Certain people who are "super smellers" who have a heightened sensitivity to smells.

Assuming you aren't one of them: fish smells "fishy" when it's starts to age.

If you can find a reputable fish monger, that would help.

That said, if you're sure you have fresh fish, and some fish just simply smell more, you can cut down on the smell, by a quick rinse and a marinade with an lemon juice .

As for why fish smell fishy... it has to do with amines contained in the fish .

Amines get released as bacteria work to release them.

Salmon, Tuna, others... are higher in amines, while fresh white fish, tend to be lower .

You'd have to do a bit more research to find out more specific species...

Sure, some fish are smellier than others.

The fishy smell arises from the production of various amines in the dead flesh.

If you let your fish sit out on a warm counter for a day, it will get quite reeky.

Here's a nice little explanation of the reaction between these stinky amines and lemon juice: Why fish is served with lemon juice .

I've never had salmon that had a fishy smell.

I think it may be time to find a new fish monger or start buying a different brand if you buy frozen.

I imagine that oily fish (like bluefish) would have a stronger fishy smell and taste.

It's very much not to my liking

so I stick to 'white meat' fish like fluke, flounder, black fish, ling, sole, Nile perch, tilapia, etc.

Having said that, I also LOVE tuna steaks and salmon.

It's just a small fortune here

so I don't buy it often.

Oily fish like salmon, tuna , mackarel are kind of oilfish type, rich omega 3 oils, smell more fisher than other fish /white

fish like snapper, cooking methode for this kind of fish to reduce the smell is grill, cold sashimu ...

Panfried cooking methode make the smell become stronger

I have never had mackerel that didn't smell.

And I've had it all kinds of ways, from all kinds of restaurants.

Raw-cured in saba battera, canned in brine, grilled, baked, pan-fried, even in ceviche (marinated in lime juice)... doesn't matter.

Mackerel has a REALLY pungent fish smell to me.

It's the strongest-smelling of all the edible fishes by far.

It's in a league of its own.

I don't mind it to eat, but make sure not to get any on your skin, clothes or furniture.

Fish should never, ever smell!

When it comes out of the water, whether fresh, sea or ocean fish never has an odor.

The only way to prevent this is to buy from someone you know in a fish market.

Sometimes they'll try and preserve shell fish by packing it in salt, so be careful not to add any before you taste it 'cause the salt taste will never leave the fish once it is packed that way.

Fish should not have any "fishy" smell at all, as this indicates the fish is beyond peak freshness.

Fresh fish should have no smell at all, or a clean icy smell.

Regardless of just how fishy it smells, if there is any "fishy" smell you should not eat it.

Source:

On Cooking textbook

Part time commercial fisherman and fishmonger

most my life.

Whoever started the fish shouldnt smell like fish is full of crap.

The eyes the smell everything it all depends on how it is stored.

I will tell you straight up as delivering fresh fish to stores nobody knows wtf there talking about.

For example, if you take 100 pounds fresh sardines just off loaded from the boat and put them in a cooler with ice.

In a matter of hours the eyes will be glazed, they won't look fresh.

If you put them in cooler with fresh water and ice, in a matter of minutes the gills will be bleached looking.

I would never eat fish that doesn't smell like fish, or the ocean.

Some fish natural smell, for example halibut, lingcod.

If there isn't a distinct fish and ocean smell to it

I wont eat it.

If the fish you buy doesnt smell like fish I would seriously start asking question.

I think the best thing to do is to not buy it until you are ready to eat it that day.

Because when you buy it, its already as fresh as it will ever get in your hands short of catching and cleaning it yourself.

But, most sea food should never have a fishy odor.

It should always smell fresh and neutral clean.

If that makes sense?

Salmon starts to deteriorate as soon as dead.

Why you gill them as soon as you bring then into the boat.

Put on ice.

Tuna is a oil fish.

I think the pink has a stronger smell.

Fish caught on seaweed can have a stronger smell.

Over those caught on the reef.

But fish should not have a strong smell.

Or be soft to the touch.

Fish spoils fast.

If buying fish look at the eyes they should be clear.

Look at the gills they should be pink.

If not do not buy the fish it has been out to long.

Then they start to smell.

In my experience the mucus covering the body of bony fish can have a fishy smell even fresh from the water.

I've caught tench that definitely had a fishy smell to them while they were still alive.

And, in addition to that the mucus deteriorates very quickly, enhancing the odor.

as a side note:For some fish, including the tench and the carp there are recipes in Germany called Blaukochen

(cooking blue) where the whole fish with the mucus intact is prepared in water with vinegar.

That results in the mucus turning blue.

In the shop the mucus is normally washed off and thus should not be the reason for the smell.

Question: I've heard some say that fish only smells offensive if it's old. But my experience suggests that some fish, like salmon, are simply "fishier" and that the smell can put some people off. Is that right? If so, is there a simple explanation for the smell, or does it vary according to species? And which fish smell the least and most fishy?

Do some fish smell "fishier"? Why?

Fish that is high in amines will have more of a fishy smell, but it will be stronger if you don't eat it fresh.

Fishes with omega 3 oils smell fishier than white fish. All fish have a smell but the smell gets stronger as the fish gets older.

Fish contain amines that cause the small. Fish that is high in omega 3 oil tend to smell more. Some fish smell fresh from the water.

Fish smelling is because of a lack of freshness.


Beer, like wine or coffee, is often used when a reduction over a long cooking time is called for but water would be sub-optimal.

I make chili a lot.

Water is not your friend there, especially if you incorporate a lot of elements that have water in them to begin with (undried/roasted tomatoes in particular).

Beer doesn't add the acidity that coffee does, but it is great for adding sugars and the maltier flavors.

The sugars aren't precisely 'sweeter' but rather add depth of flavor.

I'd be interested in the effect of carbonation on the cooking process, however since carbonation is supposedly lost faster at higher temperatures

I'd imagine it's less than expected.

Beer can be used to de-glaze and so on; its lower alcohol makes it much less reactive (than marsala or liquor) and the sugars make it as likely to glaze over.

Still it imparts some flavor depending on the context.

The type of beer you should use is largely up to you.

They differ greatly in flavor and composition.

For some suggestions on pairings check out this question.

Another consideration is to look into Cicerones; it's a certification people get where (more for large scale operations than restaurants or personal use), in addition to knowledge of processing and manufacturing, they are sommeliers of beer .

An additional consideration is how long the beer will be cooking down.

The longer the cook down, the more the flavors will be less distinct.

However, there are flavors that are frequently only found in beer; hoppiness, roasted malt, and (the effects of open fermentation with)

wild yeast can do amazing things in a dish.

Creating a side reduction minimizes the cook down and can preserve the flavors.

When a recipe includes wine as an ingredient, it's often also only specified whether the wine should be red or white, or occasionally what region the wine should be from, but seldom a particular wine from a particular winery.

This allows for as much variation in flavour as just saying "add beer".

On the other hand, I have seen quite a few Belgian recipes that specify a particular Kriek or Trappist.

So I think the flavour is definitely an important component.

As for chemical properties: the most obvious ones come from alcohol and acid, which @mfg talks about in this answer .

Carbonation is relevant mostly for baking I think, but I'll leave that for someone else to answer as I'm not really sure.

Beer hasn't, historically, been given the same kind of attention as wine.

This is slowly changing, but I don't think beer will be treated the same for at least another couple of centuries.

So, many people tend to think that generally speaking, all beer is interchangeable (particularly in North America, where 'beer' usually means 'fizzy pale yellow liquid with no flavour'), thus the lack of specification when it comes to (most) recipes.

Bear in mind of course that you need to be careful with reduction, as (most) beers will become intensely bitter when reduced too far.

And generally speaking follow the same rules with beer as with wine:

darker for more intense/robust flavours, lighter for more delicate flavours.

Don't even get me started on the hideous apparition that is 'beer can chicken.'

If I wanted the taste of hot paint and aluminium I'd go lick the side of a house in the summer.

Many of the recipes that I've seen using beer have relied on leavening properties (yeast), especially in the case of beer bread which is made without yeast or baking powder/soda.

I suspect that you could use alcohol-free beer in baking, although Erik P. makes the valid point that alcohol could have an effect on the outcome of the product (because of evaporation time/temperature, etc.).

In looking for substitutions, you need to consider why you're substituting.

If you want to avoid alcohol but still want to maintain the flavor, you could try an alcohol-free beer.

If you are okay with alcohol but not with the flavor, I would either go for a "watery, terrible, cheap domestic beer" or look for a recipe without beer.

With the former, odds are you won't taste it anyway (

not that you would want to), but you'll get the chemical reaction that you rightly suspect is at play.

Many sites have recommended pale ales and brown ales for cooking.

From http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/egg/egg0397/beertips.html#ixzz1OQxJr7dR

(I couldn't get the blockquote to work with the bullets):

Beer is by nature bitter.

It comesfrom the hops.

Malt adds a sweetflavor that counteracts andharmonizes with the bitterness.

Likewise, sweet foods profit from themarriage with the hops' bitter taste.

Use sugary vegetables like onions,carrots, corn, etc., and even addsome honey, molasses or sugar itself.

Caramelized onions are a classicexample of a sweet vegetable ideal with beer.

The bitter hop flavor also helpscounteract the richness of creamy,oil-based or cheese dishes, butflavor-wise, use it as sparingly asyou would a squeeze of lime or touchof vinegar.

Acidic foods like tomatoes, citrus fruits, vinegar and mustard cancompliment the sweet flavors, addingbalance and depth to the dish.

The yeast is perfectly suited to baking and battering.

Breads, fritters and pancakes profit from being made with very yeasty brews, which lighten the texture and make for tender, tasty crusts.

Beer tenderizes meats, making for good marinades.

Game marries well with beer, but so does chicken and fish.

For the newbie, robust dishes are a good way to start before experimenting with the subtleties beer can have on more refined flavorings.

The more the beer is cooked and reduced, the stronger its flavor will be.

If the dish requires long cooking and reduction, avoid using too strong a brew, lest you end up overdoing it.

Finally, sample some beers to understand the range of flavors.

If you can imagine a beer going well with a particular dish as a beverage, then it would likely make a good ingredient as well.

Yeast, sugar, flavor...

What's not to like?

You do need to keep flavor in mind, however, especially when making beer bread.

