest.

In today's modern culture and cooking style, the difference is likely unobserved.

I would consider a stew less constructed than a casserole, however.

While the stew would start with generally uncooked ingredients (perhaps except for browning the meat, and likely be mixed together while cooking to give a single-dish of meat, vegetables and sauce.

A casserole might include some cooked ingredients, often be more properly layered and probably not mixed while cooking.

As Jared mentioned, 'stewing' always involves a fair amount of liquid -- it's a slow, moist cooking process.

It's not quite a braise, as with a braise, the item is only partially submerged, whereas with a stew, you have smaller chunks of things that might float, but for the most part are submerged.

You can make really thick stews (I tend to grate a potato into the stew towards the end to get it to thicken up '

til it's thick like a good gravy), but they tend to be loose, not a single congealed mass.

It might be an American thing, but 'stew' in general is always assumed to have meat in it (typically a red meat, eg.

beef or venison) Casseroles (might be called a 'bake' or a 'hotdish' depending on your region) are almost always baked and untouched during the baking process.

They can be layered (as with a lasagne or a shepherd's pie) but can also be just a mixture put into a baking dish and tossed in the oven (eg, my mom's tuna noodle casserole ...

but she might've topped it with some extra cheese or breadcrumbs, so I guess you can consider that a layer).

Casseroles tend to be less 'soupy' than a stew -- some will hold their own shape when they're scooped, if let to cool down for a few minutes after they come out of the oven.

(eg, lasagne, most macaroni & cheese casseroles) ...

as it looks like you're from the UK, it's possible that these distinctions aren't made over there.

If the terms are used differently outside the US, please add to the Translating Cooking Terms post.

One factor not mentioned in the other answers is that there is a class of cookware called a "casserole dish" -- ceramic or pyrex, somewhat shallow, often with a lid.

I suppose it follows that a casserole is the kind of dish you prepare in such a vessel.

I went to the dictionary for definitons of casserole and stew.

As pointed out above, the main difference and the description, lies in the cooking vessel used.

A casserole is a covered oven based dish whilst a stew is commonly stove-top, covered or not, using more liquid to cook the ingredients.

Slow cookers arrived on the market.

I supposed these would be closer to the casserole definition?

Question: Is there a proper distinction between a slow cooked meat dish labelled a casserole and one labelled stew?   And if there is a traditional distinction would it be fair to say that the distinction is no longer observed?

Is there a difference between Stew and Casserole?

The difference could be in the type of dish used, whether it is baked or cooked on a stove and covered or not, and the consistency of the dish. In modern cooking, the distinction is likely not observed.

A casserole is cooked in the oven while a stew is cooked on the stove top, however this difference is not generally respected anymore.

A casserole is cooked in the oven in a casserole dish with a lid whereas a stew is cooked on the stove top.

This difference is not really observed anymore.


Salmonella can't survive boiling water, it would get killed at that temperature.

It should be fine to boil everything in the same pot.

As soon as one of the eggs gets cracked you might get a true mess, so it is safer to boil them separated from the rest of your meal.

Otherwise there's no problem with it (taken the eggs are clean).

I personally reckon it's fine.

Couple of points I like to make here are: Hygiene of eggs

: Make sure you wash your eggs before you cook as surface of egg can be very dirty Maybe put the eggs in with cold water, otherwise, put the eggs when the water is hot may crack the eggs

If you are cooking the eggs hot enough to kill Salmonella (above 160 F), then you are also cooking the egg shell hot enough.

Egg white becomes solid and firm at 170 F, so that is a good gauge.

Of course, observing your water at a rolling boil is also a good gauge (212 F).

Keep in mind the average consumer will encounter one contaminated egg in a lifetime.

Unless you are in the habit of cracking your eggs open and letting them sit raw for hours at favorable temperatures, you will probably not encounter this issue.

There may be confusion with instructions for sterilizing drinking water.

To prepare outdoor water for drinking, it is recommended a full rolling boil for 10 minutes.

This addresses a wide potential range of bacteria, spores, parasites, etc.

Although there may be the odd pond water parasite that needs ten minutes of boiling, these are not creatures found in your egg carton.

Yes.

We've made potato salad with the eggs and the potatoes boiling together for generations.

I've had no problems boiling eggs in the same pot as my rice or pasta.

I usually place them very gently into the boiling water.

Haven't had any crack so far, but I'm guessing

that's more good luck than good planning.

The most important thing for me is that it saves on pan usage.

I don't have very many, and using an entire pan/burner for an egg is a little overkill, compared to this alternative.

The less washing up is nice too.

Yes I would have thought this would be fine.

Though I've never done it myself.

The only issues i can see are getting it soft boiled (for which my technique requires the eggs starting in cold water).

I have recipes from cookbooks that combine-cook eggs (with green beans, for example).

I'd therefore imagine it'd not be a problem.

(Although my cookbooks can be wrong as well, of course).

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457/Tobias Op Den Brouw

Boiling eggs along with noodles, water for tea, and many other things has taken place for years.

Its only people's recent phobia of germs that causes one to be apprehensive.

There is no harm in it.

Question: I know cooking the eggs kills the salmonella and  that the risk is small even for raw eggs . However, I stopped boiling the eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else, like potatoes, when I learnt the salmonella is in the shell.  Obviously, I'm not eating the shell and the eggs are washed. I wonder if I can boil everything in the same pot or not.

Can I boil eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else?

This cooking method has long been used with pasta, tea and other foods, and since salmonella can't survive boiling water, this would not be a risk. However, it could be a good idea to wash your eggs in water before boiling them and to make sure that they don't crack.

This is generally fine as long as the water is hot enough to kill bacteria and the eggs don't crack in the pot.

People have cooked eggs in the same pan as other foods for years. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the water is hot enough.

Be careful the eggs don't crack in the pot.


The major difference between butter and oil is that butter is only 80% oil, with the rest being milk solids and water ( source ).

This means that using oil you will lose some of the water content that your cake should have, possibly resulting in a dryer cake.

On the plus side, cakes made with oil tend to dry out slower than those made with butter.

The other possible different, but one that is unlikely with a mix I'd think, is that it depends on the method of mixing in your fat.

If the butter is to be whipped or creamed while softened this creates a different texture than one you could get with oil or melted butter.

Whipped butter or especially butter creamed with sugar provides a network of air bubbles that act as a raising agent during cooking, and the result is a pound cake like crumb.

If your recipe calls for melted butter, though, this is not a concern - the result is more like a traditional muffin or quick bread crumb.

Finally, a vegetable oil has a fairly neutral taste.

Usually when a vegetable oil is called for, this is desirable.

Butter on the other hand has a more interesting flavor.

Your cake may be a bit bland without it.

One big difference is the texture at different temperatures.

Butter is a soft solid at room temp while (most) oil is a liquid.

So the oil-based cake will be moister but also may feel oily.

If you plan to refrigerate and serve cold though, oil can be an advantage because butter is so solid it will make the cake seem tough and dry.

Believe it or not...

I use yogurt in lieu of the oil.

Works like a champ

and it makes the cake a lot lighter.

I have made a box cake with oil instead of butter plenty of times.

I prefer to use oil with strong flavored cakes like chocolate or lemon.

I find that with a yellow or white cake the lack of butter leaves the taste of the cake rather bland.

I supposed if I did use oil instead of butter with a white or yellow cake again I would add a teaspoon of vanilla or almond extract.

You can certainly substitute butter with some light oil or margarine, not with high flavour oil like olive oil, though!

The main drawback is the lack of buttery taste of the final result, which is something highly desirable in a lot of cakes.

You can also use yoghurt or lard (in some rare cases).

Yoghurt will make the cake much softer and change the texture.

Lard has a very strong flavour but it is called for in some recipes, like the Italian "Torta Sbrisolona".

Many posts here are saying cakes with oil lack the buttery flavour.

On the co tract alot of blogs on cup cakes and cakes will tell you oil is easier to mix, the taste is also preferable.

You need to use 3/4 the amount of oil to butter when substituting.

I'm not surprised oil tastes better as it has more fat content.

Fat changes the taste texture and odour of food.

Generally fat breaks down chemicals in flavour creating a more concentrated flavour and odour.

I would suggest using baking powder for a more robust cake.

Question: I want to bake a cake out of baking mix bought at a shop. The mix already contains flour, baking soda, vanillin, other minor components. The manual says I need to add butter.  I'd like to use vegetable oil instead of butter - most likely sunflower seed oil. Is that a good idea? Should I expect any problems? Will the result likely be a decent cake or something to just throw away?

What happens if I use vegetable oil in a cake?

This is possible with a neutral oil, but since butter contains some water you are likely to end up with a moister but more oily result unless you add 3/4 of the amount of oil. You will also lose the buttery taste in the cake. You can also replace the butter with yoghurt for a softer cake.

You can replace butter with oil for a box cake. The texture will be slightly different. You should add slightly less oil than in the recipe.

You can certainly replace the butter with oil. It may be a little dryer or even more oily and will lack the buttery taste.

Try using yogurt that will make a softer cake.

Use less oil than the quantity of butter needed.


Half fill it with water, then put in on the stove top over a medium heat.

