I have brewed coffee with my tea steeper in a pinch.

If you are not grinding your coffee you should either buy a percolator grind, or if using a drip grind, you will want to use a filter.

I have a used a melitta #2 coffee filters in my steeper.

They require a little finagling, but I can get it in there.

A side note, after doing this you either need to treat the steeper with vinegar (or other acid) or wash it really well.

Otherwise all of your delicious (and expensive)

loose tea will be tainted with coffee flavor.

Both comments above provided good information and confirmation.

Brewing Suggestions

I use a reusable coffee filter with that exact mesh, so it'd certainly work (for best results, don't grind your beans too fine).

I'd probably start with the usual french press brewing time, and adjust based on taste.

People don't think of "steeping" coffee, but, just as with tea, your goal is to get out the most flavour, without crossing that line where the brew starts to get bitter.

– Satanicpuppy

Nov 27 at 14:00 Technique Used by Others If you search the Amazon reviews for coffee, you'll find plenty of people...

amazon.com/gp/community-content-search/results/… – derobert Nov 28 at 0:26

I did this before posting the question, but I was looking for most definitive/authoritative results.

My Findings

This technique does indeed work

but I found it not as flavorful as other methods (specifically, french press which is my usual method).

I used four minutes of brewing time as I do with the french press.

One odd issue

I did encounter

was that the aroma was not as pleasant like it would be for other methods.

Not sure what would cause this to occur.

Anyway, this appears to be another method to brewing coffee.

Although, if other options are available, I wouldn't bother with the tea basket.

Not mentioned here, but tea steepers are excellent for making cold brew coffee.

Simply fill the tea container with medium to coarse grind beans, immerse with water, and leave overnight; in the morning you have a nice smooth cup of coffee.

Typically the mixture is rather rich (almost espresso-like), so you can actually dilute it like americano and store the rest in a jar for later

(it will actually "mature" in storage in taste even better, bringing out a fruit-like quality over a few days.)

There's a whole group of people who are ONLY willing to make coffee using a mesh filter basket (a.k.a. "gold tone" filter basket).

As long as the mesh is fine enough, you'll be fine.

That said, you will likely notice more sediment (or actual grounds, if your mesh is too porous) in the bottom of your cup.

Again, some people actually prefer that.

I’m continually on the road and even when good coffee is hard to find, hot water is available.

I make my coffee with one of these every day & love it!

If the coffee is too finely ground, it will leave sediment in the bottom of the cup but I prefer a little “sludge” in my last sip.

In a pinch, add a little more hot water to the last sludgy swallow and...you have a little more coffee!

Yes...we do this all the time.

I use a steel tea filter with a fine mesh.

There is a small amount of ground at the bottom of the cup but the flavour is good.

I leave it to steep in the cup for 3-4 mins.

I prefer this to the french press which I am forever breaking and is a hassle to clean properly.

This is cheap and easy to clean up.

I have a separate filter for tea!

Question: Is it possible to brew a good cup of coffee by steeping freshly ground coffee in a tea basket? Would the time amount be the same as for a french press (4 minutes)? It seems like it would technically work, but I couldn't find any personal accounts of its effectiveness. Has anyone tried this before?   Similar to this question  but I'm curious about using the tea basket specifically along with determining the correct steeping variable values.

Can a loose leaf tea basket be used for steeping/brewing coffee?

Tea steepers and mesh filter baskets are good for making coffee, especially cold brew, and some people exclusively use a mesh basket for this purpose. For best results, don't grind your beans too fine.

Overall, using a tea steeper for preparing coffee is considered fine. Many people actually prefer it. A fine mesh filter or the addition of a filter paper are recommended. However, there are other, preferable methods for preparing coffee.

It is quite possible to brew coffee using a tea steeper. One with a fine mesh is best, failing that use a coffee filter paper inside.

If better options for preparing coffee are available, do not use a tea steeper.


You can refrigerate all kinds of yeast-bread dough.

Right after kneading, before the dough has had a chance to rise, oil the dough lightly, cover with plastic wrap or use a ziplock, and place in the refrigerator.

As the dough cools in the refrigerator the action of the yeast will slow down until the dough has reached refrigeration temperature.

At that point the yeast is still working, but at a snail's pace.

So, during the first few hours in the fridge it may require a punch down or two, as there may still be enough warmth in the dough for the yeast to show active signs of life.

After the dough is completely cool, it may not need anything from you, but still check it at least every 12 hours or so - it may need another punch down.

If at any point it grows to close to double it's original size, go ahead and punch it down.

Most doughs will be fine if babysat like this for up to 3 or 4 days.

When you're ready to bake, punch down the dough again (if necessary), shape, and allow to rise as if it had never taken its little nap in the refrigerator.

Of course this rise is going to take longer than non-refrigerated dough as it reaches room temperature, but it should be ready to bake when it looks like a non-refrigerated dough of the same type would look when it's ready to bake.

Bake as usual.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the basic rules I've set out, but I've never had a problem doing this with any yeast-bread dough.

It is possible to cold proof for a week or even longer in the refrigerator.

I have even frozen dough for a month and then thawed it for a day in the fridge and still had ample spring during baking.

Yeast will not die at cold temperatures, it just slows down.

That being said the higher the protein and the more sugar the longer the yeast will be able to eat.

Do not use tons of yeast if you want to keep the dough cold proofing for a week.

The small amount of yeast will continue to eat just fine until all sugars are gone.

Cold proof immediately after kneading and forming the initial dough.

High hydration dough works significantly better.

If not using a ziplock bag then place in a bowl with plastic wrap tightly over the top.

If oxygen is exposed to the dough the areas exposed will become hard and cake together not allowing for spring and uniform bread rising.

Allow dough to proof for 35 minutes once removed from the fridge.

Lightly shape long proofed dough so that it does not de-gas the bread.

(DO NOT KNEAD ONCE OUT OF THE FRIDGE).

There may be exceptions but those are for experienced bread bakers.

I have always used high quality 1 quart zip lock bags (ones with zipper).

Fill with dough and let sit in fridge for 24 hours.

Then freeze any you will not use in the next week.

They will blow up like little festive dough Balloons, once in a great while a zipper will break and need to be repacked.

Otherwise I find the pressure keeps the yeast in check and stores quite nicely.

Typically I make a big batch of dough on Sundays for the week using this method.

A dough will last approximately three days in the refrigerator; however, it is best to use it within 48 hours.

This is the best way to refrigerate your dough.

After the dough is kneaded, place in a lightly oiled, large mixing bowl.

Cover tightly with plastic wrap and place in refrigerator.

I’ve refrigerated and frozen bread dough many times.

All of the answers you got were excellent, but if I could add a suggestion: Once you’ve kneaded the dough and packed it (for this trick, you need a zipper bag), get as much air out of the bag as you can, seal it tightly, and place it in an ice water bath for a few minutes before putting it in the fridge.

That will retard the rise quickly so you don’t get a big balloon of dough!

I always just stick the dough in the fridge after it rises and take out a bit at a time

- I have found it’s totally fine for up to 5 days -

after that it has not such a nice additional smell and flavour.