Question: I've seen some recipies that call for a can of beer to be added, but never have I seen them specify a specific kind or brand. That leads me to believe its less for flavor and more for chemical reaction.  My question: why is no type or brand specified? Is it left to the cook to decide what type/flavor beer would be best, or is it simply a chemical process that any beer can facilitate? If the latter, are there other ingredients which could be safely substituted?

Some recipies call for beer to be added, but why?

Beer is useful for long cooking and reduction as well as baking and battering due to the yeast. It has less acidity than some other liquids but can be used to deglaze while adding a sweet malty flavour. The choice of beer is up to you, but try one that would go well as an accompaniment to the dish when eating it.

Beer is good for slow cooking and will bring in malty flavours. You can any use any beer you want.

Beer can be used for a reduction. It will add sugars and malt flavours. The yeast is also good for baking. You can use any beer you want, but if you would drink the beer with a dish then you could cook with it as well.

Recipes normally just specify red or white wine.


Coffee beans have a natural oil in them.

Often beans that have been roasted longer will have more visible oil on the surface.

Not really an indicator of quality, though, but a longer roast will be darker, have a stronger flavor, and (paradoxically to some) less caffeine.

(At least, this is what I learned when slinging Cappuccinos at a Canadian coffee chain during my college years a long time ago.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.)

Argh.

The oil is not the caffeine.

The oil is not (alone, or even predominantly)

what makes the flavor.

Also, beans that look oily are not oilier than beans that look dry.

A bean that's roasted dark enough to produce an oily surface has had many of its lower viscosity oils volatilized, leaving only heavier oils.

A more lightly roasted bean has not lost these lighter molecular weight oils in the lower heat (say, less than 435 degree bean temperature), so more oil is actually retained.

Brewing methods that don't use paper filters will deliver these oils to the cup.

Personally, aside from not liking dark roasts in general, I don't like brewing dark roasts using methods that get the oil to the cup because I don't like the flavor that comes from a balance of oils that lacks the lighter weight oils.

I do, however, very much enjoy a lighter roast brewed to yield the oils in the cup, because to my palate the balance of oils is better with the lighter weight oils not lost in the roast.

Beans stale relatively fast.

Lighter roasts stale more slowly, and indeed are best a week or so after roasting.

Darker roasts are best in about half that time.

Oxygen and warmth (the latter affects the former's rate of activity in the bean) are enemies no matter what.

I think someone's being mischievous here, because claiming that regional distinctives don't matter, or are not what makes coffee good, borders on the insane.

Charitably presuming that the poster is not insane, I conclude to mischief.

Dittos for the idea that if there's not much oil visible on the exterior, there must not be any left inside either.

That's backwards thinking, since oils are burned off and migrate to the surface only on darker roasts.

How could less oil be present in a lighter roast that hasn't had those oils migrate to the surface and be burned off yet?

Argh.

just as a point of personal experience: I spent some time in Ethopia and had fantastic coffee in many places.

The beans were ALL non-oily and downright dry looking.

I was really surprised as my assumption was the same as yours.

I've noticed some of the Starbucks beans are so oily

I have wondered at times if they add oil for that effect.

To my mind, a fine sheen of oil is good, but a noticeably oily surface means the beans are overroasted.

I roast beans at home, and when there is oil on the surface after several days, it always means the inside of the bean is more carbonized than I like.

I generally roast beans to the point of "second crack", which produces coffee that is dark, but not so dark that all varietal character is lost.

On the excellent Sweet Maria's website, this stage is called a "Full City+" roast.

Beans are typically at their best between 3 and 10 days after roasting (though it varies with the kind of bean) and with an overroasted bean I may see excess oil from the third day onward.

There are 800 flavor compound combinations in coffee and most of that comes from the oils inside of the bean.

Roasting the bean brings those oils to the surface (due to the pressure of the roasting) and depending on the bean and the roast this can be normal.

Oilier = darker roast, although that only applies if the beans are relatively fresh.

The beans will usually reabsorb the oil as they stale.

In other words, the oiliness doesn't really tell you much that you can't already figure out from the appearance and smell (and roasting date) of the beans.

Recently I was in Arles and the beans used in this one establishment were completely dry.

They seemed to be very happy to announce to me this result.

The taste of the coffee was as excellent as I have generally known in France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, the U.S, Argentina (though not as good as in Costa Rica).

I noticed one thing.

Unlike when drinking the oily coffees as in the U.S. for instance, I had no abdominal problems with the dry beans.

I had it everyday for one month and was well.

Any oily beans always produce immediate stomach upset.

So there must be actual oil in those beans that is either removed in some types of roasting or never has been there because of the type of bean that it is, in the Arles case.

The oil does not seem to be responsible for the taste at all, but is heavy on the stomach.

It may also taste 'heavier'.

Both oily and non-oily can taste excellent.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7804/nicolas de la forge

Lighter roast beans, who have contact with the lower heated surfaces will taste less burnt, and less like an ashtray.

That's what my taste buddies tell me.

The oil on darker roasted beans is something shiny.

It distracts me from the intricate differences in flavors of the light roast.

Oils are not in and of themselves bearers of "bad" qualities, and can provide a preferred character for some beaners: mainly, they give us information about time, heat and flavor of that little roasted guy.

Imagine hanging out at the beach..

you roast lightly and are in a good mood for the party that night, butyou stay all day rolling over in the sun - letting your skin burn, you will be an rosy red grump at the party, and oozy and crispier as the days go by.

Oil on the surface of the bean goes rancid very quickly giving the coffee a bitter taste.

Oily coffee is bad coffee.

Question: I find myself favoring the purchase of coffee beans that have visible oil on them.  My inference was that this bean had some extra flavor or awesomeness.  Am I right, are beans 'better' if they are oily, or more simply, what does that mean about the flavor profile of the bean?

What can you surmise about coffee beans that have oil on them at the time of purchase?

An oily surface comes from a darker roast, bu may indicate that the inside is more carbonised than you might like. Oil can also go rancid quickly, giving the coffee a bitter taste.

Oily coffee may mean the beans are overroasted and might have a bitter taste.

Coffee beans contain oil naturally. Too much oil means that the beans have been overroaste and may be bitter.


Stone is a much worse heat conductor than iron.

It warms much slower from vigorous pounding than iron, and actually cools whatever is being ground.

This is often desirable, as you don't want to warm whatever you are grinding - some spices contain fats which are viscous or solid at room temperature, but get liquid somewhat above it, so they would be seeping their aroma and converting to a paste if warmed while ground.

Another argument for stone will be the smooth surface.

Seasoned iron isn't as smooth as marble or granite can be polished, and

if left unseasoned, you will need to remove rust from time to time (another problem of iron which harwig already pointed out), disturbing the surface.

The mortar surface should be as smooth as possible.

Also, the stone will require no maintenance apart from washing.

Iron will have to be kept from rusting, so you'll have to season it.

The grinding action will probably slowly eat away the seasoning layer, so you'll have to reapply it periodically, which is lots of work

(well, the complete stripping first is what makes it lots of work, seasoning not so much).

But if you use your mortar as seldom as I do, this shouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand, iron's density is about 3 times higher than marble or granite, resulting in a much heavier pestle.

While this means some more fatigue for you, it will result in a better grinding result.

Another problem with stone is that it can crack if you happen to drop it on the floor.

Luckily, a mortar is not easily dislodged from the counter, and granite breaks nowhere as easily as earthenware, but the chance exists.

If you get stone, don't go for the tulip-on-a-stem shapes.

While it may be convenient to grip the stem, it is also a weak point.

You must also consider possible chemical reactions.

Granite won't be a problem, but marble is acid sensitive.

So making a pesto with lots of lemon juice is probably a bad idea in marble.

It won't cause a comic-book like Chinese syndrome, but it will attack the surface, making it less smooth.

Seasoned iron has some acid resistance, but strong acids are bad for it too.

To me, the "tradition" argument isn't very strong.

People have used abacuses for thousands of years, but I prefer a TI-42 simulator when I have to make a calculation too complicated for my brain.

Both iron and stone will work.

And as harwig says, aesthetics are individual - not that I need much of that in kitchen implements.

I have never used an iron mortar before, so I can't speak directly about it.

I would imagine that one of the cons would be oxidation / rust.

Obviously you don't want to have rust ground up with whatever spices, herbs, etc that you're grinding.

Proper maintenance could alleviate this issue though.

For me, stone mortars are more traditional.

If people have been using rocks to grind things up for thousands of years, something's obviously working for them.

Why fix it if it isn't broken?

Another thing to consider is the aesthetic quality of the mortar.

I like the look of marble, but you should find one that fits your style.

I've been using a ceramic mortar for years.

I tried a marble one that I was given, and it was poor compared to the one I have.

I've used an iron one, and it was worse than the marble one.

One big tip with using a mortar - they work best if you only put a little material in at a time.

If the mortar is a quarter full, that's too much stuff to grind easily.

Work on a couple of teaspoons at a time

and you get powder.

More than that, and it is just a mess ...

Nobody before mentioned this: wood, ceramic, and stone (be it granite, basalt, or marble, at least -

I saw once an agate mortar

and there I don't know) are porous.

That means flavors seeping in and out and the possibility of bacteria and mold growth.

That may or may not be an issue on an iron mortar, depending on the finishing of its well.

So the seasoning need is not really an argument, for you have to give either kind that sealing coat.

There are other materials that don't have that particular drawback nor the rusting, but they have some of their own: porcelain / glazed ceramic is much more fragile in both that it can break and the glazing chip off or crack, and I have yet to come across a stainless steel mortar that isn't hollow, and they seem to easily dent, bump, or might even crack too.

I use a Coors ceramic mortar and pestle in the kitchen myself.

Iron seems like a poor choice, what with rust and all.

If you go with stone, pay particular attention to the fit between pestle and mortar.

There are a lot of poorly made units out there that'll turn a one minute grinding task into a five minute chore.

Resin… Looks like stone, weighs [at least] as much as stone, keeps cool like stone, totally non-porous surface.

Inner surface can be totally smooth or slightly roughened, just like stone.

No rust, no absorption, can go in the dishwasher [though I don't with mine] or washed with regular dish soap.

Mine must be 20 years old now & still looks like new.

Question: I need to buy a mortar. Should I get a stone (granite, marble, etc) or an iron one? What pros and cons are there?

Stone or iron mortar?

Both will work, but acids will be bad for iron and marble. Another advantage of stone mortars is that they can be smooth.