Work

the burnt-on bits with a wooden spoon or spatula as the water starts to boil.

You should be able to soften it up and be able to get it off then.

Ammonia does a really nice job on pans with a lot of burn on black debris that won't come off with scrubbing.

Remove the bulk of the debris on thepan,(you're already there)

Then place the pan, and a containerwith

some 1/2c(120ml) of householdammonia in a plastic bag.

Close up the bag (doesn't have to be totally airtight).

Leave

it sit for several hours toa couple days.

The burnedon stuff will come off pretty easily.

Then wash the pan normally.

I strongly advocate letting the pan/bag combination sit outside or in a garage or very well ventilated room during the soaking phase.

This works great on broiler pans, but I have used it on other pans as well.

Do NOT use this technique on aluminum pans.

There is a special tool that I use for tough pot cleaning jobs.

It is a small hard nylon square, with three curved corners and one more pointed corner.

The edges are slightly beveled.

I have several that came with my order of pampered chef bakeware.

I think you might be able to buy them retail or online also.

There's not much to say about this: The only thing you can try is to use fat-resolving detergents.

The rest that is really burnt to coal has to be removed physically by hand.

No way around this, unfortunately.

I managed to clean a roasting tray with some icky sticky grease solidified on it that simply wouldn't come off.

I put it under the grill for 10-15mins at 220degC, then took it out and placed it in my steel sink then (carefully and with one hand in an oven glove!)

I put a small amount of washing up liquid on and scrubbed it with a steel wire scourer .

The grease, which now seemed to have been burnt by the heat came off very quickly.

Obviously this comes under the "don't try this at home kids" but I didn't need any potent cleaning products.

Baking Soda and vinegar made to a paste, use paste to buff pot or pan with a soft cloth.

Works like magic.

Question: I made  this recipe  last week - chicken wings roasted in a marinade of soy sauce, brown sugar and white wine vinegar. It was delicious but lots of the marinade has burned onto my baking tray, and I'm struggling to get it clean.   I put it in to soak immediately, scrubbed and then tried washing powder, but it is still very firmly stuck on. Does anyone have any cleaning ideas that might help me in this case?

What is the best way to clean a roasting tray/baking tray that has sauce burned on to it?

You can scrub it with washing up liquid, a paste of baking soda and vinegar, ammonia or other fat-dissolving detergents. You could also try adding some water and putting it on a stovetop over a medium heat.

Try using a detergent specifically for grease. You can also heat it up with a little water on the stove or use a steel wire scourer.

Try using baking soda, ammonia or a degreasing detergent.

Fill with a little water and heat on the stove to loosen the dirt.


I would strongly suggest not pouring cold or any other kind of water on pasta; it will rinse the delicious starches off its surface, which would otherwise help your sauce cling to it.

To counteract the negative consequences of overcooking due to remaining heat (which, as belisarius suggests in his answer, is the reason other stuff is often rinsed with cold water), just serve it immediately.

You want to have the sauce (hot and) ready just before your pasta is, so you can drain the pasta, mix with the sauce, and put it on the table.

Pour cold water on boiled things when you want to stop the cooking process.

Once you get "al dente" stage, the pasta will quickly get past that, so cooling it with cold water helps you manage the final state.

Be aware that the pasta will lose temp, that is going to be re-gained when you briskly sautee it afterward (with some salsa, hopefully).

PS: for vegetables, quickly immersing them in ice-cold water after boiling helps to retain the bright color (although I don't know why).

Your pour cold water over pasta if you don't want the noodles to stick together later.

If you are making enough for the amount of servings -- that you will eat right away -- then it is ok not to.

As Erik's answer pointed out, the sauce will stick better onto the noodles.

So you are cooking pasta in bulk and will refrigerate some of it for later consumption, it is better to dump cold water on it.

Otherwise, you'll end up with a glob of pasta that you can't sort out later.

Even though you might want to rinse pasta that you plan to serve warm with a sauce later, to do so is never ideal.

Rinsing in cold water then tossing with a bit of oil works adequately to keep the pasta from sticking if you need to serve the pasta long past the time that it is cooked, but even under those circumstances, consider tossing with the sauce in advance instead of rinsing.

If you're making a cold pasta salad, then rinsing with cold water might very well be your best, ideal choice.

It depends upon the dressing, but that starch that makes the pasta stick so nicely to warm sauces can make cold salads unappealingly clumpy.

Alternatively, I use a little bit of oil to coat the noodles and then stir it up.

This way I can prepare or finish off whatever I am doing before I sauce the noodles.

This method is also ideal if you are making an intricate noodle dish like ramen (real ramen, not instant) or pho where ingredients are layered or designed in specific ways that can take some time.

You then just pour the very hot soup base and the noodles will instantly loosen up.

i also use this method if I made too much pho

and we need to save it.

Oiled noodles won't stick, will loosen in liquids and can be refrigerated.

Erik P. is absolutely right, rinsing pasta is a bad idea, and many Italians consider it heresy.

Rinsing removes the residual cooking water, which contains considerable flavor, nutrition and texture.

This water is often used in recipes as the primary base for sauces.

Rinsing also lowers the temp of the pasta.

This will stop cooking in the pasta, but you will have to add heat to bring it back up to temp, which will lead to further cooking.

Really, pasta is pretty heat tolerant, and the cooking time for al dente pasta and overcooked pasta are not that close to each other.

To prevent the pasta clumping, add salt and oil to the cooking water before the initial boil.

If you are storing the cooked pasta sauceless, toss it with a little olive oil.

This is how it is done in restaurants.

Yeah, it is better to wash the pasta with cold water (to wash away unnecessary starch that sticks outside) very fast...

otherwise the pasta gets cold.

After that, you can mix the pasta with the sauce and bring it to boil for about 30 seconds.

If you don't wash it the pasta will stick together and will be hard to eat later.

If you wash it you still can eat it even after 2 to 3 hours.

Question: Some of my friends pour cold water on pasta after boiling it other don't. What do the professionals do? If they pour cold water on the pasta after the boil, what do they want to accomplish with doing it?

Pouring cold water on pasta after cooking it

Rinsing in cold water will stop the pasta from cooking and wash away some of the starches, which is considered a bad thing by many Italians. Rinsing and then tossing with a bit of olive oil can stop pasta from sticking, but it may be better to toss with the sauce instead.

Don't rinse it in cold water if you want to serve it straight away. If you want to keep the pasta for later, then rinsing it will stop the cooking process.

Rinsing pasta in cold water will remove the starches that help the sauce stick to it.

If you want to stop the cooking process to store the pasta for later, then rinse it in cold water to stop it clumping.


We have a pizza stone that makes the finished pizza taste so much better.

In addition we add more toppings to the pizza.

For instance sliced mushrooms, pineapple, olives, peppers and cheese.

The sky is the limit.

And this way you can have a 5 topping pizza for the price of the toppings and a cheap frozen pizza.

For the pizza stone you don't want it to make a drastic change in temperature otherwise the stone would break.

So for the oven I put the stone in the oven then preheat it.

So the stone heats up with the oven.

During this time I prepare the toppings.

When the oven is hot enough you take out the stone, careful it is hot, put the pizza on, throw the toppings on then put back in oven and cook.

Domenico DeMarco might be the best pizzaiolo alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAolCtDMTu4 Just watching that my pizzas improved considerably: parmesan, fresh basil and extra virgin olive oil after baking the pizza.

He puts some oil before baking

and I think it's a good thing, but most people disagree on that.

Frozen pizzas have two problems: Bad crust

You can improve it baking in a pizza stone or, if that's not an option, putting some olive oil in the tray

you put the pizza.

Bad ingredients

It's always a matter of taste, I suggest keeping it simple.

Mozzarella and any other cheese that melts should help.

By the way, making pizza at home, from scratch, couldn't be cheaper.

Believe it or not, you're overpaying for the frozen stuff.

Also, you are grating your parmesan, right?

If you're a person who likes spicy as a compensation for other flavor deficiencies - try adding red pepper and/or Tabasco.

My favorite is actually Tony's Creole seasoning.

The stone idea sounds like it would help a lot for texture, too :)

While not relating to taste directly, I find cooking the pizza directly on the rack instead of in a pan makes it quite crispy

and I enjoy that texture more than the soft dough texture you'll get from cooking it in a pan.

You may want to place the pan you would have used on the lower rack to catch any cheese or crumbs that might fall.

Other than that I've usually used various spices to kick up the flavor (garlic powder, crushed red peppers, etc).

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think there's anything that can make frozen pizza better.

All you can accomplish by adding fresh ingredients is to make THEM taste worse.

That's not a way to have a meal.

Instead of eating frozen pizza, order pizza if you don't have time to prepare your own.

And pizza is really easy to prepare - if you're adding all those ingredients to frozen pizza

you're already half way there.

You don't even need to make your own dough, you can usually buy it in the local bakery and then either freeze it or keep in a fridge for a day or two.

Please don't eat frozen pizza.

Every time you eat a frozen pizza, an Italian fairy dies. :(

Add some fresh ingredients: basil and/or oregano chopped up ripe tomato fresh garlic sundried tomoato

You'll find after dressing up a pizza, you can just start making your own from scratch.

add extra ingredients and another layer of sauce and cheese.