Question: If I've made some dough and want to bake it later, how long can I store it in the refrigerator? Do I need to do anything special to make that work out? Are there any types of bread it won't work well for?

How long can I keep bread dough in the refrigerator?

All kinds of dough, especially high hidration, can be refrigerated immediately after kneading, and will last for a few days. The cold temperature will not kill the yeast, but rather just slow it down. Cover with plastic wrap or place in a ziplock bag, remove as much air as possible and place in the fridge. When ready to use, lightly shape the dough without punching down or allowing the gas to escape.

It is quite possible to refrigerate bread dough and use it 3 to 5 days later. It should be put in an air-tight container for refrigerating. There are differences of opinion on the ways to work the dough after refrigerating. Some people advocate kneading while others do not.

Bread dough can be kept in the fridge without problems for 3 to 5 days.

There are certain things that need to be done before putting the dough in the fridge and after taking it out, such as closing in a zipper bag, allowing to rise before baking and kneading/not kneading after refrigerating.


I've never used ricotta or any soft cheese on my lasagne - I wonder if it is an Italian American convention.

I use bechamel sauce, mozarella and parmesan, and it works very well.

Use any fresh cheese like fior di latte, bocconcini, or fresh mozzarella with a little bit of fresh parmesan.

It depends on the region, some people use non cheese sauces like béchamel and even some use orange cheddar.

If you like a fresh and subtle tasting lasagna without the gritty texture of ricotta, a nice mix of fior di latte and fresh mozzarella along with thin fresh lasagna strips make a lovely dish.

For one nondairy option you can use a puree of cooked garbanzo beans (chickpeas), lemon juice, salt, a bit of cornstarch, and garlic if desired.

I like this for lasagnas as it doesn't overpower the dish with a cheesy flavor and lets the vegetable flavors really come through.

Another option is to soak cashews for a few hours, then puree them with lemon juice and salt, adding water as needed.

Cream Cheese is a great substitute.

I have a friend with similar distaste to cottage cheese

so we just use cream cheese, cheddar and mozzarella.

I agree with the texture issue.

I had luck this week using real - not light - sour cream instead of ricotta.

I combined provolone, mozzarella and the sour cream togther before adding the additional ingredients.

I read through all the answers because I was out of my two favorites for lasagna -- ricotta and cauliflower.

People interested in a great alternative to ricotta and cottage cheese, might try steamed, pureed cauliflower with some cream cheese stirred in while hot.

I like this as "faux mashed potatoes" but it works well in lasagna, especially with slides of zucchini and yellow squash which are a good substitute for a noodle layer, or sauteed portabella, or broiled/grilled slices of eggplant.

Bon appetit!

Also try sieving or blending the cottage cheese first, if you don't like the texture but don't mind its subtle flavour.

It changes the texture totally, and my husband will happily eat it in pasta dishes, even though he doesn't like the texture usually.

I have been experimenting with a mushroom, egg and crouton mix instead of ricotta still polishing the recipe

but I like it.

I have even made a breakfast lasagna with scrambled eggs, hashbrowns, salsa, and sausage, and cheese of course.

I make a white sauce using the mozzarella cheese.

Since I use non-fat milk to make the sauce, it cuts down on calories.

This has always worked very well in my lasagna recipe.

Crumbled firm tofu with some seasonings is a commonly used layer in vegan lasagna recipes.

My mother mixes the cottage cheese into the meat & sauce.

I HATE cottage cheese

but it's not bad this way

bc you dont get a thick layer.

She mixes it while the meat sauce is still on the stove

so it melts for the most part.

I don't eat lasagna out bc

I can't stand the layer of ricotta or cottage cheese.

I substitute small curd cottage cheese for the ricotta cheese and i mash any large curds...

i seriously dislike ricotta and cottage cheese and this way

(whey)

i don't notice it being in there.

Also, I use 1/2 amount in recipe and this camouflages the ingredient as well.

Hope this suggestion helps.

Question: I really cannot take the texture of ricotta or cottage cheese in food, to the point where I will gag when it is in my mouth.   However, most of the recipes I have seen for lasagna involve using one or the other. Is there something I can use as a replacement that will do the same sort of cheese thing that they do, without the weird texture?

What can I use as a replacement for ricotta or cottage cheese in a lasagna?

You can use bechamel sauce, mozarella and parmesan, or substitute with another fresh cheese like fior di latte or bocconcini. Cream cheese, sour cream or cottage cheese can also be good, or nondairy options include cooked garbanzo beans, soaked and pureed cashews with lemon juice or crumbled firm tofu. To hide the texture of ricotta, it can be mixed with the meat or sieved/blended.

Numerous options are available to people who dislike ricotta in their lasagna. These include other cheeses as well as non-dairy options like tofu and cauliflower. However, there are also ways to improve the texture if you wish to use ricotta, including sieving it or adding it to the meat sauce. Ricotta is not an ingredient in Italian lasagna and may be an Italian American convention.

There are a large number of alternatives to ricotta in lasagna, including non-dairy options such as cauliflower and tofu, as well as different types of cheese.

Using ricotta in lasagna may be an Italian American convention as it is not used in other countries.

To avoid texture issues with ricotta, it can be sieved before using or added to the meat sauce so it melts.


Melting the butter and mixing it with milk or other liquid ingredients is almost always done as part of the muffin method, where a muffin, cake or quick bread batter is formed by mixing dry ingredients together, wet ingredients together, and then quickly combining the two.

In practice, the butter is not going to mix with the milk.

It is going to mostly float on top, and stay liquid.

You will have sufficient time to combine the wet and dry mixes, and create the batter.

Putting them together just makes it easier to form the final batter.

It would work just as well if you made a dry mix, then added the remaining liquid ingredients (usually milk, eggs, and maybe some flavoring), and then the melted butter.

When you stir the dry and wet mixes together, the butter is going to become fairly uniformly mixed into the batter.

Note that many quick breads are made with oil, which is treated the exact same way, even though melting is not an issue.

The only reason to use butter is because the flavor is desired for whatever item is being made.

There are actually some recipes I've found that specifically call for adding melted butter to ice cold milk or buttermilk, intentionally creating little butter globs.

For example, in this America's Test Kitchen recipe for "Lighter Chicken and Dumplings" they do this.

FOR THE DUMPLINGS Whisk flour, baking soda, sugar, and salt in large bowl.

Combine buttermilk and melted butter in medium bowl, stirring until butter forms small clumps; whisk in egg white.

Add buttermilk mixture to dry ingredients and stir with rubber spatula until just incorporated and batter pulls away from sides of bowl.

If you watch the video , the reasoning is explained (starting at 3:20): These little clumps of butter, once they are in the dough, they are going to melt in the dumplings and form little bursts of steam that are going to help the dumplings rise.

Now, while this may be an unusual method, the results will be similar in other applications.

Because butter is partially water, when that water heats up, it turns into steam, which expands and creates airy space in the dough.

With the dumplings, the effect is a nice, light dumpling that floats (as you would hope).

In general, however, as rumtscho pointed out in a comment, all ingredients should be room temperature unless otherwise instructed, so even after melting your butter, you will need to allow it to cool and allow your eggs and milk to come to room temperature.

Doing so will prevent butter from forming clumps in recipes when they are unwanted.