Stone mortars are traditional. Marble is acid sensitive while iron and granite are not.

Stone mortars are more traditional. They have smooth surfaces and are not good heat conductors so will not heat up the food.

Marble is acid sensitive while granite is not.


Exactly 42 chocolate chips per 3/4 cup of batter.

The best percentage depends entirely on your own taste, and the texture and sweetness of your cookie dough.

It also depends on the size of the chips.

Standard North American chips?

Chunks you hacked out of a block of couverture?

There are too many variables here to give a good answer.

The only way to find out the 'best' percentage is to experiment and see what you like.

Alternatively, find your favourite brand of chocolate chip cookie, and count how many chips are in, say, 10 cookies.

Average that number

and there you are.

My mom and I love to bake chocolate chip cookies together and this is an issue we run into every time-

how many chips are too many?

I like to pour in about half of a standard bag of Nestle morsels and spoon out my cookies, while my mom waits until I'm done, then adds the other half a bag of morsels to the other half of the dough, then adds pecans or walnuts and spoons out her batch.

Its all about personal preference and the likes and dislikes of your audience :)

12.27 The original Tollhouse Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe calls for two cups of chips or one 12-oz.

bag of standard-size semi-sweet chocolate morsels.

The recipe makes 60 (rounded tablespoon-sized) cookies.

I have a 12 oz.

bag of chocolate chips here that indicates in the "Nutrition Facts" box that one serving is equal to 32 chips.

It says the bag contains 23 servings.

That's 736 chocolate chips per bag.

736 divided by 60 equals an average of 12.27 chocolate chips per cookie.

While it depends on your taste and recipe, I can tell you what's my favorite amount.

I tend to chop chocolate to pretty big pieces

(cubes approximately 2cm long).

I tend to put as many chocolate chips as it takes so that some of them fall off when mixed with the dough.

I then additionally push leftover chips in dough when forming cookies.

I try to avoid chips that are too small and chocolate powder; somehow the cookies are better when chocolate powder is not mixed into dough.

I suppose the contrast between the dough and chocolate chips is what makes them tasty.

Question: I've been making chocalote chip cookies for a while and I just can't decide how many chocolate chips to put in each cookie. So maybe once and for all I can get a good answer to the question:  What is the best percentage of chocolate-chips for a chocolate cookies? And what are the pros and cons for putting more or less chocolate chips?

Amount of Chocolate-chips in a Chocolate-chip cookie?

The best way is to experiment or find the amount in your favourite cookies. You can base this on the desired consistency or the number per cookie or amount of batter.

Around 40 chips per 3/4 cup of batter. You should experiment with what works for you.

42 chocolate chips per 3/4 cup of batter or as many chocolate chips as it takes for them to start falling out of the batter.

Experiment with what works for you or count the number of chips in your favourite cookies.


You will want side dishes that will not overcome the taste of the lobster.

Steamed or grilled asparagus with just the barest drizzle of olive oil and coarse salt immediately come to my mind.

Add a nice risotto (mushroom?)

then send me an invitation.

I'm sure someone should suggest a lightly dressed salad.

I think it might go with mashed sweet potato with lots of pepper!

I would suggest anything that you can grab easily and is not difficult to eat.

You are going to have to get dirty cracking the lobster, so why not get some corn kernels on your face?

Growing up in New England our lobster dinner included sweet corn on the cob and cornbread.

(The butter can be used on all of it!)

Also, if you want some greens, maybe some steamed broccoli?

In terms of flavors, are you going to just do a salted water boil or maybe add some old bay?

you can even add bay leaves to the water.

If you are adding flavors to the lobster while boiling, think of how those would go with the sides.

I always like it when breads are served with lobster!

Lobster is really popular in North Western France.

I've seen it served there with crawfish cocktails and oysters;

something like this .

You can also just keep it down to earth and simple.

In New England I used to eat lobster with french fries.

Not quite worthy of Brittany, but yummy all the same.

Bread, garlic butter, salad, maybe grilled potatoes and asparagus (not my favourite food, but the neutral taste and texture would go with the subtlety of lobster).

Bread's probably essential to neutralise the fat in the butter.

Question: I plan to boil a fresh lobster. Serving it only with melted butter and lemon seems like not enough. What would be a good side dish for it?

What is a good side dish for a freshly boiled lobster?

Side dishes with flavours that do not overcome the taste of the lobster are good, and a more messy side like corn on the cob could work since lobster is already messy. Some options include steamed or grilled asparagus, risotto, salad, mashed sweet potato, steamed broccoli and breads.

Light flavoured dishes like asparagus or steamed greens would go well with lobster.

You want light flavoured dishes that will not overcome the lobster. Asparagus, risotto, a salad, mashed potato, corn on the cob or steamed broccoli.


No you would not.

If you are cooking pasta properly, you need to use a lot of salt, rendering any gravy made with this water far too salty.

In addition, gravy is properly made with stock; made with water it will have no flavour.

You can't make a 'true' gravy, but you can put a little of the water into the sauce you are using to loosen it a little if it has reduced too far, or to make it go a bit further.

I think you should read McGee on this one.

Basically he says the 'water' from boiling pasta is very rich in flavor.

Italian recipes often suggest adding pasta water to adjust the consistency of a sauce, but this thick water is almost a sauce in itself.

When I anointed a batch of spaghetti with olive oil and then tossed it with a couple of ladles-full, the oil dispersed into tiny droplets in the liquid, and the oily coating became an especially creamy one.

Restaurant cooks prize thick pasta water.

In “Heat,” his best-selling account of working in Mario Batali’s restaurant Babbo, Bill Buford describes how in the course of an evening, water in the pasta cooker goes from clear to cloudy to muddy, a stage that is “yucky-sounding but wonderful,” because the water “behaves like a sauce thickener, binding the elements and flavoring the pasta with the flavor of itself.”

Just to add a little to this discussion.

There should never be that much starch left over in your water to really thicken a tomato sauce.

I will have to back @ElendilTheTall here.

All the thickening power of the starch should already be completely used up in that cooking water, and the cooking water should be thinner than your tomato sauce so the net result should be thinning it.

That being said something that has been thickened with starch will as it cools get thicker (its actually more of a gelling or coagulation).

It should actually thin back out if you reheat it, albeit maybe not to the point it once was.

But that might be why you noticed your pasta water getting thicker.

Most Italian chefs that I know add pasta water to there sauce to bring it together with the noodle as starch is attracted to starch.

The principle being it will help the sauce better coat the noodle.

If you want to get clever though, I can definitely say you can make gravy with pasta water.

Many pasta sauces are actually referred to as gravy.

So could say the finishing touch to your gravy would in fact be pasta water :)

As for a thanksgiving style gravy I would say I hope not.

If your pasta water has enough residual starch to thicken up your stock and/or pan drippings

then you probably aren't using enough water when cooking your pasta.

I am ethnically Italian.

Whenever my grandmother would make pasta she would keep the water that was leftover.

Within a day or two she would combine the water with Parmigiano rinds, whole onions (skin and all), celery ends and carrot knobs (all cooked very slowly) to make the broth she would use for vegetable soup, pasta sauce and the liquid to raise the browns from cooked meats (veal particularly).

The broth left-over is so rich and delicious with a flavour incomparable to anything I've experienced in other cuisine.

KEEP IT.

USE IT.

Question: After boiling pasta and setting the water in which the pasta was boiled aside I noticed that after the water cooled it thickened. It sort of has the consistency of gravy. Would I be able to make gravy with this instead of using starch?

Can water in which pasta was cooked be used to make gravy?

Properly cooked pasta has too much salt for the water to be used in gravy. However, you could add some of the water to loosen up the sauce, and pasta water could be used with vegetables and parmigiano rinds to make a broth for vegetable soup.

You can use the water to loosen up a pasta sauce or you is as a base for some stock.

The water would be very salty but it could be used to loosen a sauce.

You can combine it with other ingredients and make a stock out of it.


There are a couple of cookbooks by Anne Byrn who has built a franchise on this subject.

Her best known book (and the one I have) is titled The Cake Mix Doctor.

written specifically on this subject.

Go to her website http://www.cakemixdoctor.com as there are several recipes and articles as well a listing of her books.

Using different spices, maybe a pumpkin pie spice added to vanilla cake, will give your cake a completely new and interesting flavor.

Using citrus zests will spice things up as well!

I have also used different flavored liquid extracts, added these to icing can really add that extra something special to the completed cake.

Substitute part of the butter with creme fraiche - say, 2oz creme fraiche for 1oz of the butter.

All answers provide great ideas but I'll take Jginger's spice recommendation a step further.

I often use what I call "subtle exotic" spice combinations which is simply a fancy way of saying unusual or ethnic-influenced combinations.

For example, Black pepper with dark chocolate; chili pepper and cinnamon; or cardamom.

These types of spice combinations aren't typical in a cake and will provide a deliciously memorable flavor for your guests.

A recent unusual combination I just tasted was a spiced gin cupcake.

The baker used a basic cake recipe then infused spices and gin into the batter and frosting.

A boxed cake could be that basic recipe.

When I make box cake mixes, I use vanilla almond milk instead of water and olive oil instead of vegetable oil.

The vanilla

almond milk gives it a hint of sweetness and the olive oil makes it fluffier.

And then a add a touch of cinnamon and nutmeg.

Question: Is there anything I can add to/change about a store bought white or yellow cake mix to take it from ordinary to extraordinary?

How can I bolster up a boxed cake mix?

Anne Byrne has a couple of cookbooks on this subject, but as a general rule you can use different spices and liquid extracts, citrus zests, chocolate and alcohol to spice up a cake.

Add extra spices and creme fraiche instead of the butter.

Add extra flavours like pumpkin pie spice, citrus zests, cinnamon and nutmeg.

Use creme fraiche instead of some of the butter and almond milk instead of water.


Whether or not it's a good idea is subjective, but the Chinese seem to break that rule a lot!

For example, Northeastern Chinese sweet and sour pork (guō bāo ròu) is characterized by an intense ginger flavor .

The Sichuan classic twice cooked pork (huí guō ròu) calls for boiling the pork with ginger.

A common condiment for beef dishes/sauces is black bean garlic paste (蒜蓉豆豉酱) .

Perhaps this saying is associated with a specific Chinese regional cuisine?

Whenever I see never I feel uneasy and want to try it anyway :) Beef + garlic works very well.