You can make the sauce by taking a can of tomato sauce (not a jar of spaghetti sauce) and add Italian seasoning to it.

I will swear blind that the only thing it really needs is olive-oil.

A light drizzle of olive oil.

I just got /ate a walmart pizza as featured in their "deli" section.

The directions said to put it directly on the oven grate

but I ignored that as I tried it before and it drooped and melted between the wire rack .. what I did was added a slew of ingredients and boosted the temp from a terrible 35o to a better 450

Also i use a pan nut put a grate under it with small spaces and sprayed the underside with olive oil spray ..

It was the best store bought crust I ever tried ..

I cooked it the same time they suggested about 16 minutes ..

bear in mind

this was not a frozen pizza

In my family, we add more ingredients to improve frozen pizza.

Also, I lower the heat.

I always "build up" the pizza by starting with the spices and olive oil (the spray will work as well).

We use mainly: tumeric,cumin,cinnamon and sage, Italian spices are good too.

Add a dash of curry if you like it spicier.

Don't over spice

it, rather drizzle olive oil.

Crush the spices in your palm to help bring out their flavor.

Thinly sliced onions go next.

My personal favorite is to tear up some deli honey ham,then lightly whisk an egg and drizzle.

This helps the cooking process and gives an almost quiche taste.

Then we use deli cheese.

Tear or crumble the cheeses

so they're even,then top with chives and sliced tomatoes.

I give a quick dust of butter or olive oil spray to crisp the cheese.

Question: As a college student, I eat a lot of frozen pizza. Unfortunately,  the brand of frozen pizza that I eat has very little taste.   Recently, I started adding Parmesan cheese, basil and garlic powered to the pizza before putting it in the toaster oven.  Can I do better than that? What can be done with frozen pizza to make it taste better?

How to make frozen pizza taste good?

You can use a pizza stone to improve the crust or use red pepper, Tabasco, garlic powder, Italian herbs etc., or add fresh ingredients like fresh, canned or sundried tomato, basil, oregano, garlic and mozzarella.

You can try adding some extra toppings like tomato sauce and cheese, along with more spices. You can also try cooking it on a pizza stone to make it more crispy.

Try adding some toppings to the pizza like extra tomato sauce and cheese. You can also add spices and fresh basil.

There is nothing that can really improve a frozen pizza.


Use lighter roast coffee: caffeine burns off as the roast darkens.

All other things equal, though, the stronger the cup of coffee, the more caffeine will be in it.

You aren't going to reach caffeine saturation just by brewing (even very) strong coffee.

So brew coffee with lighter roasted beans to your maximum desired strength.

Start with a bean with more naturally-occurring caffeine.

Colombia Excelso 1.37% Colombia Supremo 1.37% Indian Mysore

1.37% Prepare the coffee in a manner that produces the most caffeine.

drip:

1 cup (7 oz, 207 ml) =

mg. brewed:

1 cup (7 oz, 207 ml) =

80–135 mg.

espresso:

1 shot (1.5–2 oz, 45–60 ml) =

100 mg Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee

If you want to take in twice the amount of caffeine, why can't you just drink twice the amount of coffee?

If you start messing with the ratio of bean to water, or trying other tricks, you're likely to just get bad tasting coffee.

If all you are after is caffine

I'd just buy some caffine pills, you can get 16 packs here in the UK.

If it must be in coffee then dissolve a couple in a normal brew.

However I must say I wouldnt recommend it - overdosing on caffine is bad - especially on a regular basis.

There is liquid caffeine you can add if you're just in it for the caffeine jolt.

A capful of 5150 juice is 83mg and is comparatively extremely cheap when weighed against pre-made energy drinks and 5 hour energy.

You can add it directly to the coffee, which will make the coffee much more bitter, or you can take a shot of it and then drink your coffee as normal.

I can say from experience that although I am finding myself more and more immune to coffee, soda, and 5-hour energy, 5150 still works (and works well, and fast).

Perhaps it's because so much of the caffeine is absorbed in the mouth.

Without wanting to preach, I wanted to say, as NBenatar mentioned: no matter what route you go, be careful.

I also know from experience that caffeine addiction is very bad, and actually makes you significantly more tired .

Over time you need the morning caffeine just to reach energy levels that normal people experience without any caffeine.

From the second article: The millions of people who depend on a shot of coffee to kickstart their day are no more alert than those who are not regular coffee drinkers, say researchers.

A cup of coffee, suggests a study, only counteracts the effects of caffeine withdrawal that has built up overnight.

I can say with all honesty, the first week of drastically cutting back my caffeine really sucked, but now I'm more alert in the morning than my colleagues who drink coffee like

it's their job...

though, we're programmers, so I guess it kind of is their job :)

Buy cheap robusta coffee instead of expensive arabica coffee.

Robusta has about twice as much caffeine as arabica.

If you're only drinking coffee for the caffeine then buying arabica is a waste of money.

Have you try Yerba Mate tea?

It has similar effect as coffee and it is way healthier for you.

You could drink more than a cup a day too!

It is believe to have cholesterol lowering properties (along with antiobesity properties) and contains minerals as well.

Having different flavors keeps it interesting too!

You could brew the coffee the night before and let it sit on the warmer over night

Only brew about 4 cups should be down

around 2 cup ms by morning

this in theory should double the concentration of everything

Question: Like many people, I rely on coffee in the morning to really get me going for the day. I always use more than the directions require to get more caffeine for that extra morning jolt.  How much ground coffee should I use to reach caffeine critical mass in my brew? Is there a formula for volume of grounds per unit of water that I can use so I can get the maximum caffeine experience without wasting coffee?

How can I maximize the caffeine content of my coffee?

Robusta is cheaper and higher in caffeine than Arabica, and lighter roasts will have more caffeine than dark roasts. While stronger coffee will generally have more caffeine, you can also buy caffeine pills or liquid caffeine to increase your intake.

Try another coffee bean that has more caffeine or try liquid caffeine or caffeine pills.

Use a lighter roast coffee or coffee beans with more natural caffeine.


In terms of commercial food processing, there are more efficient ways to extract gelatin than slow-simmering the bones, generally by treating the organic matter with a strong acid prior to boiling, then using commercial evaporation and filtering equipment which is far more efficient than anything a home or even restaurant cook has access to.

According to Gelatin Food Science (see the "Gelatin Manufacture" section) it can also be first treated with a strong base solution before acidifying it, which lowers the isoionic point.

It's kind of difficult to explain exactly what that is if you don't have a background in organic chemistry; technically speaking it's a relationship between pH and electrical charge -

but applied to extraction

it refers to the pH at which the solubility of a protein (such as gelatin) is the lowest .

Lowering this is a good thing in extraction, because it means that the gelatin will be easier to filter out in an acidic solution.

Thus I have to point out the question is actually a bit contradictory; if your goal is the extraction of gelatin then you want to decrease the solubility.

But I think this is all going to be beside the point anyway, because none of this applies to stock making; the goal in food processing is to extract the pure gelatin, not to get a flavourful stock.

When making a stock you definitely don't want to use an acid solution, it's going to ruin the flavour.

Realistically, when it comes to stock-making, especially at home, the only way you're going to be able to extract more gelatin is to simmer it longer.

That's it.

When the bones break without any resistance, that means you've denatured all the collagen and you've got all the gelatin you're going to get.

I wouldn't worry about solubility because typically in stock-making you're already using more than enough water to dissolve all the gelatin that you could possibly hope to extract.

Starting your stock with cold water and 1/4 cup of vinegar should help you get the most goodness out of your bones.

If you want a more gelatinous stock, try adding in extra wings/feet* for poultry, or veal knuckle bones for beef.

For a pork stock, pork neck bones work quite well.

It's also helpful to break or crack the bones to expose the marrow.

Chicken feet are awesome.

They make a very gelatinous stock, but don't impart any chickeny flavor.

They also look creepy.

If you get feet that still have skin and nails on, you can just peel the skin off like a glove.

The nails have layers that will pop right off.

That's the best way to clean them.

If you have a pressure cooker, try using that.

You only need to cook it under pressure for about an hour, plus 20-30 minutes for it to reach pressure in the first place.

Long, slow simmering of the meat and bones - I usually do it overnight - extracts (into the stock)

all of the gelatin available, but if you put the aromatic veg in at the beginning of this process, you will lose a lot of the flavor in the long cooking.

According to the CIA cookbook, you should put the aromatics in for the last hour.

Purely anecdotal, but I find that boiling turkey bones for hours gives me as much gelatin as I can handle.

My stock turns into jello when I refrigerate it.

It's probably worth pointing out that "simmering for hours" for me means at least (or about) 11 or 12 for turkey, and I don't even start getting flavor out of chicken bones until 4 hours in, and that too I keep going for 12.

Some recipes seem to suggest that you can simmer for just 4-8, and that just doesn't work the same.

So, yeah, "simmer longer.

And if you're simmering for that long already, then I don't know.

Question: I am interested in knowing how I can increase the solubility of gelatin, marrow, and minerals in my stock.  Thanks.

How can I increase the extraction of gelatin and minerals from bones into my stock?