Egg yolk or citric acid are emulisifying agents readily available and oftentimes used in cooking.

I haven't experimented with these.

However, you may add a small (around 1 teaspoon per 200g smelted butter) amount of flour to the liquid butter, this prevents the butter from stagnating in large globules.

Add the flour to the butter and mix in promptly to avoid clumping of flour.

Then, add the Butter(+flour)-mixture to the liquid batter.

Be careful with adding too much flour as it may reduce the butter's temperature below stagnation before mixing it into the liquid batter.

Source: Experience and engineering degree in physics with minor in polymer technology (which includes knowledge on emulsions).

You can whisk the eggs, add melted butter, whisk again to emulsify, then add the milk, it will all be emulsified.

When I make pancakes, which has the same problem of mixing eggs, (butter)milk, and melted butter - what I usually do is separate the eggs, mix the butter with the yolks, and mix the whites with the milk - and only then whisk everything together.

The emulsifiers in the egg yolk help keep everything mixed together, rather than the butter just solidifying and separating out.

Question: I've seen a lot of recipes, particularly for things like quick breads, that call for combining melted butter with milk and eggs before mixing with dry ingredients.  Of course, if the milk and eggs are cool the melted butter will immediately solidify. Is there a technique for this that recipe writers are assuming I know? Or is it just intended that there be little droplets of solid butter suspended in the batter or dough?

Adding melted butter to cold milk in baking

Some recipes intentionally create these little butter globs to improve the texture, but this effect can be avoided by whisking the eggs (or yolks) with the butter first or adding a little flour to the liquid butter before adding it.

When the recipe does not call for butter globules to be formed, you can avoid this happening by mixing a small amount of flour with the butter or whisking the butter with eggs before adding other ingredients.

Some recipes actually call for globules of butter to be formed.

There are various methods for preventing butter globules forming, including adding flour to the butter and whisking with eggs.


Honeycomb can be made with honey or molasses but the flavor will not be the same.

There isn't a US equivalent - we have molasses, but it's darker.

You can substitute corn syrup in recipes where it isn't the principal ingredient, but here that would not work.

That being said, my local grocery store has a British food section which carries golden syrup.

You probably don't have to substitute, you just need to find it in your local grocer.

I use Golden Syrup, here in the US, all the time; I find it in the regular baking section, but I have seen it, like the previous answer, in the international section.

I'm sure it's the same in the UK, but here it now comes in easy-pour plastic bottles (just in case you were looking for it in different packaging), rather than only in tins like I used to buy (centuries ago) at the British NAAFI in Rheindahlen, Germany.

I have actually substituted it for corn syrup (my nephew is allergic to corn) w/

great results (you must stir constantly when making peanut brittle because it burns faster, but it still makes great brittle, & it makes a slightly softer truffle, but not enough that most would notice), so I'd be interested to hear what happened if you still cannot find Golden Syrup in your area and did use corn syrup...

perhaps you'd have to add some cane sugar, to keep it from being too stiff (ahem)?

I'm not a food chemist, obviously , but I do like to experiment with food & was happily surprised by my results.

My other answer would be "Amazon.

They have everything."

make your own golden syrup by boiling sugar and water and add a little lemon juice to stop it crystalizing there are a few videos on youtube to show you how its made well easy hope

this helps another brit now living in the usa

I had never heard of golden syrup and found these when I googled it.

You can order it online, for example from King Arthur .

And you can make your own as in this video .

I find it odd when people say there's no equivalent in the USA, I beg to differ .

We have Golden Eagle Brand golden syrup since 1928 that's made right here by hand to this day.

It's made in Fayette, Alabama

and it's far superior to Lyle's.

You can order it online

it's $3 a pint!!

You can order it in the 16 oz or all the way up.

I usually purchase the 32 oz for $6.

If you haven't tried it please do!!

Check out their Facebook page GOLDEN EAGLE SYRUP.

In the U.S.A. you can buy Lyles Golden Syrup (11.46 ounce) in the International Foods section at Publix.

just make your own...

its simple and for 1/4 price

Question: Having recently moved from UK to US, when making honeycomb, what should I use as a replacement for Golden Syrup?

What is the US equivalent of Golden Syrup (UK)?

Some Americans are more familiar with honeycomb, corn syrup or molasses, but Golden Syrup is available online or in the international food section of many grocery stores.

There are a number of products than can replace golden syrup in recipes. However, in the USA , this is not necessary as the British and American version are available in stores and online. An alternative is to make to make your own golden syrup using sugar, water and lemon juice.

Honey or molasses can be used to replace golden syrup in recipes but they may change the taste.

Golden syrup, both the British and the US version, is available in the USA so there is no need to substitute.

You can make your own golden syrup with sugar, water and lemon juice.


As far as foods that double as dishes, off the top of my head

I could only thing of a bread bowl for soup.

You could certainly drink coffee out of a bread bowl, but I don't think it will be enjoyable.

A bit of googling leads me to: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680504/a-cookie-coffee-cup-thats-easy-to-recycle-just-eat-it

The trick behind this is that it's a cookie lined with "special icing sugar" that works as a semi-waterproof barrier and an insulator.

It will dissolve over a long enough time, though, and will sweeten the coffee as it sits in the cup.

I can't find any information on when it hits stores, but it's a Lavazza product.

As long as you're content with single-use edible containers, a hard vegetable which can be eaten raw would serve.

For example, you could drill a carrot to make a shot glass; if you get a big carrot then it would hold an espresso.

The flavour imparted might not be so great, though: it would probably be better for vodka or other beverages which are known to mix well with carrot juice, because even if you dry the inside after drilling juice will continue to leach into it.

Repeated use would suffer from problems of mould, as well as from the inner surface becoming cooked.

As a child, if i was every lucky, i used to have hot chocolate and croissants on saturday mornings.

One thing i would do is tear one of the arms off the croissant, dip it into the hot chocolate, and use it as a tiny drinking horn.

A quarter of

a century later, we live in an age when humanity has the technology to deep - fry croissants .

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to put these two ideas together: make some sort of cup out of croissant dough, probably bake it a bit to give it some shape, then deep-fry

it.

It won't be the same texture as a doughnut.

It will, however, be topologically equivalent to a doughnut - a jam doughnut!

I'd attack this by making a cup shaped pastry (or some kind of hard cookie dough in a cup shape) and then sealing the inside of it with high temperature chocolate .

You could then serve coffee in it as long as it isn't too hot to melt the chocolate.

Note that regular chocolate melts at too low a temperature, you'd need to shop around for the right product.

This is probably as close as you are going to get, at least that I know of. http://www.eater.com/2015/2/25/8106849/kfc-edible-coffee-cups-cookie-cups-buckets-fried-chicken

Question: One joking characterization of a  topologist  is someone who can't tell their donut from their coffee mug. As a novelty, I would very much like a food I can drink coffee out of. Does this exist? If not, what could I do to make it? It doesn't have to be anything like a donut, but if it is, that would be excellent.

Closest thing to a donut I can drink coffee out of

You could try drinking coffee out of a bread bowl or hard vegetable, but this is unlikely to be enjoyable. It could also be possible to deep fry a cup-shaped pastry or seal it with high temperature chocolate.