It's often used in middle eastern and Japanese cuisine for example.

Pork and ginger is a common combination in Chinese cooking.

I guess its up to your personal preference, there are a lot of beef dishes with garlic and one good example is beef and broccoli also with pork most of the Asian stir fries uses pork and ginger and they do taste great.

It's a myth - look at the number of steakhouses that serve steaks with garlic butter sauces/dressings.

I am surprised seeing this too.

It has been eons since my Dad used to tell me a lot of about NOT using ginger on pork, but garlic on both is not bad.

It's all about ginger and pork having a chemical reaction that is bad on the aspect of the yin/yang balance in the body as my dad explained it.

It releases a certain chemical as well that when your immunity is low, could trigger some conditions adverse to health.

From that info, never use ginger on pork dishes too.

My dad was born in the 30s, so I assume that his wisdom on this emanated from older generations handed down to him as well by a long line of cooks from our family.

Uses of ginger in pork dishes could be regional, or maybe the younger generations making the infamous NorthEastern sweet and sour pork FORGOT that the ginger in that dish wasn't raw when added in cooking but rather already in a commercially available ready-made sauce that that HAS the ginger in it already.

IT IS IN THE SAUCE that was separately made.

NOT cooked through with the PORK.

Cooking the ginger with the pork is what releases what my Dad described as the culprit that needs to be avoided.

Just to clarify.

Hope

I made some sense.

This to me, as my Father passed on to me, I will retain in my future cooking wisdom. :-)

The pork marinade we use in our family even combines the two: one part each of sesame oil, soy sauce and sherry, equal amounts of ginger&garlic.

Question: "You should use garlic with pork and  ginger with beef and never vice versa."   This is coming from my dad who says that fact has been handed down from generations and generations of Chinese cooking.  He says if I mix it (i.e. cook pork with ginger and beef with garlic), there will be an unpleasant taste.  Maybe he's just exaggerating, I'm not sure.  Do you think there is any truth to this saying?

Is this a true? You should use garlic with pork and ginger with beef and never vice versa?

Ginger and pork are sometimes considered to have a bad reaction on the yin/yang balance, but this rule is often broken both in China and abroad. Beef is often eaten with black bean garlic paste, and Northeastern Chinese sweet and sour pork (guō bāo ròu) is  characterized by an intense ginger flavur.

While there are many exceptions to this rule, some Chinese people believe that chemical reactions in the food will have a negative effect on the yin/yang.

There seem to be many exceptions to this rule.

It's to do with a chemical reaction on the yin/yang of the foods.


When I go to the Korean supermarkets in LA, I usually see half an aisle just dedicated to 고추가루 in all kinds of forms (mild to spicy, fine to coarse grind) and colors.

I don't know that there's any specific pepper than it is all about how sweet and mildly spicy 고추가루 is supposed to be.

You could start from there to make your own by sun drying and crushing whatever peppers are available to you.

If you are looking for a substitute that you can buy at a western store, try crushed red pepper flakes (the kind you see in the shakers at pizza places).

You're going to be adjusting for taste/spiciness anyway, so not much of a dealbreaker.

Mc Cormick now makes Korean Red Pepper Flakes for sale at some Costcos (also in smaller containes at the Supermarket).

I bought a large container and I am going back for more.

Great flavor and heat for just about everything.

The county I live in produces a lot of chillies called Cheonggyeol (청결).

They also produce gochugaru here.

Here's a link .

After some asking around, I can confirm that these are the peppers they use to make Gochugaru (고추고루).

Buy dried chilis and blend them into powder

It sounds like this community doesn't know more about the specific peppers used (and their North American subsitutes) than what @janeylicious has proposed.

Howeover, I propose a different methodology for finding a good fit.

You can buy dried chilis of many varieties from Latino and sometimes American grocery stores: anchos, de arbols.

pasillas, moritas, guajillos, puyas and more.

Turn a chili or mix of chilis into a powder by putting them into your blender or food processor.

Pro-level blenders like Ninjas, Oster Versas and Vitamixes are great for this.

Use the homemade powder as your recipe directs, and compare the taste to how you remember.

You can use a chili guide to inform your adjustments.

Eventually, you should be able to do much better than red pepper flakes for pizza.

It's really hard to find substitute because the way it is processed is different too.

I'm not sure what the chilies are called but they are quite long and slender.

The Korean ones are bright red and sweeter and the ones in western markets are pretty dark and bitter.

If you are unable to locate the real Korean pepper powder, I think you will have to make a blend of your own.

Ancho chilis have a fairly similar flavor, but are not hot enough.

So you would have to mix some amount of a hotter powder into ancho powder, and that could give you what you seek.

Nothing is going to be perfect, but this can get you to a reasonable facsimile.

Yes, you can buy just about anything from Amazon, but sometimes "the hard way

" is more fun, and you get to put that much more love into your K-food.

This is certainly not the authentic Korean method of making gochugaru, but it works for me, and my kimchi turns out great!:

Find a relatively "fresh" bag of dried "Chiles Japones" in the Mexican/Hispanic section of your grocery store; at least 6oz.

(You want them to be slightly pliable; if they are overly dry and brittle, the next step will be frustrating, if not painfully impossible.)

Carefully remove and discard ALL the seeds and stems from the dried chiles; don't worry, it will be plenty spicy (and much tastier) without them...

please, DO NOT scratch your eyes or touch any other sensitive part of your body at this point...

ouch!

Put all the nice red parts in a coffee/spice grinder and process until it looks just right... like flaky dust (dusty flakes?)

... you'll probably never want to use that grinder for coffee beans again, but it's worth the sacrifice.

No matter how pretty it looks, DON'T sniff it; you'll be sorry

(like I was the first time)!

Now you have something that looks and tastes a whole heck of a lot like Gochugaru...

Proceed to make yourself some Kentucky Kimchi ("Kentuck-chi"?), and let us know how it turns out!

You can order from Amazon.com if you can not find in market near you.

I find Aleppo chilies are quite similar.

They’re also at the same heat level as the Cheonggyeol peppers.

(10,000 scoville).

Question: I'm trying to make kimchi, but I don't have any chili powder (gochugaru  -고추가루). Does anyone know what type of chili pepper(s) this is made from? I'm trying to find it at a normal western grocery store (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Remke...) I figured if I knew what type of peppers it was made from I could find something equivalent.

What kind of peppers are used in Gochugaru (고추가루)?

You can make a blend of your own if you are unable to locate the real Korean pepper powder. Try using crushed red pepper flakes, especially Korean red pepper flakes. You can use chillies called Cheonggyeol (청결), Ancho chillies or Aleppo chillies, which are quite similar. If they are unavailable in a market near you, you can try buying dried chillies on Amazon and blending them into powder.

Try red pepper flakes from Costco or try making your own mix from various chilis.

Chillies called gochugaru, anchu, aleppo or cheonggyeol have quite similar flavours.

Make your own mix from chilis or order from Amazon.


Keep your hands wet.

I usually use a small bowl of water next to my prep area, and dip my fingers in whenever things get sticky.

Moisten your hands with a clean, damp towel.

This helps the rice not stick.

Look at any sushi bar; the chef will be frequently moistening their hands on such a towel.

When you use vinegar for the rice, rub some on your palms and fingers diluted with water.

But be sure to flick it off, or your hands themselves will get sticky.

Damp towels work too.

I was invited to a sushi making class when we visited Tokyo.

We were each given a small bowl of water to moisten our fingers so the rice won't stick.

After our trip, I made some at home and decided to use the back of a soup spoon and lightly spread the rice scooping as needed to cover the nori.

Just dip the back of the spoon in water before spreading the rice.

Usually 2 - 3 small scoops will do as opposed to 1 clump.

I make sushi all the time now

and this method works best for me; rice is more evenly spread out and does not get squashed.

Yum!

Good luck, ENJOY!

I wear a thin disposable glove and put a drop of olive oil on it.

The first rice ball I make will have the most olive oil residue on it but after that it is unnoticeable on the remaining pieces and there is zero sticking.

When making aranchini ," Italian rice balls " in my presses i use flour before pressing.

Since flour is used in the next step for dredging it allows the rice not to stick to the mold and can be easily removed.

Also i have found water works as well.

But when you add moisture you just increasing the probability of future tackiness.

As for Sushi, flour wouldn't be a wise choice.

Renolds makes a non-stick foil .

It's the bomb for spreading and pressing.

The way that we sushi chefs do it at the bar is to keep a container of parsley filled with water.

A moistened micro cloth helps as well.

Question: I am laying out my sushi rice by forming it into a ball with my hands and spreading it on the nori. I watched some video tutorials on this, and it seems like the rice is not sticking to the chef's hands. How do you not get the rice to stick to your hands?

how do you get sushi rice to not stick to your hands?

Keep your hands moist with a bowl of water, a damp towel or a container of parsley filled with water. Alternatively, use some of the vinegar you use for the rice diluted with water, or wear disposable gloves with a drop of oil on them.

Your hands should be wet or use a wet cloth to wipe your hands?

Put vinegar on your hands or use a disposable glove with a drop of olive oil.


It means the butter is made from cream that hasn't been fermented.

Butter made from fermented cream is known as "cultured cream butter", and it has distinct sour, lactic acid notes.

Sweet cream butter tastes, well, sweet, and if it is from really good fresh milk you may be able to taste grassy notes.

Both are good in their own way.

"Sweet cream" is the same as "cream" (as opposed to sour cream).

So they are telling you that the butter is made from cream, which is naturally rich in butterfat.

Where I live in Germany

it's common to find both types, and they're clearly marketed as two different things: the Süßrahmbutter (sweet cream butter) is sweeter and fattier than the Sauerrahmbutter (sour cream butter).

I did a bit of research on how the production differs: the milk gets initially through a process of centrifugation to separate cream from skimmed milk.

The cream gets then pasteurized at 90°

-110°C and subsequently left alone for 3 to 29 hours.

This process of maturation is where the production method of the two types of butter differs: For the cultured butter the cream gets stirred for one day together with different sorts of bacteria, a culture of natural lactic ferments, to break down fats and sugars and give it that special flavour.

The cream for the sweet butter gets simply stirred for a day or so without adding any starter.

It's legal in Germany to add up to the 16% of water during the whole process.

EDIT: source [German]

My paternal Grandmother (who lived in the mountains of North Carolina), had only one milk cow.