You can start with cold water and 1/4 cup of vinegar, then simmer slowly for about 12 hours. If you have a pressure cooker, you could use that.

Cook the stock overnight to get out all the gelatin.

Cook from cold with a little vinegar or in a pressure cooker.


If it contained a high amount of rye flour, an acid would be needed for the bread to leaven.

This is because bread with lots of rye rises due to polysaccharates called "pentosans" (if i remember correctly) being sticky and holding in the carbon dioxide bubbles.

With heat, an enzyme in rye called "amylase" will start eating up the pentosans, unless the amylase is deactivated with acidity (wheat flour uses a protein called "gluten" to trap bubbles, and its amylase is deactivated with heat anyhow).

The acidity is traditionally lactic acid, produced by lactobacilli bacteria in sourdough, but could be vinegar.

If it's mostly wheat flour (i.e. if you have to knead it), the vinegar would just be for flavour.

Another reason you can use vinegar in a bread recipe - to produce a sourdough.

Under traditional methods of making a sourdough bread, one keeps a 'sour' (sponge) or a piece of dough from the days previous production, which acts as a starter for the current bread.

In many of todays commercial bakeries (grocery stores, etc.), sours are not kept from day to day, and powdered substitutes are used.

They are normally just a glorified acetic acid (in a powdered form).

So, you can just use vinegar to produce the same results.

When I asked this question - Is there anything I can add to homemade bread to preserve it?

- Arafangion said that one commercial bread company now uses vinegar as a preservative.

This is his answer to my question: "One commercial bread company has switched preservatives... They use vinegar (I suspect ordinary white vinegar).

Maybe you could give a little bit of vinegar a go and see how that works?

You can still smell it if you sniff and sandwiches

do have a faint vinegar flavour, but it seems to work well enough for the company and it apparently hasn't sabotaged the product line...

Then again, it /is/ commercial bread..."

I've found that a lower pH (more acidity) weakens the gluten and makes the crumb less chewey or less rubbery.

Certainly one thing to try before taking the step of adding vinegar to a bread recipe is to replace any bread flour with general purpose flour instead -- it should have the same effect.

In making faster no-Knead bread Jim Lahey suggest adding 4 drops or up to 1/4 tsp of red wine vinegar to the basic recipe.

Improve gluten development and flavor.

See the video with Mark Bittman here:

It might also, in addition to something like bicarbonate soda act as a raising agent for some types of bread - the reaction of the vinegar with the bicarb causing gas release causing rising.

This is only a guess however

Question: Yesterday I made bread based on a recipe I found on the flour bag. It contained both rye and wheat flour but also three tablespoons of vinegar. I've never seen it used in bread before, why is it there?

Why is there vinegar in the bread recipe?

This could be to lower the pH due to the rye flour, which could be necessary in order for the bread to leaven. It could also be to produce a sourdough, improve shelf life, improve gluten development and texture or to react with something like bicarbonate as a raising agent.

Acid can help with rising, with weakening the gluten and as a preservative.

An acid might be need to produce a rise. It would also be useful in sourdough.

Acidity makes the gluten less chewy and improves development and flavour.


This depends on a lot of things.

The idea of preheating is that you want to get all the surfaces inside your oven (walls, floor, door, racks) up to the desired cooking temperature.

This makes for more even temperatures throughout the oven, and gives a little thermal mass so you don't lose ALL your heat when you open the door for a few seconds or put something cold in there.

Then there's the question of what you're putting in the oven.

An aluminum sheet with a few room temperature cookies on it won't pull the temperature in the oven down like a 25 pound turkey that's 40F/5C inside.

You want to be more careful to do a complete preheat if you're going to be soaking up a lot of your starting heat.

Our oven, which has a large baking stone in the bottom all the time, takes a while to get uniformly up to temperature, even after the oven says it's preheated, because the stone doesn't heat up as fast as the rest of the surfaces.

It takes at least 20 minutes after the "I'm fully heated" beep before the stone is fully up to temp.

We have problems with things baking poorly if we don't preheat for quite a while, but on the upside, if we put a cold roast in or open the door a lot, the temperature in the oven stays pretty high.

If your oven is lightweight, flimsy or drafty, it may be as hot as it's going to get the moment the preheat alert goes off.

45 minutes is probably a lot more preheat than you'll need in almost any case.

In some cases even 15 minutes is more than you need.

It really depends on your oven and what you're putting in.

Most ovens I have used take from 15 to 20 minutes to get to 180C (350F).

Many ovens have an indicator light that glows while it is below temperature (i.e. when the elements are on) so just watch for that to go out, and your are at your desired temperature

The key thing is that most modern ovens are well insulated and will not use much energy once at temperature and with nothing else to heat up, so going a bit longer isn't a big energy waster

If you want to save energy have a queue of things to bake one after the other, as a significant amount of energy if used just getting the oven up to temperature.

Electric ovens are from 3000 to 5000 Watts, so each warm up cycle uses approximately one kWh (assuming 15-20 min)

My electric oven takes 25-30 min to reach 350 F. You might not want to trust your on-board thermostat, though.

I recently got a new oven thermometer and checked the temperature after the oven beeped saying it had reached 350 degrees but the thermometer only read 250.

My sister-in-law's oven takes 20 minutes to heat up to 350 degrees.

I timed our oven last night and it took 7-1/2 minutes.

I was surprised it heated up so quickly.

What this really depends on is what the voltage is to your house and what the oven is designed for.

If you are finding your oven is taking a long time to heat up

you will probably find that you are getting a 208 volt service (common in North America), especially in multi family buildings.

If the oven is designed for 220-240 - you will notice a significant slower heat up time.

North American made products are typically designed to work with both volt supply types.

My manual for my oven (Fisher&Paykel DCS - from New Zealand) reports the oven will heat to 225 C in 15 mins - it actually takes 39 minutes....

super annoying.

Question: This is a silly question, but my wife will turn on the oven to preheat while she prepares stuff, but sometimes it takes her 15 minutes to 45 minutes before she puts things into the oven.  Generally, how long does one need to preheat the oven before it's to the desired temp?  I know that this can easily be solved with a thermometer, but we don't have one.

How long to preheat oven?

It can take up to half an hour or more to reach the right temperature, depending on your oven and whether you are using a baking stone. Most modern ovens have good insulation, so not much heat and energy will be wasted once it has reached the desired temperature.

It can take quite a while to preheat an oven to the right temperature. Ultimately, it depends on your oven and what you are cooking.

It can take longer than you think to pre-heat an oven. 45 minutes is probably too though.

It depends on your oven and what you are going to be cooking.

Leaving it to heat for longer than you need probably won't waste much energy.


Well, from the look of things, reducing the butter and sugar will just result in a smaller recipe--that's almost all there is!

You might be able to substitute some kind of starch for some of the sugar.

I wouldn't use flour, since you won't be cooking these and it would leave them tasting strongly of raw flour.

I don't know what starch would work, but that's my best guess.

Apart from that, I would think you could cut back on the butter a little (but not too much, or they'll become crumbly).

For my money, though, I think if you're worrying about sugar and fat, or calories in general, you need to find something else to make.

These are nothing but sugar and fat (seeing as PB is mostly fat).

When I make buckeyes using this recipe from Smitten Kitchen, I tend to reduce the amount of butter a little, and the sugar a lot.

Then I increase the graham crackers, and add some low-sugar puffed rice (Rice Krispies-like cereal) for texture.

You might be able to work with some "filler" ingredients like that to make up for the lost fat from the butter.

The cream cheese in this recipe probably helps to counter any reduction in butter

so that might be worth experimenting with in various amounts; you could use Neufchâtel cheese instead of cream cheese to reduce the fat there.

Another great option is homemade peanut butter.

Your basic creamy Skippy-brand peanut butter has 17g of fat in 2tbsp .

Creamy Jif has 16g in 2tbsp .

Depending on what recipe you use, you can reduce that quite a bit -

this recipe has about 11g of fat in 2tbsp.

That's a huge difference when you scale it up to 2 lbs!

Obviously with all these substitutions they won't taste exactly the same as you're used to, but for what it's worth, I made the buckeyes exactly as the recipe said the first time; the second time I modified it as I said in the first paragraph (using store-bought peanut butter) and I preferred the latter much, much more.

The original version was just too sweet...and the original version is a modification of another recipe that used double the confectioner's sugar!

Since this treat you're making is likely similar to the buckeyes (in that you don't need to bake at any point), I would highly recommend cutting the ingredients down to very small amounts, and try making a few different versions and having a taste test with some variations.

As an aside, one tip I learned through practice: if you're dipping peanut butter treats (instead of pouring the melted chocolate onto them), and are having trouble with them being too crumbly when you reduce the butter and thus they are falling apart into the chocolate, you can freeze the peanut butter balls/treats for a while to make them firmer - this makes them much easier to dip.

Well personally I would cut the sugar in half (at least) and possibly reduce the butter (not sure what that will do to the texture).

Then I would form them into cubes or something and dip them in tempered dark chocolate, which happens to be delicious and (depending of how much sugar there is in it) healthy.

I rarely make peanut butter candy, but I've never see a recipe with the high a ratio of sugar to peanut butter or butter to peanut butter.