A bread bowl, raw vegetable, fried croissant and chocolate-lined pastry are possible edible options for use as a coffee mug.


Bisquick is a dry product that contains partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil and leavening.

You can get recipe ideas from their website .

With the Bisquick, some powdered eggs and powdered milk, you could create all kinds of fun mixes for camping.

I just take a little vegetable oil in a small Nalgene bottle that seals tight.

For a week with 9 people I wouldn't even use up 200ml, and I presume you're doing a shorter trip with less people, so the weight is not an issue.

You can then add it to what you're cooking, use it to fry things, etc.

(I also take cornmeal to fry pizza or English muffins.)

Using regular oil and regular recipes makes a lot more sense than trying to use something unusual.

You can consider using lard, shortening, or ghee.

They are not dry, but they are more easy to store and carry and melt less easily than butter.

In case fat content is a concern, here is a quick list: Vegetable oils have about 15 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of oil.

Vegetable shortening has about 20 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of shortening.

Lard has about 40 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of lard.

Butter has about 50 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of butter.

Ghee has about 60 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of ghee.

Shortening, lard, and ghee all respond differently to heat, so it helps if you're familiar with how they respond when you're using them to cook.

Ghee also has a distinct aroma, so if you or those who would eat the food are not familiar with ghee, you should try it out first before deciding on it.

In addition to this, I am trying to work through your specific use-case.

You can still actually use oil or butter.

The advantage is that fats don't spoil easily.

I'm not sure what or how you intend to cook, but you can consider the following techniques:

If you have chunks of food, like chopped vegetables, pieces of chicken, etc.

that you are sure to cook, you can just coat the food in butter, salt, and seasoning, which you can then wrap in foil and store in a container.

It will be easy enough to carry without spillage.

When you need to cook it, just toss them into the cooking vessel, and cook till they slightly sear.

Then, you can add water and let it simmer till done.

If you have things like ground beef or similar food, again you can put butter, salt, and seasoning in the mixture, and make them into small dollops (like meatballs), and you're good to go.

If you can provide more details about what kind of dry foods you are trying to pack, then I am glad to suggest other (possibly more suitable) solutions.

there is a powdered cocoa butter product called mycryo.

it's intended for frying, but it might work for your intended purposes.

There is a thing called powdered shortening or you can get powdered butter.

They are just add water products that you can put in a recipe like that and it will work fine.

I agree with just making the brownies ahead of time and putting them in zip lock bags.

If you really want something you can make during camping, you could try the 3-2-1 cake recipe.

Take a box of angel food cake and mix it with a box of another cake mix (chocolate, vanilla, spice, lemon, etc.).

Then take 3 TBSP of the mixture, mix with 2 TBSP liquid (can be anything), and microwave for 1 minute.

I'm sure you can adjust it to cook over a fire somehow.

I've made this using chocolate cake.

To me it still tastes like angel food cake and not very chocolatey.

Maybe using any other flavor would be good.

You could try it with a brownie mixture.

I might work.

It will won't give you the brownie texture (it is airy like angel food cake), but it might impart some brownie qualities.

You could make your own powder oil by adding some maltodextrin to the oil you want to powderize.

About 4 gram of maltodextrin to 10 grams of oil.

Question: I would like to know if there is a dry food product available that is a good substitute for vegetable oil or butter.  I want to package dry mixes that I can take camping with me where hopefully all I would need is to add water to cook it.

I want to substitute liquid oil with a dry product

You can use Bisquick or other commercial or homemade shortening, cocoa butter or oil together with other powdered ingredients to make recipes when camping, but it may be better to use oil, lard, shortening or ghee and these do not spoil as easily as butter.

There are various options for replacing oil when camping. These include Bisquick, powdered cocoa butter and powdered shortening. However, regular oil and fats, such as lard, shortening or ghee, can be used. Finally, you can powderize your own oil by adding maltodextrin.

Bisquick is a product that can replace butter or oil for camping.

Regular butter or oil can be used for camping.

An alternative could be lard, shortening or ghee as fats do not spoil easily.

Powdered cocoa butter or powdered shortening could be used.

ou can make your own oil powder by adding maltodextrin to oil.


People choose to eat vegetarian diets for a number of reasons.

Not only might the flavor offend your guest, but it may cause them to be physically ill.

You can substitute vegetable stock or broth for the meat products you are accustomed to using.

Mushrooms lend a meaty flavor to dishes they are used in and could potentially be used to replace your meat.

I would suggest cooking them separately first to draw out the moisture, then adding them to the beans near the end of the cooking process so they soak up some of the flavors and have a chance to marry.

Remember mushrooms are little culinary sponges.

They will take flavors and run with them, adding their own earthy notes in the process.

Search for vegetarian rice and beans dishes to get an idea of the possibilities here.

From an etiquette standpoint, you may want to avoid the temptation to apologize to your other guests for having to make a veggie substitution as that would be a quick ticket towards alienating your vegetarian pal.

I only mention that because some people don't think about things like that

and I have a few friends who are on restrictive diets.

They are sometimes embarrassed when people go out of their way to make menu changes for them.

Another alternative altogether is to find a way to prepare two versions of the dish.

Meaning, you could use meat as you are accustomed to but leave a portion of the food vegetarian.

When it's practical

I like this option a lot.

It just comes with the downside of increased cleanup and stovetop logistics issues.

The answer to this is yes: avoid meat-based broth.

From a dietary perspective, meat is unsettling to the stomach of a long-time vegetarian, and quite possibly repulsive, and the fact that it's broth (and thus, perhaps, "not really meat") is not the kind of call you want to make on behalf of someone who defines their own dietary restriction.

I have had personal experience with this from two angles: first, I once cooked for a vegetarian friend and had the foresight to ask this question of her, and she thanked me for it, because she had had to refuse food in the past because someone figured "it's just broth; that's okay, right?"

It was not okay.

And second, my family now includes several long-time vegetarians who say that meat is, at best, weird, and sometimes nauseating just to smell.

Occasionally I do make food that ought to taste like meat, which I try to mock up with particularly savory spices.

A small amount of hot spicy Hungarian paprika is surprisingly effective at conveying the main aspect of meat's taste, at least in a soup where the main flavor is supposed to be something else.

I imagine it would work with a beans and rice dish.

I would agree with Preston Fitzgerald's suggestion of mushrooms, too; even better, if you can use a mushroom broth, since despite optimistic claims, mushrooms themselves are not a good substitute for the tactile experience of meat.

Add a little extra saltiness to enhance these flavors (but not to the point of making the dish actually very salty, of course, and

since you mention dietary restrictions, that's another one to watch for).

Edit:

An update on the subject of the meat smell: there now exists a substitute meat product called "Beyond Meat", which makes hamburgers that I, as a relatively recent pescatarian, find to taste almost exactly like actual hamburgers.

They also smell pretty similar, though not the same.

My wife, who has the aforementioned meat revulsion, says that the smell is "borderline", though fortunately on the edible side of the border.

Many people avoid meat on moral grounds; many others avoid certain types of meat on religious grounds.

You could risk really offending someone.