Every morning and evening my Uncle would milk this cow.

My Grandmother would skim off the cream and put it into a large crock (that had a top on it, and was kept in a corner of the kitchen).

The milk was put into the refrigerator and was used to drink or for cooking (any milk not used that day went to the pigs).

No matter what the season was, the cream was not put into the refrigerator.

After a couple of days, the cream had clabbered, and she would use a device that looked like a giant egg beater with an electric cord attached, to agitate the cream to make butter.

This process left the same "product" that naturally happens if cream is whipped too long.

Of course, the device she used was a modern version of a wooden butter churn that she had learned to use as a young girl.

The whey leftover from this process was then refrigerated and was used as buttermilk (which is how it got its name).

I remember that butter as being darker yellow than sweet cream butter, with a tangy flavor.

My Maternal Grandmother (who grew up in Pennsylvania and only knew sweet butter with its light yellow, almost white color), argued with my Mother that my Paternal Grandmother must have used food coloring to achieve the dark yellow color that my mother described to her.

A couple of years later, when she visited my parents and watched my Grandma make butter, she was surprised at the color and flavor.

Now, unless you have a cow, it is difficult to make butter that way.

I imagine, perhaps, if you added an acid to store bought heavy cream, it might be possible.

But, because of the process that makes milk "safe" to sell, it is very hard to get the cream to clabber.

This makes it hard to achieve the flavor that I remember.

I have let the cream sit on the counter for a couple of days, and the resulting butter's flavor did come close.

There were a couple more steps to my Grandma's butter making, but they are not essential to this subject.

I hope anyone else who asks this question will get a little more insight on this subject from my own experience.

According to the Third addition of "Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products", butter would have been classified as either sweet or ripened.

Ripened butter was given its flavor by the chemical compound diacetyl, which was the by-product of various commercially available strains of streptococci.

Question: Most (or even all?) butter found at the grocery store is labeled "sweet cream".  Is there a distinction between this and another type of cream, and if so, what is it?

Why is butter usually labeled "Sweet Cream"?

It means that it has been produced from cream that hasn't been fermented and is not sour.

Sweet cream is cream that hasn't been cultured.


Had a warped stainless steel pot I was getting ready to toss, but decided to give it one more use since I forgot it was warped until I needed to use it right away.

Was making tamales

so it was on a good simmer for about 3-4 hours.

Placed a heavy cast iron Dutch oven on top while it cooked to try to get better contact with my ceramic top stove.

Left it to cool and forgot about the pot until I went to clean it in the morning.

When I did, I noticed the warp was all gone.

Pleasantly surprised and glad I did t throw it away.

I will definitely be more careful with it in the future.

Hope this is helpful to someone out there.

I have had some limited success using a technique borrowed from large steel fabrication and construction, specifically ship building.

In order to 'flatten out' the steel wall and deck plates on a ship, after they are welded into place, they are alternately heated and quenched with water, which has the effect of shrinking the metal, reducing or removing the warps created from the heat of the welding process.

What I will do with a warped pot or pan is heat it dull red on the stove and apply wet cloths to the warped part(s), if the whole thing is warped, I start in the middle.

Successive treatments do reduce the warping.

Just be careful, and wear leather gloves and a heavy long sleeved shirt, the steam is hot, and will burn you very badly if not careful.

No, there isn't.

You'll either have to live with it, or get a new pan.

Some pan materials are more resistant to warping, like cast iron (either enameled or raw).

Those are a little pricey, but if you take good care of them, your grandkids will still be using them.

Cook something in the pan, even if it's just boiling a little water.

Take it off the stove, dump out the contents, but do NOT cool it or run it under any water.

Now, flip it over face-down on a large, flat surface.

I have had good success just using a dishtowel over a plastic cutting board.

(Don't use a wooden cutting board, as what we are about to do in the next step could break it apart at the joints)You

want the rim of the pan face-down in good contact with the level surface all theway around, with the handle hanging off the table where it won't interfere.

Very important.

The idea is to have that rim face-down, the pan still HOT (hence the dishtowel over the plastic cutting board, so it doesn't melt).

And this needs to be on a STURDY table.

You'll see why.

Take a large rubber mallet (NOT a regular steel hammer!), and whack the centerof the pan a few times.

Don't be shy.

Hit it hard.

Test.

You'll find that it sits level on the stove again.

Just a few whacks, test it.

If it's not enough, flip it and whack it again.

NOW...

From now on, after you cook in it, do NOT put it anywhere near any water or anything cool until it has a chance to cool on its own.

If you dump out the contents and immediately put it under water, even warm water, the rapid temperature change will make the bottomwarp upward.

It is true that really high-quality cookware with very thick bottoms does not sufferfrom this.

But your average everyday stuff, you can still avoid the problem if you avoid rapid temperature changes.

As a rule, to keep my stainless steel pans from warping, I let them cool naturally, on the stove.

Only when they are cool enough to put my hand on the bottom of the pan without burning myself, will I put it in water to wash.

When hot meets not hot, if it is metal, it will warp!

When it it already warped, use the rubber mallet technique, it works.

A bit of advice how to prevent the problem in the first place.

Someone mentioned deglazing.

When deglazing use room temperature liquid.

Cooking wine shouldn't come directly from the fridge.

Secondly to keep you pans from warping pour liquid in from the edges.

Cooking is fun, don't let fear of warping pans discourage you.

Question: Is there a way to "fix" my stainless steel fry pan that does not sit flush on my cooktop stove?

Bowed bottom on Stainless Steel fry pan

You can try placing a heavy cast iron Dutch oven on top while it's cooking to increase the contact surface or hitting it in the centre with a rubber mallet, but otherwise you will probably just have to live with it. You can avoid the problem in future by avoiding rapid temperature changes and letting it cool naturally on the stove after cooking.

There isn't really anything you can do. Weigh it down or take a rubber mallet to hit the center.

Put a heavy pan on top of it while it cooks to weigh it down. Take a rubber mallet and hit the center.

In future, avoid rapid temperature changes to stop warping.


A tall thin pot is a hazard as it can be tipped over all too easily The book says use lots of water to ensure even cooking and to stop the pasta sticking.

But regular stirring will solve this problem too Just use less water in a regular pot and feed the pasta into the boiling water.

It takes about 30 seconds for long spaghetti to soften enough for it to fit into a regular pot.

It cooks just fine WITHOUT breaking it up if you give it a quick stir after a minute, and then every couple of minutes or so If you know your stove temperature and spaghetti type, it will only take a couple of goes to work out the least amount of water you can use.

I use about 1 l of boiling water for three adult servings of spaghetti in a medium domestic pot.

With the lid half on it is cooked to a firm bite point in less than 8 minutes, and the water just covers the spaghetti when finished

Your suggested design would topple over very easily, especially on a gas hob with a grate, risking serious injury.

Aside from safety concerns, your design would also be inefficient as there is an extremely low surface area in contact with the hob.

It would therefore take longer to heat up.

Since the pasta is bunched together, there is a lower surface area of pasta in contact with the water, further slowing the cooking process.

Your design would also cause some serious sticking-

you'd likely end up with a stuck-together tube of spaghetti with this.

A smaller, normal-shaped pan can be used while avoiding sticking if you can be bothered to stir it more often, but a large pan with plenty of water would be the ideal solution.

You need a lot of water to dilute the starch in the pasta.

Less water = more sticking.

If you use too little water when cooking your pasta (on the stove), the starch to water ratio will be too high.

This means your pasta won't "cook" or absorb the proper amount of water.

I purchased the "Fasta Pasta" as seen on tv "device".

It goes along with your question of a tall, thin pasta pot, but is made for cooking pasta in the microwave.

It uses a LOT LESS water than cooking on the stove.

I don't know why.

I seriously dislike "as seen on TV" gizmos, but this one was worth it.

The more amount of water in a pot the more consistant the water temperature will be.

A very small amount of water would cool down once the pasta was added which would take longer to boil, and cook the pasta at a lower temperature causing the center of the pasta to cook more which would likely keep the pasta from becoming al dente.

You could make fresh pasta if you'd like to have perfectly cooked pasta with less water consumption.

I've been cooking pasta (successfully) for nearly 40 years

and I'm here to tell you that you don't need a boiling pot of water to cook pasta to perfection.

You can start it in cold water and you don't need all the water that many espouse you need.

If you really only want to cook one or two portions of pasta, you can also boil water in a wide, flat pan.

I'd say stainless steel is best - it shouldn't be too shallow - and cook the spaghetti in there.

Also works for other "long" foods like asparagus.

EDIT: I also think using less pasta water is better for getting starchier water to create sauces that then stick better, like pasta aglio e olio.

Question: Every time I cook spaghetti in a regular pot, I get the feeling that I could save litres of water if the pot had been created with spaghetti cooking in mind. This is especially true when I only need 1-2 portions. Cooking smaller pasta is more efficient.   Is there a culinary reason for using so much water? Do professional kitchens use a better method?

Why do we use so much water to cook spaghetti?

Pasta needs a lot of water to balance out the starch, ensure even cooking and stop the pasta from sticking. A tall thin pot would topple over easily, have very little surface area in contact with the stove, allow the water to cool down when adding the noodles and not allow the pasta to cook al dente. You can use a smaller pot and feed in the noodles slowly or use a wide and shallow pot for fewer noodles if necessary.

A tall, thin pot would fall over easily and the surface area in contact with the hob is very small. You need to have enough water to dilute the starch in the pasta.

It only takes about 30 seconds for the pasta to fit in the pot. The tall, thin pot would fall over very easily and a very low surface area in contact with the pot.

You need enough water to be able to dilute the starch in the pasta.

You can also cook the pasta in a low, wide pot.


I am wondering if the origin of this step in the recipe comes from recipes written in India, and have been copied over into western book without asking this questions.

I do know that many times in India, rice is stored in sacks with some kind of insecticide (usually boric acid) applied to it.

So there's always a need to wash the rice before it's cooked..

So maybe this step comes from that..

Sometimes rice is polished using talcum powder, which is one reason you would need to rinse it.

Another reason would be to get rid of extra starch.

The extra starch cause the rice to clump and stick, which isn't what you are looking for with basmati rice.

Normally you just rinse it until the water runs clear.

Rinsing is a matter of personal taste.

The idea is that it removes excess starch from the rice, which if left in can result in a 'gloopy' consistency.