The recipes I have used have been about 50% or more peanut butter and still tasted too sweet to me.

Have you considered not adding any of the sugar or the butter?

I baked peanut butter cookies and just used straight peanut butter

and they were great.

Unless it is fundamental to the rest of the treat it may be just fine as it is.

I just posted a recipe for something similar!

Check it out .

I have much more peanut butter than sugar, about a 5:3 ratio, while most recipes you see have more sugar.

In addition, I use less butter, about 1/4 of the peanut butter by weight.

I also use some cream cheese for flavor and to replace some of the butter.

The vanilla will add flavor but not much else, so I wouldn't mess with it.

If you're covering these with chocolate, you could consider doing a drizzle or a dollop on top instead of coating the whole thing.

It's just as good, way less work, and keeps them a little less bad for you!

I've made peanut butter candies with a very similar recipe before, without butter.

Peanut butter and confectioner's sugar make a peanut butter filling like those in Reese's candies, and the vanilla is probably for flavor.

The recipe I've used also had more peanut butter than sugar -- I'd start with the peanut butter and add sugar to taste rather than adding the whole amount.

Still, it's going to be a candy of some sort, it's not going to be exactly healthy.

Question: I'm making a chocolate covered peanut-butter treat this weekend.  I'm going to play with the recipe, to have less fat and calories, and I'd like some suggestions.  3 lbs. confectioners sugar1 lb. butter2 lbs. peanut-butter3 tbsp. vanilla  Reducing the amount of butter and sugar comes to mind, but I'm wondering how it will affect the taste and texture.

Peanut-Butter Treat - Using Less Sugar and Less Butter

You should be able to reduce the sugar by up to a half, and cut back on some of the butter, especially if you replace some with cream cheese.

You could probably reduce the amount of butter and sugar and use cream cheese to replace.

You could probably reduce the amount of butter and sugar.

Try using cream cheese to replace some of the butter.


As I understand your question, the problem is really that you can't get it out of the cookie press, and not an issue of the dough "flattening" once it hits the baking sheet.

If that's correct, then there are a few different factors that could be contributing: You might not be using a strong enough flour.

I've always used a 1:1 mix of bread flour and pastry flour.

All-purpose flour isn't great for spritz cookies and many home baking recipes do odd things to try to strengthen the dough to compensate, such as increasing the quantity of egg.

Not much more I can say without knowing the specific recipe, but try to find a recipe that doesn't use AP flour.

You might not be using enough flour, or you might have added too much water or milk.

The dough should feel relatively firm once it's well-blended, not soggy or watery.

The preparation I use also contains a good quantity of icing sugar, which has its own starch; if you're using regular granulated sugar instead then that will be a contributing factor to sogginess/stickiness.

Also don't forget to sift the flour.

Home baking recipes often make wild guesses as to the quantity of eggs, based on assumptions about the size and age of eggs you'll have.

The ratio I use is 20:13:8:6:3 (flour:fat:sugar:eggs:milk/water), by weight obviously.

If you use too much egg then you'll end up with a slimy texture that's hard to separate while raw.

You may have added the eggs all at once, which makes it difficult to incorporate without overmixing the dough (or not incorporating well enough, which again will give you that slimy texture).

Make sure you're only adding one at a time.

If your recipe calls for oil as a fat, or you're substituting oil for something else, that could be a problem.

Typically you'll want to use a mixture of about half shortening and half butter.

You don't necessarily have to use shortening, but butter has a low melting point and melting

will, again, cause your dough to become too wet.

Did you cream the fat(s) together with the sugar?

That's another important step to getting the right consistency of dough.

You should have a mixture that's light and fluffy before you add the flour, eggs, or milk.

Make sure you're adding the flour last, otherwise you risk overmixing.

As far as sticking to the baking pan itself is concerned, just line it with parchment paper and don't grease it.

If you've made the dough properly then it will "set" and not sink.

FWIW, I also find it easier to pipe spritz cookies than to use a cookie press.

Chill the cookie sheets in between batches.

Stick them in the freezer or outside (depending on the outdoor temperature).

I was having the same problem and this was my mother's solution.

maybe you need to chill the cookies, they might be too liquidy from the room temperature

I just discovered that the disc in my press was in upside down.

It had nothing to do with the temperature of the dough or the pan.

Now it is working perfectly.

So check your disc if your Spritz dough is not sticking to your pan.

You must use cooled off cookie sheets so the cookies will stick to pan and come out of the press with no problem.

Cookie sheets can not be warm.

That is the answer.

Place the cookie sheets in the fridge before using.

Also wash the cookie sheets after each use to remove butter and then place in the fridge.

I've also noticed, if I press the cookie press and then lift up from the cookie sheet real quick, it seems to help too.

Question: We're having a good deal of trouble getting our spritz cookies from our cookie press to separate from the cookie press and stick to the cookie sheet. Is there something we can add to the cookie batter to make them separate from the cookie press and attach to the pan more easily?

Spritz cookies not sticking to pan when pressed from cookie press

Make sure the cookie dough and sheets are cold before adding a batch, and check your disc if the dough is not sticking to the pan.

Your dough and the cookie sheets could be cool for each batch otherwise the dough will stick.

Chill the dough and the cookie sheet before baking.


I'm not familiar with the naming conventions for sugar in the UK

so I apologize if I become patronizing.

Granulated sugar is the every-day table sugar here.

It's what I grab a spoonful for my cereal and such, and it is the kind used in almost all of the baking I've done.

Is caster sugar what you usually have around?

Caster sugar is called "super-fine" sugar in the States.

It is finer that granulated sugar but not as fine as powdered sugar (icing sugar for the UK right?).

Honestly, I can't say that I've ever bought any as I usually only see granulated and powdered, but Wikipedia tells me that "Castor sugar can be prepared at home by grinding granulated sugar for a couple of minutes in a food processor.

That being said, if you're just beating it into butter than I would think the caster sugar should be perfectly reasonable for the job.

Though I agree with bikeboy that you should go by weight if you use a substitue.

Running around

This Site , I found that there are aprrox 7oz(200g) per cup granulated sugar, and 6.5oz(190g) per cup caster sugar.

So you would actually need more sugar if using caster sugar, as it is less dense.

Obviously not a lot though (200/190=1.053).

Caster sugar is also known as superfine sugar.

Superfine sugar is ground finer and resembles sand in an hourglass.

It is particularly good for applications where it needs to dissolve quickly and thoroughly (e.g. meringues).

Superfine sugar has come to my area in the past six months and while it is better, I also got excellent results with regular granulated sugar even when the recipe called for superfine.

You can make superfine sugar by putting it in a food processor

but I found it was not worth the hassle.

yes usually you would use castor sugar when beating in with the butter as it is finer than uk 'granulated sugar'

Surprised you mention

it's an American recipe.

Granulated sugar in Britain is coarse white sugar used for tea/coffee etc - usually loads sold in white packs with blue colouring.

Caster sugar is basically the same stuff just ground finer, usually sold in white packs with orange colouring

it's what you would use for baking

(warning if you use this for hot drinks it's much sweeter - because it's finer).

Icing sugar - usually sold in white packs with pink colouring - is used for making butter cream and icing for cakes/buns/cupcakes and again is the same stuff just ground up even finer into a powder.

Apologies if this does sound patronizing

but it's one of those things if you don't bake

you won't know.

Happy baking.

No, it's not the same thing.

Granulated sugar is normal table sugar and caster sugar has a coarseness between granulated sugar and powdered sugar.

You can get it in the baking aisle

and it's called baking sugar.

This type of sugar definitely gives a better texture in recipes that require it.

I've tried making fudge with normal sugar since I could not find the castor sugar here in the USA, and it was a total disaster as the texture of the fudge was very coarse.

I'm glad I found the baking sugar now.

Caster Sugar is Baker's Sugar in the USA

Caster Sugar has the same consistency as our Baker's Sugar (or superfine sugar) but the main AND THE MOST IMPORTANT difference between the two is what constitutes the sugar.

In America we generally use the sugar beet to make our sugars.

But Caster Sugar - in order to be classified Caster Sugar - is made from Sugar Cane (Cane Sugar.)

[Baker's Sugar is made from Cane Sugar as well

so it is the same product as caster sugar in the U.K.]

Cane Sugar has a much more multifaceted and deeper flavor than sugar beet sugar or corn syrup.

If you can find Cane Sugar - if the package specifies that it is cane sugar - the specification is often hard to find in the USA - then you should always buy cane sugar instead of sugar beet sugar.

(Do a side by side taste test of Lyle's Golden Syrup versus Karo Corn Syrup one day and you will see quite clearly why the added flavor provided by the minerals that constitute sugar cane make it the far better choice for baking/cooking.)

In NZ (which tends to use british terms), granulated = white table/everday sugar.

Caster sugar is finer / more powdered down.

We (personally) use 'raw sugar' for most day to day things

- it's exactly like our white 'table sugar', but is browner as it hasn't been bleached as much.

So just use your bog standard 'normal' sugar :)

Question: I have an american cake recipe which includes 'granulated sugar', would this be uk caster sugar? It is for the stage when you beat in with the butter?