If you want to add that meaty background taste you can try soy sauce, but sparingly, and maybe add less salt.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25202/Bloke Down The Pub

Vegetarians do not eat meat or things made from meat.

Meat stock is made from meat.

Do not put it in food for vegetarians.

End of.

While some vegetarians wouldn't mind, most would so you are better off avoiding any meat.

There are probably vegetarian stock options which you could use instead, I'd recommend using those to be sure.

If it were me I would look to add depth of flavor in vegetarian acceptable ways.

Caramelization of sugars is a good way and can be achieved by sauteeing or roasting vegetable, and perhaps frying the rice before cooking.

Question: Yes, cuban rice and beans is usually cooked with meat... or at the very least with the broth of it. If I'm cooking for a vegetarian I don't know, should I avoid the meat broth? Is there anything vegetarian that would give an equivalent flavour?

Should I avoid meat broth when cooking for vegetarians?

Vegetarians do not eat meat or meat products, so you should substitute vegetable stock and try to add some of the missing depth with something like soy sauce, sauteed or roasted vegetables, fried rice or mushrooms. You could also try preparing two versions of the dish with and without meat.

Vegetarians do not eat meat for many reasons and serving them a dish containing meat products may offend them or make them sick. However, there are many alternatives to meat products that give the same result. When in doubt, make two versions one for vegetarians and one for carnivores.

It is not difficult to find alternatives to meat broth when cooking for vegetarians. Some options are vegatable broth, soy sauce and mushrooms. Ideas can be got from vegetarian recipes.

Make two versions of the dish: one for vegetarians and one for carnivores.

Vegetarians do not eat meat for many reasons. Choose suitable alternatives to avoid offending a friend or making them sick.


Microwaving meat to defrost it tends to start cooking it at the edges and generally make it go weird and rubbery

(scientific terms I know).

So yes, it is better to defrost 'naturally' in the fridge, in terms of quality.

Freezing damages meat by bursting the cell walls as their water expands.

This affects the texture more than the flavour.

The damage is done when freezing, not cooking from frozen, so the latter should not effect taste.

The main issue with cooking from frozen is that if the item is big (say, a roasting joint), the outside can be overdone by the time the middle gets up to a safe temperature.

Defrosting in the fridge is typically better than thawing in the microwave ...

but not if the item is still frozen by the time you want to cook it.

(eg, large whole poultry may take more than a day to thaw)

The issue is that you want to minimize the potential to cook the item being defrosted, so you don't want to thaw it using too hot of a thawing method.

You also don't want to leave many foods for too long in the food 'danger zone'

(40°F to 140°F / 4°C to 60°C)

for too long.

If the item to be thawed is wrapped in plastic (or will fit in a zip-top bag (make sure to remove most of the air))

we can use methods such as running cold water baths (place food item in a container, add something to weight it down, place container in water, run a trickle of cold water into the container).

The increased thermal mass of the water vs. air allows us to thaw the item more quickly than we'd get from puttng it in the fridge.

Also note that in cases like steak, it may be better to cook from frozen , assuming care was taken when freezing it.

I prefer meat thawed in the fridge over the course of a couple of days to microwave defrosting.

As previously said, the microwave cooks the edges, but it also seems to release juices and fat from the meat, hence making the meat a little tougher in my opinion, including ground meat.

In addition, if you are thawing ground meat for patties, they will NOT bind well after microwave thawing due to the melted fat throughout the meat.

If I am in a rush, I will shorten the defrost in microwave, and then refrigerate in order for the ground meat to set or become firm (coagulate, what a great word) for easier handling for making patties.

Absolutely.

Most microwaves defrost unevenly.

On the other hand, there are a couple faster ways to defrost other than letting it sit on the counter.

Further, it is in fact even better to let meat defrost more quickly, because meat left out will allow bacteria to grow, which is a further concern.

One tip is to let a frozen food rest in warm water while sealed in a waterproof bag of some sort.

This will significantly decrease defrosting time.

The old wives' tale was based off the presumption that letting it sit out is the only way to defrost evenly.

It does hold some grain of truth, as quickly defrosting an item runs a chance of the inside not defrosting all the way.

However, due to the distribution of temperature, if you let a frozen item sit in water (while in a waterproof bag), the temperature will eventually even out, defrosting it all the way to the core.

Defrosting in the microwave just doesn't work properly.

Ice hardly absorbs any microwaves, compared to liquid water.

So microwaving heats the already unfrozen parts while the frozen parts only get affected indirectly.

So it doesn't speed up things very much, costs lots of energy and spoils the meat as mentioned by other answers.

But this is an effect of the microwave more then the speed.

If you want to speed up defrosting, put the meat in a plastic bag and put it in warm water.

I have never heard of any negative effect taste or quality wise.

It's probably even more hygienic, because those little critters that live in your meat until you cook it will start to reproduce once, they are unfrozen.

So you want to have the time during which the meat is only half frozen as short as possible.

Question: I was taught the idea that if you let frozen meat thaw out over night then it is better for the end product that defrosting it in the microwave? Does this have merit or is it just an old wives tale?  Also does cooking frozen meat effect the taste or will it just take longer to cook?

Is a longer defrost better than microwave defrosting?

The microvwave often defrosts meat unevenly, giving it a rubbery texture and cooking the edges while the middle stays frozen. It is better to defrost in the freezer over a couple of days or put it in a waterproof bag and let it rest in warm water.

Defrosting meat in warm water or in the fridge are the preferred options. Moreover, defrosting in the microwave does not lead to even defrosting and mat affect the meat texture.

Defrosting meat in the frisge or in warm water is the best method and does not affect the taste.

Microwave defrosting does not give a satisfactory result and it may affect the texture of the meat.


Mint likes oil.

And it likes water.

And it likes alcohol.

Like most complex flavors, mint is complicated.

The greener, vegetal notes are going to be from compounds like chlorophyll, and will be alcohol and very weakly water soluble.

The astringent, sharper notes are going to from compounds like menthol, which are oil soluble.

In general, the faster flavors, the ones that hit fast and fade faster, are water soluble, while the ones that linger are oil soluble.

Mint flavor is sold both as an extract, in a base of water or alcohol, and as an essential oil, in a base of... oil.

As for cooking, I would skip the tomatoes entirely, and do a mint and parsley pesto with walnuts and olive oil.

Why?

I like mint.

Mint is closely related to Basil and can be treated in the same way.

So for a tomato sauce you will probably get the b est results by adding bruised mint leaves towards the end of the process.

Too much cooking will boil off the more subtle aromatic flavours and you will end up with something a bit harsh and medical.

It may even be best to add ripped mint leaves to the warm sauce just before serving as this will give you the subtle and fresh flavours you want without it ending up like tomato toothpaste.

I would cook the sauce and toss in the mint at the last minute, right before you use the sauce.

I don't think you want to heat/cook the mint, as it might result in too much of a vegetal note.

Of course, more mint and/or more surface area (chopped) would produce more flavor...depends on your use of the sauce.

Depends on what you are planning to serve the sauce with, you could consider a mint jelly which is mildly sweetened and would not overwhelm the tomato flavor , it would save you from sweetening the tomatoe sauce.