I'm not sure why anyone would spend 15 minutes doing it though

- I rinse my rice about six times (fill the saucepan, tip it out, repeat).

Basmati rice is supposed to flow freely though, if it clumps, you are using it against the norm and should probably stick with a stickier rice.

Usually Basmati is used Pilau style, or in a Biryiani, then the grains are slightly coated in some form of fat (oil, ghee, etc), so the starch you would definitely want rid of.

I have never washed any rice before cooking and every grain is perfect and separate.

Perhaps its the way I cook rice.

I put a little oil in the pan, sauté for a few minutes, then add the water and salt, mix it and cover until its ready.

Always perfect.

I used to rinse basmati rice prior to cooking by steaming in a closed pot.

Then I got fed up and couldn't be bothered.

Nothing changed - the rice remains fluffy.

Question: Every Indian recipe I see seems to insist on rinsing basmati rice before cooking it. Why, I have no idea, because I never rinse it, yet I can discern no difference between my rice and rice cooked by other people that have, presumably, spent the extra 15 minutes rinsing.   If the stickiness is the difference, as suggested in  this thread , then I would suggest that  not  rinsing the rice would make eating rice-based thali a lot less traumatic because the grains would clump together more easily.

Why rinse basmati rice?

In India, the rice is stored in sacks with insecticide, talcum powder  or some kind of fat, which should be washed away before cooking. Rinsing also helps to get rid of extra starch, which would otherwise produce a 'gloopy' consistency. However, not washing rice in the West often does not have the same risks.

Rice is sometimes treated with boric acid so needs rinsing. It also removes excess starch.

In India, rice is treated with boric acid or polished with talcum powder so you need to rinse it.

It doesn't make any difference if you rinse it or not.


Paneer can be used as is.

Sometimes it is fried to extend shelf life.

Cooks will also sometimes fry paneer until it is slightly brown and then put the fried cubes of paneer in hot water for a few minutes.

This makes paneer very soft.

If you do cook paneer, it will not melt, like most other cheese varieties, because it's an acid-set cheese.

Well, I am Indian, so let me tell you this: in traditional North-Indian cooking (and this is where paneer is widely used),

paneer is almost always cooked.

Yes, no problem with not cooking it, but uncooked paneer is not a good dish.

It is more a dry and stingy (for lack of a better word) cheese.

So you see paneer or cottage cheese is best served cooked and well seasoned.

That is where the real magic of cheese lies!

P.S. Google "paneer pakoda".

This is a unique dish which will show you the versatility of the item.

It does not have to be cooked.

It's cheese!

I didnt think paneer melts.

You can boil it and boil it in a curry and it still maintains its shape.

But you can eat it raw! :-)

It could be eaten raw, but is generally heated or cooked.

Personally, I find that pouring piping hot sauce over room-temperature paneer cubes works wonders for delicate sauce-based dishes, while cooking them gives best results and texture in dryer style dishes.

I have only used fresh homemade paneer, so I am not sure if differences in taste or texture with the store-bought stuff would yield different recommendations.

You have to prepare paneer in boiling water.

Remove paneer from refrigerator.

Cut it into cubes.

Place it in boiling water and keep it for 5 minutes.

Uncooked Paneer tastes like putty.

No taste.

Paneer aught to be fried to a golden crust.

Best is to fry the Paneer and let it soak in hot water for some time.

That gives the best Paneer.

It depends on which dish you are using it in.

In some you can fry and put in the sauce, in some you can put after the sauce is ready, in some you might have to marinate it for a few hours before you use it and in some you are required to cook it in the sauce for last few minutes before the dish is ready.

Generally in the last case you need to be careful not to cook it too long else paneer cubes might break or crumble.

There is no black and white reply to that question.

All depends on the dish being cooked or the chef.

Some chef might put paneer before serving in shahee paneer or butter paneer but some might like to cook it in the sauce for last five minutes before serving.

Generally it is cooked for very short time.

The chances that it will be eaten raw is a little less but not impossible.

It is put raw in salads and it is grated on several dishes.

At the same time chances that it will be cooked for long is also less but not impossible.

Like in some dishes it is deep fried or roasted.

Question: I want to just toss it into some indian food I have. Does it need to be cooked first or is it ok if it just warms up a bit when I throw it in the sauce?

Does paneer have to be cooked?

Paneer can be eaten uncooked, but the taste is much better when boiled or slightly browned before use in a dish.

It can be eaten raw but it is better to cook it for taste.

Paneer can be eaten raw but it is normally cooked.

You can fry it or boil it as uncooked it tastes like putty.


The following snippet from Wikipedia doesn't fully answer your question, but it's at least suggestive of what might have happened: the UK standardized the tablespoon as a volume measure using its “eating spoon” meaning while Australia used its “serving spoon” meaning. Before about 1700, people generally brought their own spoons to the table.

Spoons were carried as personal property in much the same way as people today carry wallets, key rings, etc.

From about 1700 the place setting became popular, and with it the "table-spoon," "table-fork," and "table-knife.

" The 18th century witnessed a proliferation of different sorts of spoons, including the tea-spoon, coffee-spoon, dessert-spoon, and soup-spoon.

In the UK, the dessert-spoon and soup-spoon began to displace the table-spoon as the primary implement for eating from a bowl, at which point the name "table-spoon" took on a secondary meaning as a much larger serving spoon.

At the time the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was published, "tablespoon" (which by then was no longer hyphenated) still had two definitions in the UK: the original definition (eating spoon) and the new definition (serving spoon) .

By the time of the second edition, the first definition was relegated to "also, occasionally".

However the term "tablespoon" referring to a serving spoon has been on the decline in the UK since cooking books became common; it has more and more been used the same way as in the USA due to the measurement system outlined below.

Source:

Here's a list of the definition of the tablespoon measure from older recipe books published in different English-speaking countries.

It's a short list, but it does somewhat show that the Australian definition evolved to be generally higher (20ml-25ml) than the UK one (around 18ml), with the South African one on the lower end (12.5ml).

Margaret Powell (British)

1970 Tablespoon = 18 ml Australian and New Zealand

Complete cooking 1973 =

Tablespoon =

25 ml Best of Cooking (Hamlyn)

- Tablespoon, (Australia) =

20 ml Best of Cooking (Hamlyn

) - Tablespoon, (British) = 17,7 ml Best of Cooking (Hamlyn)

- Tablespoon, (America) 14,2 Indian Cooking, Chowhary 1952 -

= Tablespoon = 25 ml Cook and Enjoy, De Villiers 1971 (South Africa) =

Tablespoon =

ml Complete South African Cookbook (South Africa)

1979 Tablespoon =

The Australian Women's weekly 1978 =

20 ml Source: http://whitegranny.blogspot.com/2008/11/beware-of-tablespoon.html

The proliferation of spoons mentioned in the Wikipedia snippet above is still evident in recipe books today.

British recipes occasionally still use a “ dessertspoon ” to mean a 10ml measure.

In Dutch recipes (link to a page in Dutch), a 5ml measure is referred to as a “coffeespoon,” while a “teaspoon” refers to a 3ml measure.

I would basically ignore it.

Domestic recipes are generally never that accurate anyway.

Does the recipe mention level or heaped tablespoons?

Does it say 20 ml for a tablespoon?

For rising agents you may want to be a little more accurate, so how about 1 tablespoon and one teaspoon, or just 4 teaspoons, or even just heap it a little?

I have a few Australian published recipes with dual measurements, and they show tablespoon as 15 ml, so the whole 20 ml thing may not be so universal in Australia in more recent times.

Some examples are: Smoked Loin Roast Beef Stroganoff II

Many Australians are recent immigrants, including 500,000+ from New Zealand and they all use 15 ml tablespoons Another issue being that now all the basic kitchen utensils are made in China, so they get what every one else gets, 15 ml

In the history of the tablespoon it has meant many different sizes in many different cultures, from South Africa with 12.5 ml, to India with 25 ml

I still have the booklet issued to all Australian households by the Government when Australia adopted metric measurements.

The standard adopted by the Australian Government for one tablespoon is 20 ml.

The reason given was that the Australian tablespoon had always been larger than 15 ml, at a fraction under 18 ml, and so 20 ml was the closest

measurement.(It was recognised that in the UK, USA, and NZ, a tablespoon was around 15 ml.)

So now, because most such things in stores are mass-produced overseas for world-wide markets, almost all available tablespoons, at 15 ml, are not of the Australian Metric Standard.

Back in history, a tablespoon was what you might call a serving spoon nowadays, perhaps 20ml-30ml, and teaspoons were more like 7ml-8ml.

In these parts, old style teaspoons are still common.

Somewhere in the 1960s, in an effort to prevent people having problems with medicinal doses, teaspoons were standardised to 5ml and tablespoons to 15ml in the US and Europe.

Australia has standardised the tablespoon to something that reflects the old usage, although my mother's idea of a tablespoon was actually more like 25ml.

It is like those old recipes where a "cup" turns out to be 6 fluid oz ...

A 15mL tablespoon is three 5mL teaspoons.

The Australian tablespoon would just be four instead of three.

Equivalently, that would be one 15mL tablespoon plus one 5mL teaspoon.

In Australia, a tablespoon is defined as four teaspoons, equaling to 20 ml (0.68 US fl oz).

In writing volume-based recipes, an abbreviation like tbsp.

is usually used to refer to a tablespoon, to differentiate it from the smaller teaspoon (tsp.).

Question: In Australia, a tablespoon is defined as 20mL whereas it is 15mL in nearly all other countries.  I'm interested to know where this comes from, and also what other Australian people do about this because the shops here seem to favour the 15mL variety which isn't a whole lot of use for local recipes.

Why is a tablespoon defined as 20mL in Australia?

This is partly because table spoons were different sizes in different countries, and cooking recipies were not very exact in the past. A tablespoon measurement in Australia was initially defined as four 5ml teaspoons, but now most utensils are mass produced abroad and people tend to use the same measurements as in other countries.

It goes back to the standardization of measurements. Every country used a slightly different measurement but now that cutlery is mass produced, they just use 15ml as that is used in most places.

The tablespoon goes back to when cutlery was first being used on tables. Australia took a different standardization to other countries.

Because most things are mass produced in China, 15ml is what you find the most of in Australia.

Just use 4 teaspoons instead of a tablespoon or reduce the quantity slightly. Home recipes are never that exact anyway.