Is granulated sugar (American) the same as caster sugar (UK)?

Granulated sugar is the same as normal table sugar, while castor sugar is the same as superfine sugar in the US.

Granulated sugar is course table sugar for everyday use while caster sugar is a fine, powdery sugar used in baking.

Granulated sugar is course table sugar for everyday use.

Caster sugar is a fine, powdery sugar used in baking.


Ceramic blades can only be sharpened against something that is harder than it is.

I would recommend sending it back to the manufacturer for sharpening if needed.

Typically it is done using a very hard abrasive wheel because of the risk of the blade breaking, you do not want to do this without proper safety equipment.

While ceramic knives will stay sharp for quite awhile, there is no such thing as "never needs sharpening".

In our knife shop we use a diamond system that we developed to bring these knives back to their original sharpness.

(or sometimes sharper!)

One could try one of the diamond block type, sharpeners on the market but the ceramics are difficult to get the edge right.

You can definitely sharpen a ceramic blade and do it by yourself.

But due to the fact that the ceramic is super hard material you'll need more patience than with steel.

Get a DMT or Lansky sharpening guide and diamond stones.

You can use the diamond stones on either type of knife and the guides will keep you at the correct angle on both side of the blade.

You can find several guides at this site http://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Knife-Sharpening-Guides-C16.aspx

If you made the investment as I did for a professional diamond wheel electric knife sharpener as you saw the chef point out in the video above, I can tell you that this will indeed sharpen ceramic knives.

I was reluctant to try this and possibly damage the sharpener, but I was otherwise going to toss out this "starter" ceramic cooks knife.

I was also concerned that I would not be able to sharpen my expensive Henkle knives if the ceramic knife damaged the diamond wheels.

I went about the job rather gingerly and found that the ceramic knife took longer to produce a sharp edge, but otherwise it was not much different than a steel knife.

I hope this answers the question.

Yes ofcourse Cary.

Try using diamond steel, and check out this amazing video from Chef Phil for some more detauled instructions on how to do such.

Hope it will help.

You actually can sharpen a ceramic knife with a diamond wheel sharpener.

There's 2 sharpeners that can sharpen ceramic knives.

Kyocera has a battery powered one (DS50) http://www.amazon.com/Kyocerca-DS-50-Electric-Diamond-Sharpener/dp/B002R90N7W

But based on the reviews it's designed mainly for Kyocera knives, and it's battery powered so it doesn't generate enough force to restore the blade to factory sharpeness.

This one sounds more promising

it's an electric powered ceramic knife sharpener:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S0BEUIY Shenzhen Knives has an eletric powered diamond wheel that can sharpen and hone the blade (2 stage sharpening settings)

Basically, no. Ceramic is super hard, harder than sharpening steels, and most sharpening stones.

I guess diamond is harder, and you probably could sharpen on a diamond stone or diamond sharpening steel.

But thats a very tricky skill to master, and a very delicate operation, not for the unskilled hand.

The whole point in buying a ceramic knife is that you don't have to sharpen.

With proper care ( e.g. Dont drop) it should last you a lifetime for home use.

You can absolutely do it yourself.

You will need: A clean cloth

A ceramic knife An electric knife sharpener–with diamond abrasives–specifically able to handle ceramic knives Heavy gloves for protection (Kevlar or thick work models–optional but recommended for safety)

Source:

Check the source for more tips on how to do it and care for the ceramic knives.

Wash and dry the knife.

You’ll want the best contact between its surface and sharpener’s abrasives.

Also, you’ll want to keep the electric knife sharpener’s internal machinery clean and free of food debris.

Read and follow your electric knife sharpener’s instructions carefully to know which slots to use, since they will vary between makes and models.

Question: Can you sharpen a ceramic knife?

Can you sharpen a ceramic knife?

Ceramic is harder than most sharpening steels or stones, so you could send it back to the manufacturer or use an electric diamond wheel sharpener.

Ceramic is very hard, which makes it hard to sharpen. You can get diamond sharpeners that will work.

Ceramic is hard to sharpen as it is so hard.


I've never done anything in particular.

I just don't use soap on it.

You season it by cooking pizza on it.

Nope, there is nothing you need to do to prepare a pizza stone for use, other than giving it a good cleaning to remove any residue from the factory.

While you don't have to pre-season most stones these days, you can speed up the natural process by:

Wipe the new pan with a wet cloth (no soap) Dry in oven (low heat)

Apply a very light coat of neutral vegetable oil with an old towel (I find paper tends to snag on new stones) Bake on med-high (400) as you would a cast iron pan (but not upside down).

Once the stone is seasoned, you'll find things don't stick as badly (or at all).

After normal use, just wipe the stone with a wet cloth (if soiled) and use a gentle utensil for scraping off anything that might stick (it should pop right off).

Both of my stones are a much darker colour after both seasoning and using for a few years.

This is normal.

After your first pizza-making experience you'll learn they are hard to clean--

cheese likes to glue itself to the sandstone, oil soaks into it, etc.

A common piece of advice

I found on the internet is to leave the pizza stone in the oven all the time.

This has been working for me as it means what ever I can't get off the stone is constantly being re-baked and turned into something other than mold.

You can stick a pizza stone in the oven on a self clean mode.

The super high heat of the cleaning cycle will burn off 90% of stuck food.

Don't put it on a rack though, just put on the bottom.

The racks get destroyed in the cleaning cycle.

Ceramics do just fine in high heat; that's how they make your plates and cups - by firing them in high heat.

Just make sure you don't expose the stone to temperature extremes, let it cool down by itself.

And yes, don't use soap on a stone.

The porous nature of the stone will suck up the soap and is impossible to get out.

You don't have to do anything to season it.

If you do need to clean it, it's ok to use PLAIN warm water on it (never soap) and a scrub sponge (again, no soap) after it cools completely, but make sure you let it dry thoroughly before you heat it up again or it may crack.

Our electric self cleaning oven did the trick.

I was afraid the stone might crack, but it cleaned completely, so the advice above about just leaving it in the oven is probably good also.

We use cornmeal on the peel.

It doesn't burn like flour.

Do not oil a pizza stone.

Oil will be absorbed and will likely go rancid.

Do NOT season your pizza stone, EVER!!!

Simply dust it with flour or corn meal before you put it in the oven to get hot and once its up to a nice hot temp of your choice, ( I prefer 450 ) using a pizza peel slide pizza onto your stone and let it do its magic and once its done remove pizza from stone using the same utensil you used to place it on stone in the first place.

Once stone has cooled wash it with water and dry it and keep in safe place until next time.

BTW

this info was directly from pizza stone manufacturer... ENJOY!!!

Question: I just bought my first pizza stone.  The instructions that came with it recommend that I wash it thoroughly with plain water before using it for the first time.  Is there anything else I should do to it to season it so it lasts and performs optimally?

How do I season my new pizza stone?

Clean with plain water to remove residue from the factory, and make sure it is thoroughly dry before baking with it again, but otherwise there is no need to season other than using it for its purpose.

You don't need to do anything to season it but if you want to speed up the process you can wipe it with a wet cloth and dry it in the oven.

You don't need to do anything in particular to season it except rinse it in plain water to remove any residue.

To speed up the seasoning process, you wipe it with a wet cloth and dry it in the oven on a low heat.


Bread is basically just flour, water, and yeast, so it's pretty hard to make it inedible unless you burn it to a crisp in the oven.

The difference between all-purpose flour and bread flour is gluten strength; if you substitute all-purpose flour then your bread won't rise as high or be as strong; this is a desirable quality in, say, cake, but not bread.

However, AP flour isn't that far off from bread flour in terms of gluten; while cake flour may be as low as 6% and bread flour can be as high as 14%, AP flour tends to weigh in at around 10% or more, which is why it's called "all-purpose".

As Michael says, yeast bread is actually not as sensitive to the exact quantities as (for example) most pastries, but it's still better to use a recipe that was actually built around AP flour instead of just trying to substitute it for bread flour.

If you are determined to make the substitution, then I would suggest you try to find some wheat gluten and add a small amount of that to the AP flour.

Mathematically, if you assume that you're lacking some 3% protein, then you'd want to add about 1 tbsp of gluten for every 2 cups of flour.

It's really not much, though, and if you don't have or can't find wheat gluten then your bread would probably survive anyway with AP flour

, it just might be a little denser than you expect.

Bread baking is remarkably tolerant.

It is very hard to make an inedible loaf.

That said, why not start with a recipe that has been tested with all-purpose flour.

There are plenty of them.

By the way, a terrific book to get you started with baking is Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day .

Enjoy the journey, learning to bake bread is one of the most rewarding things you will ever do in the kitchen.

Actually, I think you are fine making any of those recipes with AP flour, especially the two recipes for white bread.

If you want a good general "sandwich" bread, then AP flour will give you a softer crumb that most people actually prefer for that kind of bread.

If you had bread flour, you could try it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to get the bread flour or vital wheat gluten to add to the flour in these cases.

In the case of the whole wheat recipe bread flour can be particularly beneficial because the bran in the whole wheat flour inhibits gluten development somewhat.