If you don't have that particular item right now , go with mint leaves directly into the sauce when it starts to simmer, leave it there for a couple of minutes (2 to 5 minutes) but make sure you can remove them easily (cheese clothe, a small mint branch with leaves attached), the longer the mint simmers with the sauce, the stronger mint taste you'll get.

I would not put it at the last minute as your sauce might overcook as you try to transfert mint flavor to it.

It depends on what you mean by "tomato based mint sauce."

The tomato sauce that is one of the classical French mother sauces contains ingredients that probably don't pair well with mint (bay, thyme, and pork come to mind).

I assume that you intend your "sauce" to be more of a simple Italian tomato sauce or perhaps a salsa?

I would definitely recommend using your mint without cooking it - I would chop it and mix it with your other ingredients immediately prior to service to take full advantage of its magnificent aroma.

If the tomato part of your dream sauce needs cooking, keep your cooking time to a minimum to make sure your tomatoes don't lose their bright acidic taste - throw-in the mint at the end.

I don't think that mint would taste as good with long-cooked tomatoes (they'd be too sweet)

and I really don't think your fresh mint would cook well into your tomatoes.

Ultimately, I think that your fresh mint would go best with uncooked tomatoes.

For me at least, the taste of tomato and mint immediately brings to mind tabbouleh salad.

Take away all the parsley and bulgur wheat

(they certainly aren't very sauce-y) and the remaining ingredients really form the basis of a salsa fresca - sort of a minty pico de gallo.

Going with that idea, I'd recommend a salsa made with crushed or chopped tomatoes, minced garlic, very finely chopped onion or shallot, lemon juice, olive oil, your fresh mint, maybe some fresh basil, salt and pepper -

maybe

even some very fine

lemon zest?

Run it through a food-processor

if you want it more smooth - personally, I'd leave it a little chunky so that the different ingredients surprise the palate and the aroma of the fresh mint doesn't get lost.

I think this concoction would taste great on bruschetta or crostini, on fish, maybe with poached eggs and toast?

That's the best recommendation I can make w/o knowing more about the plans you have for your tomato-mint sauce.

Question: I want to create a tomato based mint sauce. I have access to fresh mint. What is the best way or the best time while cooking the sauce to incorporate the mint? Are the flavor components in mint water or fat soluble?

What is the best way to infuse mint into a tomato sauce?

Mint is closely related to basil and can be treated in the same way, adding ripped or bruised leaves just before serving to prevent the subtle flavours from being lost or changed.

Mint should definitely be added to a tomato sauce at the end of cooking, maybe even just before serving.


Two things cause bags to fill with air during low temp cooking.

The expansion of air that already exists in a product (typical in vegetable cookery), and gas that results in bacterial growth (a problem with some cuts of meat).

For vegetable cookery weighting helps, but this is almost always an issue unless you compress a really hard vacuum with a commercial machine.

For most home cooks, the best solution is to use zip lock bags, monitor, and then release the air and reseal as it builds up.

For meat cookery, try pre-searing for 20 - 30 seconds per side...or dipping in boiling water to kill off any surface bacteria prior to bagging and cooking low temp.

Also the sous vide supreme comes with a rack to aid in keeping items submerged.

That can help too.

Have you tried placing some kind of weight on them?

maybe plates, cooling rack, colander or some sorts

I've had this problem and after trying various things, I've found that this works pretty well:

I make sure the SVS is filled to the max line

I cut my own bags from a roll, and make them rather longer than is really necessary - about the internal height if the SVS When vacuuming, make sure the contents are kept at one end of the bag

Then, I place the bags vertically in the SVS, using the stand to hold them in place.

By doing this, as the bag starts to float, the top of the bag his the inside of the lid of the SVS and stops the bag rising further - keeping the contents below the water level

Was cooking kebobs wih veggies

and they kept floating.

Tried several methods including trying to wedge a chopstick in the clip to keep bag submerged and using whiskey stones.

Best result was using a set of thongs to both keep bag secure and to keep the food submerged.

In a few Chefsteps videos, they place a metal butter knife in the bottom of the sous vide bag.

This may not be ideal for some cooking situations, but it works.

My husband came up with a food safe solution for this problem - silicone coated magnets.

He had some manufactured and has used them successfully in his own sous vide cooking.

Available on Amazon .

The easiest solution is to shove something heavy in the bag with your vegetables before you pack it... like a knife... or weight the bottom of the bags by attaching something heavy to the outside.

From an Anova guide on the subject: When getting all the air out and preventing the bags from moving is not enough, we look to the next level of options to get those floating bags in check.

Weigh the bags down.

We can achieve this using both internal and external weighting systems.

Alternately, you can use these same weights externally, instead clipping their sealed pouches to the bottom of your cooking bag with a small bulldog or alligator clip!

This is especially helpful when you are batch cooking and plan to transfer your packages directly from the water bath to the refrigerator or freezer (with appropriate chilling in between, of course!).

Other options include "burping" the bag (works better with ziploc-style bags) or putting a heavy weight on top of them to keep them down, usually something heavy, with holes that won't itself be a victim of floating.

A vegetable steamer basket (the flower style ones) works well for this.

There are a nice collection of ideas in the article,

so it's a good read if the ones I've chosen to mention don't work for you.

Two hours into the cooking time I take the floating bag out and cut it accross one corner and revac and reseal carefully across the corner.

This works a treat but don't get any liquid in your vac machine.

Question: I have had a few items float a little in my sous vide supreme machine. Mostly veggies. How do I keep them from floating up and stay submerged?

How to keep bags from floating in a sous vide supreme

This can come from surface bacteria on meat, which can be reduced by pre-searing for 20-30 seconds per side. Alternatively, you can release air as it builds up and reseal the bag, or weigh the bag down with something heavy like a metal butter knife.

Weighing bags down is considered the easiest way of preventing them floating when cooking sous vide. An alternative method is removing air from the bag and resealing. The sous vide supreme comes with its own device for solving the floating problem. Finally silicone magnets may be a help.

Removing air from the bags when they start floating can solve the floating problem when cooking sous vide.

Most people recommend a heavy weight either in or on the bag.

The sous vide supreme comes with a special rack for keeping bags submerged.


The only motivation I'm aware of for peeling button mushrooms other than wanting a very clean, white appearance is to remove dirt, dust, grit, compost, etc.

from the surface without the trouble of brushing or washing.

It's arguably quicker to peel mushrooms than to brush them (though not in my experience) and many people don't like washing them because they absorb a little bit of the water, which is counter-productive when e.g. sauteing.

However, peeling them means you are wasting some of your ingredients, and even a very dirty button mushroom is trivial to clean by washing or brushing.

I rarely find it necessary to clean supermarket mushrooms at all as they tend to be very clean on the shelf.

If they're dusty, a gentle pat with a clean, damp sponge does the trick.

I would advise against peeling unless you're going for a specific visual presentation that requires it.

See also: How to clean mushrooms?

I don't peel mine, or didn't until I found a "working woman" cookbook which used the stems & peels to make mushroom stock for soup the day after making grilled mushrooms.

Aside from doing that, I've never done it.

You need to be doing a lot of mushrooms to make this cost effective and I don't think mushrooms freeze well, so that's out.

It's my understanding that peeling mushrooms is like washing meat, advice previously given as a default and no longer viewd that way.