For starters, you'll almost certainly need a food processor for anything you need to mix dry , unless you've also got a heavy duty coffee grinder that you don't mind cleaning inside-out thoroughly and frequently.

Conventional stationary blenders, at least in my experience, are terrible at this task, and immersion blenders aren't designed to be run dry

(in fact, most of the good models come with stern warnings never to do this).

Examples of this are: Nut butters, fresh herb purées, meat purées, and homemade bread crumbs and flours.

Pesto sauce also sounds like a long shot, but maybe there are customized recipes.

I've also never had any luck making cheese sauces, cheese dips, or other cheese preparations in a blender, and haven't had much better luck with my admittedly cheap stick blender.

It's difficult enough with a food processor, but usually with them

it's just a matter of scraping down the sides a few times.

Whenever I've tried to make a manicotti filling, a mayonnaise-based tonnato sauce, a blue cheese dip or a goat cheese mousse with a blender, I've been totally unable to get a vortex going and have had to resort to the food processor to thin it out (after which I might transfer it back to the blender, but I usually don't bother).

It's an issue of viscosity, I think.

Too viscous, and conventional/stick blenders are practically useless.

Now a lot of this might be possible with very high-end equipment.

A Vita-Mix or Blendtec can blend just about anything, and usually comes with a tamper so you can force dry or viscous food down into the blades without risking life and limb.

Also, some very high-end immersion blenders - and when I say "high end", I mean that they are labeled as "power mixers" rather than "immersion blenders" - can be run continuously and possibly even dry.

But I would not want to try this on a consumer-grade stick.

I've also heard that you can do some of these things with a Magic Bullet.

For those not familiar with the product or infomercials, it's basically a really tiny blender that you can pick up and shake around while it's running - ergo, much easier to do dry preparations.

But the effort required is still much higher than that of a food processor.

I think that pretty much covers it.

If you need to purée anything solid or even semi-solid, you'll likely regret not having a food processor.

Anything that you want to pulse, so you're not completely liquifying it like in a blender pretty much requires a food processor.

Which conveniently, happen to be some of the things that Aaronut already mentioned: bread crumbs meat purées (or even a quick grind for making chili)

vegetables (when I'm making large batches of meatloaf, tomato sauce, etc.)

It works rather well for mixing some types of dough (pasta, brioche, pie crusts), which don't come out quite as well

(in my opinion) in a stand mixer.

But for the 'can't live without it' feature of the food processor -- grating stuff up.

Semi-firm cheese (eg, cheddar), carrots, potatoes, etc.

Faster, and less potential injury than breaking out the box grater if you're doing any significant amounts.

You might also give some thought to getting a mini food processor before a full size one.

They are less expensive, of course, but they can also do some things a larger one can't.

Specifically, they are much better at making small batches of things like pesto, chimichurri or chermoula.

In a large food processor, a small batch of those things won't even reach the blades.

I used this model for years with great success.

(Now I bought a high end stick blender that also has a mini-food processor attachment.

This kicks butt but you already have a stick blender.)

None.

No food prep requires a food processor.

It makes a number of things easier–but I haven't owned one (or needed one) in 20 years of home and restaurant cooking.

I am with Bruce on this one.

Food processors are notorius for time-consuming clean up -- often you will exchange the time that you saved on food prep for time at the sink washing the various parts.

Minimalists can get by with quick knife skills, and a good blender .

(Note: to get chunky results from your blender: do the prep in small batches, and remove each amount as soon as it is partially blended -- just a few quick seconds at low speed is sufficient).

I drag my Cuisinart out mostly for grating and shredding.

Coleslaw, for example, requires me to shred most of a cabbage, and two carrots.

It takes just seconds with the food processor.

A hand grater and a mandoline could probably cover a lot of this ground, but it would take longer.

One thing's for sure: your blender isn't going to help you grate cheese or shred cabbage.

None.

The food processor is something to have if you don't have a stick blender, grinder, mandoline, etc.

It's a sporkish machine designed to do the jobs of 5 other tools, badly.

I just recently got rid of my food processor after acquiring a Preethi Food grinder.

With that, a mandoline, an immersion blender, and a good box grater, I find I haven't used my FP in a year.

All that being said, FPs are bizarrely effective for pie crust, quick pizza crust and other low-gluten doughs.

Personally, I prefer to make these by hand-mixing, but if you do a lot of pie, I could see keeping an FP around.

Some recipes for no-egg and/or non-dairy mayonnaise are very easy with a food processor with an emulsifying disk and very unreliable or difficult with other tools.

Question: I've got an immersion blender, a normal blender, and will eventually be getting a stand mixer.  Are there any foods I absolutely have to have a food processor to make, where I can't use one of those?    I know I can do purees and mixing with the stick blender, and supposedly pesto too... but I'm trying to figure out if I need to plan on buying a food processor long-term. Thanks!

What foods *require* a food processor?

Food processors are good for dry ingredients as well as grating and shredding, although some of the same tasks can be performed with a coffee grinder, blender or mandoline. Many people can cope well without a food processor, and they are notorious for being time-consuming to clean.

Food processors are useful for grating, shredding and dry foods but are not essential.

Food processors are useful for dry foods, grating and shredding.

Try getting a mini food processor first to see if you use it.

It makes things easier but it's not essential. They are time-consuming to clean it after.


Dilute heavily by using a very small portion of peppers per dish Allow cooking time for the pepper flavor to permeate the dish before adding more.

It's not like black pepper where the taste spreads instantly.

Remove the seeds and membranes holding them, as this reduces spiciness considerably Cut peppers very finely or puree

so there aren't any large pieces to deliver a shocker in the final dish Wear gloves when handling the peppers If you don't use gloves, wash your hands well before touching your eyes, mouth, or other "sensitive regions.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY,

DO NOT FRY OR SAUTE THE PEPPERS.

No, seriously.

The last one is a mistake you only make once, and should be on a warning label with all store-bought chilis.

The capsaicin somehow becomes volatile when heated enough, and the result is like filling your entire domicile with pepper spray.

I am ashamed to say that the last two cautions are drawn purely from personal experience.

It's not the kind of "hot date" you want to share with an (un)lucky person, believe me.

The hottest part of any chilli is the membrane the holds the seeds (contrary to popular belief that says it's the seeds themselves).

If you remove this, you remove a lot of the heat.

So if you want to try using ghost chilli, I'd suggest A) removing the seeds and membrane and B) chopping finely, then adding a little at a time to your dish, tasting after each addition until it's just right.

I'd also recommend wearing rubber gloves while you prepare the chilli, otherwise you'll blind yourself if you happen to rub your eyes.

Capsaicin stays on your hands for a surprisingly long time.

This applies regardless of what variety of chilli you are using.

I just came back from a local chili festival where I was able to taste the ghost chili for the first time.

My favorite by far was a dark chocolate and toffee brittle with ghost chili.

You can absolutely taste the difference between the ghost chili and habanero.

I was surprised at how different the flavors are, but folks who aren't used to using different chilis may not taste the variation.

Thanks for the advice, as my husband's immediate reaction was "Let's fry some up with eggs tomorrow.

" I thought...let's not.

I also suggest, for anyone wanting to get the heat and flavor from chilis without using what may be a chili that's too hot for them-- chili vinegar.

Just pack a jar (or a bottle if you want a nice display) with as many chilis as you want, top with a mixture of red wine and apple cider vinegar, and pop it in the fridge.

Let it sit for a few weeks before using it.

The flavor matures with age.

Lots of folks will tell you to throw it away after 6 months.

I just keep topping off the vinegar after I use more than a third of the jar and have kept different jars of pickled chilis like this for upwards of 16 months.

When I feel the chilis have been hanging around too long, they become hot sauce.

Use the vinegar in everything from salad dressing to marinades to sauces.

Some people will call "sacrilege" and "cheating", but I find it perfectly acceptable to use part chili part sweet peppers (bell peppers work, but I prefer the long red kapia).

Adjust the ratio depending on your heat preference.

It also works with chili powder and red pepper powder.

Of course, combining this with ElendilTheTall's advice for removing seeds plus membrane will give you more chili before you reach your heat limit, so I'd do it too.

I make hot pepper jam, and the sugar cuts the heat.

I haven't used ghost pepper, but I have used habaneros and scotch bonnet.

The recipe used is in the pectin I buy, although I chop and use the entire peppers, to make the jam hotter.

But, as others say, always use gloves when handling the peppers, and the boiling fumes when making the jam can be hard to take.

It makes a great jam for meat and tomato sandwiches, with a heat that sneaks up and slaps you.

If you use cheese and/or sour cream with your chili, that will counteract the spices in the chili.

Also be sure to have a glass of ice cold milk on hand to drink.

You can use acidic fruit juices like tomato or orange if you cannot have dairy.

The fruit juice also counteracts the spices.

Peppers like that work best with dishes that have plenty of emulsified-in fat in the sauce - anything based on coconut milk, cream, yoghurt ... can be spiced to a pleasant level with a small amount of them.

More watery sauces/broths (that includes "brown" chinese sauces, red tomato sauces and tomato based chili) will come out unpleasantly harsh even if not inedibly spicy (if familiar with Thai food, compare a Gaeng Phed with a Gaeng Pa made from the same amount and type of paste to see which direction things are going).

Question: I may want plant some ghost chili pepper, but I am afraid it will be too hot to eat.  Is there any safe method to prepare/cook ghost chili which will not reproduce insanely hot heat from the throat to stomach?  What about habanero chili pepper? Is it safer to eat?

Is there a "safe" way to cook ghost chili?

You can use very little chilli and balance it with sweet peppers, cheese, sour cream, yoghurt, coconut milk and other foods high in emulsified-in fat. Remove the membrane holding the seeds, chop very finely and wear gloves when preparing the peppers. Add a little at a time and allow the flavour to permeate before adding more. You can also infuse the chilli in vinegar or make chilli jam, which helps to cut the heat.

You can cook with sweet peppers and add a dairy product to reduce the heat.

Use sweet peppers with them to dilute the heat.

Use a dairy product to reduce the heat and remove the seeds and membranes before chopping.

Wear gloves when chopping to protect yourself.


Seitan (aka.

wheat gluten/vital wheat gluten/wheat meat/fu*) can be used to make chik'n nugget type chicken, but not as in breast or thigh, etc.

Recipes abound on the internets.