Even in this case, the proportions are such that it shouldn't make much of a difference, and I wouldn't go out of my way to source higher gluten ingredients.

If you want more gluten development out of your AP flour one thing you might try is what bakers call an autolyse.

This is a technique where you bring the dough together just to the point where all the dry ingredients are hydrated and let it sit without messing with it for about 20 minutes.

This allows the gluten in the dough to get a headstart knitting itself together.

After that 20 minute period, then you knead the dough.

As a general rule of thumb, for breads you make in a loaf pan you should be fine using AP flour if that's what you have.

If you want to make artisan crusty breads that are usually formed into baguettes or other shapes to be baked free form on a pizza stone or other solid oven deck

then bread flour will help out (along with a host of other techniques).

The book Bread by Jeffrey Hamelman (the head baker for King Arthur Flour Co) is a great book for more than you would ever want to know about flour and has a lot of good recipes and techniques for the not-in-a-loaf-pan kind of bread baking.

I've been baking bread for sixty years and have used both AP and bread flour.

I have yet to notice any appreciable difference...at least any difference worth worrying about.

It's just not worth the trouble to store both types at home when AP does such a good job for both bread and pastries.

My biggest problem is finishing the bread before it goes stale, which it does so much faster than commercial bread because of the lack of preservatives.

I have only ever used all purpose flour myself.

As a young bread maker I did not know about bread flour, gluten, etc.

Now I know about it, I live somewhere where I can not obtain it.

To add insult to injury the all purpose flour here tends to have a rather low gluten content.

That being said, with the exception of one type of bread

I have always had very good results with AP flour

(I also always buy the cheapest generic flour).

The most important thing in bread making is not really your gluten content or flour quality, but your experience and practice.

You will find a well seasoned bread maker can make an amazing loaf out of almost any flour (even if they are picky).

Likewise a first timer can destroy the very best flour.

Long post short

yes you can make bread with all purpose flour.

I started that way.

AP flour can be bought in larger quantities where I am.

You might not even notice the difference.

In fact, if you want to really see the difference, make two breads side by side with the different flours.

Note the difference in water you need, the feel, and the eventual eats.

When I first started making bread, I always used AP flour.

All turned out well, tasted great.

I do buy bread flour now, but I cant see any difference.

To the lady that was saying her bread gets stale before she finishes it, I cut the bread in 1/2 and freeze 1/2 half.

Second lot tastes as good.

When thawing it do it in your fridge.

Stops the soggy bottom.

Question: I'm a bread-baking novice and have acquired a vast quantity of all-purpose flour.  If I follow a typical bread recipe, for example  one   of   these , but use all-purpose flour instead of the recommended variety, what will happen?  Will the bread be edible?  [How] could I modify such a recipe to work with all-purpose flour?  update  Used Canadian all-purpose flour with  this recipe , unmodified; results were delicious.

baking bread with all-purpose flour

Bread flour has more gluten and will make it rise better and be stronger, but otherwise AP flour will be fine for bread making.

You can bake bread with AP flour. The result might not rise as much but it will be fine otherwise.

It is perfectly fine to make bread with all-purpose flour.


Salt is a good means to control/suppress flames and flareups without having a cooling effect on the coals.

Possibly they were using it to slow the coals a bit.

Salt doesn't really burn (though if you can get it to melt you can get a nice orange flame from the sodium burning off), and if you put enough of it on the fire at once it could smother it.

It's also possible that they believed, as @Jasie mentioned, that the salt would somehow get from the coals to the meat and season it.

This would not happen.

Mostly because the salt doesn't burn or atomize, so it won't rise up to hit the meat.

Perhaps if it had LOTS of flavorful impurities in it, they might smoke or atomize and hit the meat--but they wouldn't add a salt taste.

They'd taste like whatever they taste like.

So in the interest of assuming the cooks weren't just being superstitious, I'd go with the flame control idea

: It's something that could be used to damp the fire down that would not turn to steam (ruining the dry heat you're after with charcoal), and is a safe, known compound so you wouldn't be risking getting something harmful on the meat.

I have been taught by folks using cast iron Dutch Ovens outdoors, that not only does salt spread heavily over coals reduce flair ups, it helps keep the heat in, while reducing how quickly the briquets burn.

My own experience with fruit pies or fillings,is that it keeps the spill-over from burning and smoking for prolonged periods.

Sure works in my oven for making spills easy to clean up and eliminating fire.

I don't think this provides a full answer to your question, but the following snippet I came across

might at least provide some clue:

Solid salt crystals melt at 800°C and evaporate at around 1.500°C, temperatures reached in wood fires and glowing coals, which can vaporize salt and deposit a thin film on foods above them.

(Source:

On Food and Cooking, Harold McGee, p. 643)

But this appears in a brief section on "The Physical Properties of Salt" and there's no further explanation as to the implication on cooking in practice, that is, whether the glowing coals in an average barbecue get hot enough to vaporize salt and whether the film that's deposited on the foods is enough to make a noticeable difference in the taste of the food.

Though it's been years since the original question, I just recently found another possible answer: Apparently when cooking with Japanese Binchotan charcoal, chefs will throw rock salt at the coals to knock off the white ash around them, exposing more of the red hot surface.

Of course, binchotan is really a whole different category of charcoal from what most people use--it gets to something like 1500 degrees F.--so

it may be that the salt would have a different purpose than on "normal" charcoal.

In the case of burning frankincense you would put salt on the charcoal so you don't get the smoke and unpleasant smell and only smell the herb or root your burning.

It also controls the speed at which frankincense burns.

I would think that may be a valid reason at a barbecue.

Question: At a recent barbecue in Chile, I watched the chef throw large handfuls of salt over the charcoal a few minutes before placing on the meat.  What would be the reason for this?

Why throw salt over a barbecue before cooking?

Salt will help to suppress smoke and flareups as well as slowing the coals a bit, which can help especially when burning herbs. Salt also helps to remove some of the ash layer and expose more of the red hot surface.

Salt slows down the coals and stops them from heating too much.

Salt suppresses the flames and slows the coals down a bit. It also prevents smoking.

Salt removes the ash and exposes the red hot surface.


Generally it's things that have been prepared

such that there's some sort of added preservative -- salt, sulfates, sulfides, nitrates, etc.

So this would include all hams except 'fresh ham', almost all deli meats, all sausages, bacon, jerky, corned beef, etc.

So yes, sausage is considered a processed meat.

If you want to get all technical about what 'processed' means it could also include any other form of curing (eg, smoking), and most any form of processing (grinding, slicing, etc), although this second group typically isn't refered to as 'processed meat' (unless it's then glued back together, like chicken nuggets, but those tend to have additives in them already)

As for the health aspects ...

like most anything, it's fine in moderation, although there are some people who react badly to sulfates and sulfides.

Some sausages have more additives in them than others, and there are plenty of sausages out there that might be considered 'healthy' if it's in place of other higher salt/fat foods (eg, some brands of chicken & apple sausage).

Generally such health fears will be to do with the amount of additives in "processed meat".

The use of Mechanically Reclaimed Meat (MRM) is also rather frowned upon.

At the height of the media coverage of such issues in the UK, Turkey Twizzlers were singled out for particular hatred, the ingredients list almost speaks for itself.

(Via: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/mar/23/broadcasting1 ) Ingredients: Turkey ( 34% ), Water, Pork fat , Rusk, Coating (sugar, rusk, tomato powder, wheat starch, dextrose, salt, wheat flour, potassium chloride, hydrogenated vegetable oil, citric acid, spices, onion powder, malt extract, smoke flavourings, garlic powder, colour [E160c], mustard flour, permitted sweetener [E951], herb, spice extracts, herb extracts), Vegetable oil, Turkey skin , Salt, Wheat flour, Dextrose, Stabiliser

(E450), Mustard, Yeast extract, Antioxidants

(E304, E307, E330, E300),

Herb extract, Spice extract, Colour (E162).

Note the percentage Turkey in that list, and that is MRM.

Turkey skin is added separately in to the mix as well you will notice, as well as pork fat.

Sausages can fall in to this trap, many cheap sausages are around 30-40% meat and contain a great deal of additives.

There are however many good quality sausages that contain few, if any, additives.

Some people advocate that sausages should be close to 100% meat, personally I think they are better with a good bit of rusk and other ingredients.

It is the word processed that is key to the argument.

Sausages are necessarily "processed" meat, in that the meat is not in its original form.

But the health issues are for when "processed" means a lot of unhealthy additions, poor quality meat, a great deal of fat, salt, etc.

good quality sausages don't contain sodium nitrite.

you can tell, because it looks like ground up meat in a sausage stuffing.

the "processed" meats you're referring to have a different texture & color - think hot dog or deli-meat (pink).

mechanically process is very different from chemically processed.

nutritionally, you want to steer clear of the chemically processed (preservatives & sodium nitrite).

I get my sausages from a great butcher, and I'm certain that all the "processing" done to them is benign.

Processing" in this case entails mincing, mixing with breadcrumbs, spices etc.

and putting in the skins.

They will be high in fat -- because it's pork and it won't be from the leanest part of the pig, and because the fat makes for moist delicious sausages.

Of course you can make sausages with as many filthy additives as you like, and if you go far enough downmarket

that's what you'll get.