Washing meat is considered dangerous now.

I think that the mushroom thing is optional at this point, mostly I do NOT, unless I plan to make soup the next day!

I only peel my wild mushrooms if they say to peel them in the field guide, otherwise I leave them as is.

My mother is from England, growing up they used to forage for mushrooms.

She was told to always peel them.

I found on line the probable reason; there is a folklore that if you could peel the cap - it wasn't poisonous.

BUT that is a myth!

She still wants me to peel mushrooms, but since any mushrooms I use come from the supermarket :) , I decline, and she oftens picks them out of salads.

If the mushrooms are cooked I can usually sneak them by her.

She is now 97

I`m sure it might be a good idea if eating raw mushrooms.

But I`m also sure that if cooking, all the germs and bad stuff will be killed and your mushrooms will be perfect and safe to eat.

I peel mine, because they’re grown in manure!

As a health professional, I have an aversion to eating fecal matter, not to mention anything else that might be living in the manure, such as the nematodes mentioned below.

Question: I've peeled my button mushrooms since cooking with a friend once, who did it, but I've never understood why, if at all, it's advisable.  Searching shows a fairly wide range of opinions but I see no reason attached to either side.  Is it purely aesthetic?

Why should or shouldn't I peel button mushrooms?

Peeling mushrooms might be quicker than brushing them and preferable to washing due to unwanted absorption of the water, but many people do not consider it necessary to do this. Some mushroom varieties and growing methods make the skin more risky, but supermarket mushrooms are usually quite clean when purchased.

Most shop bought mushrooms do not need peeling unless you are eating them raw. Wild mushrooms, and mushrooms grown in manure may need peeling. However, peeling mushrooms is generally considered an option rather than a necessity.

Peeling mushrooms is quicker than washing them and may be a good idea if you are eating them raw, they are wild mushrooms or they are grown in manure.

It is not considered necessary to peel supermarket mushrooms or mushrooms you are going to cook. Peeling may be necessary for a certain aesthetic. Peeling is considered an option.


The problem is that a lot of substitutions are based on what you have on hand.

For instance, I have both liquid smoke and smoked paprika, both of which would add that smoky quality that people associate with cumin.

We also need to consider what other ingredients are going into the dish.

I have spice blends that contain cumin in varying degrees (garam masala, taco seasoning, a rub for ribs), and if they contain other ingredients that I might be using anyway, I'd consider replacing all of them with the spice blend.

Chili powder and things like chili or taco spice mixes will normally have cumin as an ingredient.

Of course they have other ingredients as well, but they might work well in a lentil soup.

In India, when we make lentils we finish it by tempering with cumin or black mustard seeds.

Infact these two are used interchangeably with many other dishes and gives the right kind of flavour required for any such dishes.

Incase

you don't have even that on hand, flavour your dish with othe spices like chilli powder and garam masala and it should turn out just fine.

Many spice mixes contains cumin powder so if you could get your hand on any of the mixed spice powders, it should do the trick.

Coriander might give you the right general sort of flavor, but I think it's darker and heavier than cumin

(I'm struggling to describe this well, obviously).

Perhaps mixed with paprika to brighten it up a little?

If you've got some, give it a sniff and see; it might work for the desperation, if nothing else.

My first instinct was curry powder and perhaps some garam masala.

Not really like cumin, but also a classic combination with lentils and onions - an indian twist, so to speak.

(Amp up the heat with chili and top with a dollop of yoghurt, if you like.)

Question: I've just run out of cumin and rather than go to the shops for more I wonder what I could substitute for cumin?  I'm making a lentil soup, which calls for sweating onions and the finishing the onions with cumin before adding the stock.  What can I use instead for variety or desperation?

What can I use as a replacement for cumin?

This depends on the spices you have and the recipe you will be following. Many spice mixes contain cumin, so consider adding a compatible one like garam masala, taco seasoning or spice rubs rather than the other spices in the recipe. You can also try coriander, but the flavour is quite distinct.

The choice of a substitute for cumin depends on availability and the dish being prepared. Many spice mixes contain cumin so they could be a good choice. Another option is coriander.

Finding a substitute for cumin depends what you have available and what ingredients are going into the dish.

Many spice mixes contain cumin and therefore could be a good substitute.


If you microwave bananas for a few minutes in a bowl covered with plastic wrap and then dump everything into fine mesh strainer to sit for about 15 minutes, you will get a bunch of juice out.

Freezing the bananas before microwaving them works even better.

This technique was used in a (really good) banana bread recipe from Cooks Illustrated several years ago.

Once the juice is extracted, it is reduced, allowing more real bananas in the bread without making it too wet.

I've made banana juice a number of times.

And I'm referring to a relatively clear liquid extracted from the bananas.

It's a pretty straightforward process that produces a high yield.

The water in bananas is chemically bound to the starch in bananas and this liquid can be released by breaking down the starch using an enzyme called amylase that is present in bananas.

Here's how I do it: (Yield 1 liter of juice) Take 2 kilograms of bananas, peel and puree them.

Pour the puree into a vacuum bag and seal.

Alternatively, you can put them in a VERY securely tied plastic bag with the air pressed out or you can put the puree into a canning jar.

Next place this in a pot of water at around 150 Fahrenheit/65.5 Celcius and let sit for 5 hours.

This allows the naturally occurring amylase in the banana to fully breakdown the starch in the banana and release the liquid.

Strain the liquid through a nut milk bag (my preferred method), or you can use several layers of cheesecloth, but a nice nut milk bag makes this so much easier.

Squeeze (and massage to get the highest yield)

the juice through the bag.

You should get about a liter (generally a bit more than that) of fresh, delicious banana juice!

The people of North West Tanzania and Southern Uganda have been making alcohol from banana juice for years.

They blend ripe bananas with grass and mix with there feet or hands until the enzymes break down to get clear juice.

hmm...

I imagine that a method similar to getting liquid to make jellies could work for this.

Freezing would break the cell walls and allow more liquid out, then you could blend it to a lovely mush and then put it into a jelly-bag or cheese-cloth and suspend it over a bowl in the fridge for a day or two and you should get some liquid out :)

You can make banana juice by using enzymatic breakdown of the starches.

It is not a difficult process, and can be accomplished in the home kitchen, but would require some ingredients and techniques that you may not have or be familiar with.

The details can be found here: https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/banana-juice--11

While this produces excellent results, you could speed the process greatly and achieve a higher yield if you have access to a food safe centrifuge.

Question: I have looked up how to make Banana juice because I wondered if it was possible. It turns out that it is.  I read that it is best to use a blender for this.  Wouldn't I just end up with a banana puree if I use a blender to try to juice it?

How to make Banana juice

Bananas can be frozen to break the cell walls or microwaved for a few minutes before being strained through a fine mesh strainer or cheesecloth, allowing the juice to drain out.

Modern methods of extracting banana juice involve a number of processes and machine. The traditional method is to use grass and your feet.

Microwaving and freezing bananas seem to be the modern options for extracting banana juice, followed by processing and straining.

The traditional method is to mix bananas with grass and mash using your feet until the enzymes brak down.


The simple answer is: no, heat is heat, it should taste the same.