The gist of using it involves bringing together compositional ingredients (basically the gluten) and flavoring, mixing to develop it into a rubbery mass, forming it into and using as a dough (i.e. making chik'n nugget cutouts).

There are differences between these, but they are all basically the same beast.

There are a few recipes on the Vegan Dad blog for veggie chicken from scratch: Chick'n Burgers (but read the comments also) Chick'n Nuggets

Chicken-flavored vegetarian broth is usually a key ingredient.

You can find a lot of them on Amazon, and sometimes in health food stores.

I usually use Edward and Son's Not Chick'n bouillon cubes, just because they sell them in a store on my block.

There's also a company called eco-cuisine that sells mixes, but I haven't tried them.

For other pre-made options May Wah in NYC supplies meat substitutes to a ton of vegan restaurants, and Gardein has some great veggie chick'n scallopini cutlets you can use for a lot of recipes.

You could try Chinese dry tofu (Dòu gān) as a starting point.

It is nutritionally good and has a 'meatlike' texture. http://www.thetofuboutique.com/?p=454&page=4

For stewing, I love Green Jackfruit -canned or frozen.

Fooled me entirely in a Malaysian curry.

Needs long gentle simmering in flavorful broth/sauce.

Flakes fleshily when forked.

Beancurd sticks are those shrivelled yellow plastic batons in cellaphane packs that cook up first rubbery then slowly disintegrating to desired tenderness.

Forgot it once in a hotpot for 2 hrs and it was chicken soup!

I know someone had already mentioned Chick'n nuggets, but you could also try the Quorn brand "chicken" items.

They have a very similar texture to chicken.

But if you are looking for a veggie burger, then i found this great recipe for Black Bean cakes.

and they are pretty easy and delicious too!

For 'chicken' strips I often use tofu that has been pressed for a really long time

so it has less of a squishy texture, then roll it in flour paprika and salt and flash fry it until it's golden brown and crispy on the outside.

Question: How can I create a homemade product with that has the texture, flavor, and cooking properties of chicken, but is vegetarian (or vegan)?  I'm inspired by the Lightlife, the  Sipz  orange "chicken", and  Veggie Grill  "burgers" but am looking for something more flexible that I can make myself.   I'm not looking for a specific recipe, but rather general techniques and ingredients to use as a starting point.

How can I create a chicken substitute?

You can use seitan, preessed or dry tofu, Chick'n or Quorn brand products or try the recipes on the Vegan Dad blog. Alternatively, you can make veggie burgers using ingredients like black beans.

Try the recipes for Chick'n Nuggets, quorn or veggie burgers with black bean cakes.


I second the recommendation for Lukas Volger's Veggie Burgers Every

Which Way .

I've been working my way through it and have made several of the recipes so far, all of which have been good.

However, I would say that not all of the recipes in the book work well for the grill.

I've been doing everything vegan from the Volger book with mixed results.

Many of the recipes use eggs, but you can do them with just breadcrumbs and water as the binder.

They come out pretty delicate that way and are better in a skillet and then baked, as Volger recommends.

His tofu and chard burgers use some tofu that has been browned then pureed as binder.

This works ok, but the burgers came out quite delicate (but still delicious).

Silken tofu pureed in the food processor gets a thick, creamy texture that could also be used as a binder.

Eggs are by far the most common binder as they may be the best edible binder there is, since they are basically liquid protein, but obviously not vegan.

For delicate burgers, I use this cooking grid on the grill, which works great.

You can find something similar at most kitchen stores.

Another binder option is steamed rice, prepared like you would for sushi.

It gets sticky and makes a great binder, though they'll still be a bit delicate.

I've been making the beet, brown rice and black bean burger recipe from Volger's book.

I add bbq sauce and a paste of pureed rehydrated prunes, similar to the veggie burger at Hillstone/Houston's restaurant

and they come out really great.

They work fine right on the grill, though refrigerating them overnight makes them a little sturdier.

Another option is adding vital wheat gluten and water, aka raw seitan dough.

This is what is done in the Veganomicon black bean burger recipe.

I tried these straight on the grill also and they stayed together perfectly, as well as any commercial veggie burger.

However, they were a little bland and could use some more seasoning.

I haven't tried any of these in burgers, but some common binders in vegan baking are peanut butter, apple sauce and Ener-g egg replacer .

I bet peanut butter would work well in a burger with flavors that work with peanut, like Thai flavors or chipotle.

Falafel-style burgers also don't need any binders, they stick together pretty well and can be grilled, though you may want to use a grill grid or something similar.

Lastly, you can put a cast iron skillet or pizza stone on the grill

- it's common now for grilled pizza and will work for delicate burgers.

There's a lot less fat in most veggie patties compared to most meat patties, so add extra oil to the grill (using an oiled cloth).

You can also freeze vegetable protein based patties first (they stay together longer), and let them cook for long enough before trying to move them.

It may just be your recipe too, it may be too wet (or too dry).

Try a recipe book like Veggie Burgers

Every Which Way for inspiration, which has a huge selection of tasty veggy treats.

How were the burgers shaped?

If formed firmly in a press rather than just scooped out and hand patted, air pockets would be reduced and a nicer edge created.

In a skillet, I pack heavy wet burger mix directly into rings and let the bottom crust form before lifting out ring.

No breaking apart upon flipping.

For grill...trickier: maybe cheat badly and first give a quick zap in the microwave just to set.

Alternatively, freeze and pop onto grill.

I'm sure I already mentioned that in a related question, but this is needed for completeness here: Chickpea or lentil flours work well for binding - they bind like billy-o and are also very rich in protein (nutrition OT or not, using something nutritionally similar as a substitute is always a bonus)

- make sure they patty is cooked long enough for these to properly set, they taste bitter when raw and yolk-y when undercooked... If the patties are still too soft, grilling/pan frying them then finishing them in the oven can improve them a lot.

Make sure all patties have gotten to room temperature on the surface, apply oil to surface of patties and grill's grate, have at 'em.

This technique worked for my vegan naked fatties , and I'm sure it will work for burgers.

That said too much bread/starch will cause sticking.

Add corn or (black) beans to tinker with that if the oil trick doesn't work.

Some creative answers were given.

I have had some good success with adding some cooked oatmeal to mine

(I don't use instant oats, but that might mask the presence of the oats).

If they are still crumbly, you may also want to line your grill with aluminum foil to create the effect of a skillet and allow them to hold in place while cooking.

Flax eggs are the answer you are looking for.

Question: I tried this weekend to make veggie burgers to cook on the grill, with fake ground beef (maybe Gimme Lean or something like that), egg, breadcrumbs, spices, and they totally fell apart.   Is there a secret to home-made veggie burgers that can be cooked on the grill? All grilled veggies instead of fake meat?  Just a proportion issue? Can't be solved?  Thanks!

How can I make home-made veggie burgers stay together so I can grill them?

You can add blended silken tofu, flax eggs, peanut butter, apple sauce and Ener-g egg replacer as a binder, chill or freeze the patties before cooking or use a cooking grid on the grill. Leave the patties to cook enough before trying to move them.

You need a binding agent like tofu, flax eggs, peanut butter or apple sauce. Refrigerate the mixture before cooking.

Try tofu, flax eggs, peanut butter or apple sauce as binders.

Try refrigerating or freezing before grilling.


I alone on the planet seem to have solved the endless problem of cleaning the fine holes of an espresso portafilter, or a Moka express fine steam filter.

None of the liquid or abrasive cleaning apps work, period.

Instead, in the past, one had to use a pin to poke out the minute holes — task so laborious and hopeless than most espresso and Moka machines in the world are hampered by limited filtration.

No longer.

The pin-holes are plugged with coffee fibre, which burns.

Place the filter over a gas flame, either side, for 10 minutes, tapping it with tongs occasionally, and bingo...

A CLEAN FILTER.

All the minute coffee fibre plugs burn or pop out.

Best to use a small coffee pot rack on top of your smallest hob gas burner for this.

And metal tongs.

Will I be knighted for this?

I would let the basket soak in a hot water ( just from the tap ) bath of Cafiza for about 15 minutes to dissolve the coffee oils.

If the problem is scale buildup I would try a soak in a citric acid bath, about 2 tablespoons to 1 liter of water.

Of course a good stiff brush could do the trick too with both the methods described here.

An old toothbrush maybe.

I would also recommend getting on a routine cleaning schedule.

I do a complete espresso machine and grinder cleaning about every 4-5 weeks

and it keeps some of these problems from happening.

Once you get into the habit of doing it and develop your own personal system it is not too hard to keep up, and you learn a lot about the internals of your machines, which can come in handy if you want to mod or need to do repairs.

Here is a pretty good how-to on cleaning the portafilter and basket link

If the clogging is a result of mineral deposits, soak the "basket" in vinegar for a few hours.

Then use a wooden toothpick to gently dislodge any deposits.

There are special detergents for dissolving the coffee oils that are usually used for backflushing portafilter machines.

Search for Coffee Clean or Puly Caff

The Chad Evans method worked.

I had no idea

how much coffee sludge

I had

that was visible at the bottom of the portofilter.

I thought this was a small rubber ring or something!

It easily crumbled out with a gentle touch with a dental tool.

I did not want to damage the finish

so I chickened out after 4 minutes of cooking over a flame.

This successfully fully opened one passage of the portofilter.

I am soaking the whole thing over night in espresso cleaner to see if that will free up the other side, but I have a feeling I will be cooking it again to free up the other side.

I am at this moment using hot vinegar and after soaking in that for a while, adding baking soda, getting lots of coffee residue out!

Question: Can anyone recommend a method for cleaning the clogged holes in a "Basket" of an espresso machine Portafilter? I had this problem with both DeLonghi and Saeco home espresso machines.  For example, in  Care of Saeco Pressurized Portafilters  (regarding  Saeco Manually Pressurized Portafilter ) they caution against using metal pins.   Any suggestions of methods or cleaning materials?

Cleaning a clogged espresso machine Portafilter

You can soak it in hot vinegar for a while and then add soda, or try a bath of 2 Tbs citiric acid to 1 litre of water, or use hot water and Cafiza for 15 minutes. A wooden toothpick will help to dislodge deposits remaining. Alternatively, you can place the filter basket over a gas flame and tap it with tongs occasionally.

You can place the filter over a gas flame, soak it in hot water or vinegar.

Place the filter over a gas flame to clean it up.

Soak the basket in hot water or vinegar. Use a wooden toothpick to dislodge the deposits.