But the same could be said for, say, lasagne.

A homemade lasagna is quite different from the cheapest lasagna ready-meal in the freezer section of your supermarket.

Generally they put those chemicals in the meat to enhance the flavour (salt / sodium) and so it stays on the self longer - nitrates (prevent bacteria from growing)

Long as you look at the packaging and look for high levels of meat 70 - 80% they will need put less salt in for flavour.

but they will always need put the preservatives or it wont keep for very long and producers lose money.. and you get annoyed if it doesn't keep in the fridge.

My tip is for a decent sausage is to visit the local butcher..

he'll tell you what's in it or more importantly

what's not in it.

Plus you'll get a better service and the meat is better quality and there sausages are always always much nicer.

Question: Over the years, I've read a lot of health information that says processed meats are some of the worst foods for you from a fat, sodium, and nitrate intake perspective.  Then I read that Sausage is a processed meat, which, makes sense.  Is all Sausage considered a "Processed Meat", and is therefore relatively high in fat, sodium, and nitrates?

Is all sausage considered a "Processed Meat"?

Sausages are not in their original form and are necessarily processed, but higher quality sausages will have fewer additives such as sodium nitrate. There are also some sausages that are healthier than others, such as some brands of chicken and apple sausage.

Sausage is a processed meat. Some sausages contain a lot of additives, while others contain hardly anay.

Some sausages contain more additives than others. They are ok in small amounts and are intended to enhance the flavour and preserve them for longer.


Well I would suggest if you really can not get it, then leave it out altogether.

It provides accents of flavour rather than a primary usually in most curry recipes, so it can be omitted.

If you want to substitute it, then you can use lemon or lime zest, possibly with some mint leaves to freshen it a little.

But the end result will not be the same, just enhanced in a similar fashion to that which lemongrass achieves.

Western grocery stores generally don't carry lemon grass, you'll need to go to an Asian market.

Many of them will also sell dried (powdered) lemon grass, which is definitively the best substitute you can find for fresh lemon grass.

Honestly, there's really very little else you can substitute.

Lemon grass has this hint of citrus flavour but also, as the name implies, a sort of grassy , herb-like flavour.

If I were really desperate, I would substitute lemon zest (fresh only ), at 1/2 tsp for each lemon grass stalk called for by the recipe, and several pages online seem to suggest adding in some arugula (to give it that grassy quality).

But be warned, it is not going to be the same, it's going to be a great deal more bitter, so consider either reducing the quantity or adding more sweet/savoury spices or ingredients to the curry to compensate (cinnamon, perhaps).

I always think lemongrass tastes more like lime than lemon.

I'd use the grated zest of a lime, perhaps mixed with some of lemon.

Lemongrass freezes well.

If you cannot find it in the fresh section, try the frozen section of the market.

Personally, and unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it even it at my own local Asian market.

Recipes in some of my cookbooks call for lemon zest as an alternative.

I'm certainly not an expert but as was mentioned briefly before, lemon balm might be a better substitute than lemon or lime zest.

It has a subtle lemon-y flavor and also the 'grass-y' note (if fresh).

I've used that before when I was out of lemongrass and

it was better than leaving it out.

I just had to play with the amount, however, adding tiny bits at a time and tasting.

Question: I have a meal planned in a few days and it calls for lemon grass.  Problem is I've been to the store a couple of times and they don't have it.    (the store is a block away and I don't feel like driving all the way to the next one to look)  The dish is curry spiced noodles, basically a stir-fry.  Any suggestions?

Substitute for lemon grass in curry dish

You could use lemon or lime zest, possibly mixed with arrugula for the grassy quality, or use lemon balm instead.

The the zest of a lemon or lime or some lemon balm.

Try using the zest of a lemon or lime instead.


When making rice for a large group, you should take a hint from the restaurants and do it in the oven in a large roaster or baking pan.

Put the rice in a pan, add boiling water and salt, and then cover with foil.

Or you can make it like a very large pilaf which will make it more special.

But oven in large pan is the way to go and make it fresh.

I don't have amounts because you will know how much you need to make.

Common knowledge is 2 times as much water as the rice, and common knowledge is, generally, too much water, particularly in large batches.

Again, a restaurant recipe will do you well.

You have to be very careful when preparing rice for consumption later.

Cooked rice can contain a toxic spore which causes severe food poisoning.

You should cool the rice as rapidly as possible to prevent too much of the toxin being produced by the spore.

ok, so this may not be a correct answer for a cooking site, but... maybe you could buy enough cooked rice on the day of your event from a local chinese restaurant? : )

one less thing for you to worry about on the day of your big party (and nobody needs to know)!

Rice will dehydrate when it's left over night.

So it will be very dry when you try and reheat it.

Cook it ahead of time, but keep it as close to ahead of time as possible.

The less time it sits around, the better.

When it's time to serve, place a little water in with the rice, cover it (slightly vented), and then microwave till warm.

The steam from the water will help rehydrate.

I don't think the result is quite as good as fresh rice, but it's much easier.

I have two options here..

one was not easy and the other one was rather creative (but traditional) Fried Rice.

A quick way of reheating a large amount of rice from the fridge (I guess you pre-cook all the rice prior) is to make fried rice.

Just heat up a wok and add a bit of oil will do the job.

It may take you a few rounds, but it's better than reheating rice in microwave.

Make Rice dumplings - you may have heard of Chinese rice dumpling which is usually made of glutinous rice, but you can use short grain rice instead which is sticky enough.

It may look kinda fancy if you serve people with rice dumplings.

The advantage of rice dumpling is you can keep them in hot water before you serve and you don't need rice cooker as the whole cooking process is in a pot.

I cannot find you the exact recipe, but this blog article seems pretty good.

http://eatfirstthinklater.blogspot.com/2006/05/making-chinese-rice-dumpling-bak-chang.html Just ignore all the ingredient and put in rice only.

I got some links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zongzi

I do this for parties all the time.

I put several large spoonfuls in a plastic ziplock bag.

Seal the bag, stick it in the microwave for 3min intervals till it is hot enough.

flipping the contents around in between heating.

Question: I am having a party. I have no rice cooker.  I plan on cooking the rice the day before.  Is it possible to reheat it and have it taste good?  How to?

Reheating rice for 25 guests

Cooked rice can cause severe food poisoning, but if you are careful and cook it close to the time of consumption it should be fine to microwave it with a little added water. If short of time, a local Chinese restaurant may be able to deliver enough cooked rice at the right time.

Put a little water in with the rice and microwave until warm. Alternatively, you can get large amounts of rice from a local Chinese restaurant.

Rice can cause food poisoning if not cooled and reheated properly.

Try buying the rice already warm from a local Chinese restaurant.


Using a mixer is not "a must".

You should be able to whisk 1-2 egg yolks together quite easily which a whisk and some elbow grease.

How do you think we beat egg yolks for the centuries prior to electricity?

I don't even bother with a whisk for something that small.

(the only wisk I have is medium sized balloon whisk, I don't have any small ones).

I find a fork and a small bowl work well for up to about 3-4 eggs.

I tip the bowl towards hand with the fork so I can get a better angle on it, and it keeps the eggs from spreading out too much across the bowl.

I think a great option for beating small amounts, if you don't just use a whisk, is a hand-cranked egg beater.

They're cheap and easy to use.

I have one I got from my Mom many years ago, and it works great.

If you get one, don't let batter or egg or whatever dry on it--wash (or at least rinse) as soon as you're done using it.

They're hard to get dried-on stuff off of because the spaces are small.

I'd use my immersion blender , which gets plugged in.

have you tried tilting your blender?

i had the same problem for awhile and tilting the blender so the blades could reach the eggs

did the trick.

just be sure to have a firm, two hand hold; one on the base of the blender and one on the glass.

then just tilt the top towards you.

This is what I use currently - a drill on a high speed using the micro mixer attachement.

I think Dremel Stylus on low would work as well, but I don't have that one.

When I make waffles for 4 people, I use 4 yolks and my immersion blender gets the traction needed, but for two yolks I need a narrow glass and this.

One option I've found works well is, I had picked up a immersion little milk frother gadget, and it works like a tiny immersion blender.

Honestly, I find beating eggs can be done just fine by hand, with a fork and a bowl or with a whisk (sometimes just "churning" between the hands if the whisk is too large or the quantity or bowl too small), but the little frother works when I've lumps to be worked out of something, or actual blending would be nice but the quantity is small - and since I've got it, I can use it for things like beating eggs if I'm in a hurry or feeling lazy.

Question: Many sauces and pastries call for beaten yolks. You need to beat yolks well, till they are thick again and are lemon-colored, so using mixer is a must. But if you need only one or two egg yolks, regular mixers are too big for the task. What I'm currently using is a battery-driven micro mixer, and it is not powerful enough and eats up batteries fast.Can anybody suggest a good solution to the problem?

How to beat one or two egg yolks?

A hand whisk or fork can work best here, or you can use an immersion blender, milk frother or hand drill with a micro mixer attachment.

While 2 eggs should be Ok to beat by hand, you can also try using an immersion blender.

You can easily whisk 2 egg yolks by hand.