Reality is slightly more complicated than that.

In reality, a cook learns how to cook well by instinct with his stove.

When he changes to a stove with a different behavior, his instinct is suddenly wrong, but he probably does not know it.

So he cooks as usual.

But because the stove works differently, he should have changed the setting and time he uses.

So, a stove change alone can cause food to taste worse - not because the stove is worse, but because the cook's skill is lacking.

Also, an electric stove (especially an old fashioned one with iron hobs) cannot do some things a gas stove can, such as a very quick change in temperature.

If the food absolutely requires this, it can turn out worse on the electric stove.

But a good cook should be able to work around that.

So, the more complete statement should be: There is no difference in taste between cooking on electric or gas stove, if the cook knows how to compensate for the difference in heating speed .

There is no difference in food taste when cooking using gas or electric.

Gas burns pretty cleanly

so is not going to leave a flavor residue you could detect.

Cooking over flame as in a barbecue or a pot over a campfire does change the flavor because of the smoke, that's the only case I can think of where the heat source can change the flavor of the food.

No Only when smokes is added by the cooking method does it effect the taste.

The only real reason why gas is preferred over conventional stoves is that you can control the temperature of a gas stove much more accurately.

Gas mark 1, 2 and are a much more universally accepted temperature gauge

then what is the case with conventional stoves that may all be different in the temperatures they give at there various marks.

I think there might be a maybe?

I find that there is of course differences in responsiveness between gas and electric.

Gas is much quicker to respond in temperature, either raising it or lowering it.

Electric is much less responsive.

I'll take a gas range over an electric one any day of the week.

But here is my maybe...

if you were to actually cook food directly with the actual heat of a gas or electric stove, there might be a difference.

I would say that the heat from gas has more water vapor.

If you put a clear heat proof glass container a little above a gas flame you will see some vapor on it.

I would say this is lacking in electric, it is a dry heat.

I will frequently cook/reheat both corn and flour tortillas or charring veggies, directly on the gas hob and also directly on those old fashioned electric coils.

I would say that there is a difference, as the electric coil heated tortilla has less moisture and a bit more crispy.

And ones heated on gas is warm, but not as crispy.

With the coils, you can place food directly on the coiled surface, which will cook differently.

The gas flame needs that little bit of space between it and foods you cooking, or else it is extinguished.

Or perhaps it's just me, but this difference only exists when you cook food directly with the heat from either gas or electric.

If you compare a high quality electrical stove vs. a gas stove - from my personal experience, there is no difference.

But, if you're talking about cheap electrical stoves, those heat and cool very slowly and might cause food to over\under cook.

Personally, I always prefer the good old gas stove.

Question: Does it make any difference in taste when you use Gas stove and Electric Stove?AFAIK, it doesn't but some people I know (amateur cooks) say that it does make a difference in taste.   Enlighten me on this one please?

Does using Electric stove vs Gas stove have any difference in food taste?

While there is a difference in responsiveness that could affect the taste, the cook should compensate for this when preparing the food and the actual methods of heating should make no difference. A difference will only be tasted if smoke is added with the cooking method.

Technically there is no difference in taste caused by cooking on electric or gas. However, a difference may result from the cook's skills and experience with one method rather than the other. Moreover, as gas is more responsive, this could affect the finall taste of the food.

There is no difference in taste when cooking on gas or electricity. Taste only changes when smoke is added. This is especially true for good quality cookers.

There may be a difference depending on the cook's experience, i.e. if they are used to using one form of cooking and not the other.

Mayeb there is a difference because gas is more responsive, heating up and cooling down quicker. Cheap electric stoves are very slow and this may cause taste issues.


You really can't.

The best you can do is put some long stainless utensils in the oil to help dissipate heat, but it's still not going to be fast, just a little faster.

I think it would be reasonably safe to use something like an immersion wort chiller as used by homebrewers.

The safety points to be aware of that spring to mind are:

Make sure there is no way the cooling water can drip into your hot oil - test all pipe connections first

The cooling water exiting the chiller will be very hot - make sure it can drain away safely The exit pipe of the chiller will also be very hot - take appropriate precautions when handling It is possible that the water in the chiller could actually boil.

You probably don't want that to happen.

Make sure the flow of water through the chiller is fast enough to prevent this.

It's probably best to have the cooling water flowing before immersing the chiller in the hot oil.

You can purchase these from your local homebrew store, or purchase the copper pipe and suitable fittings from your local hardware store and

build it yourself if you are so inclined .

Please note, I have not tried this out.

If you want to try it, I would recommend the following in addition to the above safety notes:

Attach a thermometer to the chiller outlet.

Never let the temperature rise above 80 deg C Start with the maximum possible flow of water through the chiller before immersing the chiller.

Immerse the chiller

gradually - one coil at a time - checking the chiller outlet temperature all the time Hold the chiller by the water inlet and not the water outlet, for obvious reasons!

If you can, route your output hot water to the nearest bathtub.

Enjoy a nice hot bath afterwards while you enjoy your deep-fried treats ;-)

The more surface, and the more cold thermal mass trying to keep that surface at a given temperature the more rapid the cooling - so if you pour the oil into a wide baking or frying pan sat on a concrete or steel slab (or even a cast iron hobplate),or propped up with good or even forced (fan -

but i'd want a fan near hot oil

like i'd want to immerse the bottom of that baking sheet in water....NOT) air circulation to the underside

, it WILL cool more rapidly.

Alternatively, pouring it between two containers (or scooping up and pouring from a height) repeatedly will expose a large and changing surface area of the liquid to air, also giving you cooling.

All these assume you feel safe handling and pouring the hot oil, and that your deep fryer design allows safely doing so.

The oil container has some excess capacity to accommodate the volume of the food you were cooking.

You can use that and introduce something cold to the fryer.

This can either be a heat-safe solid, like sturdy pieces of metal, or just excess cooking oil.

Either one can be chilled thoroughly while you're cooking, then added to the fryer to accelerate cooling.

This won't instantly reduce the temperature to a safe level, but it will help.

If you are really in a hurry and have freezer space to spare, you could repeatedly replace the cold metal until the temperature has dropped as much as you want.

The metal, of course, will become quite hot initially.

Be careful there.

Make sure whatever you're using stays as dry as possible: water will cause bubbling, just like it does when you're frying, and if you're deliberately raising the hot oil level to near the rim of the container, a spill could result.

You'd have to let your oil cool down to 212 degrees F (100 degrees C) first, but you could use the following technique to get it the rest of the way down to room temperature after that: When I want to quickly cool down stock (for food safety reasons), one of the tricks I often use is to get a container larger than the one containing the hot liquid, and fill it with ice water.

This technique would also work for oil, but in this case you need to be very careful to make sure that the container the oil is in isn't hot enough to cause the water to spatter into the oil ( hot oil and water are extraordinarily dangerous together ), isn't anywhere near full, and that the shape and size of the containers is such that the hot container will not have any chance of tipping over as the ice melts (you don't want the oil container tipping over and spilling hot oil into the water).

One way to do this is to put just water in the larger container and then put ice in the area surrounding the sides of the oil container.

The water will help conduct the heat even from the underside of the oil container into the ice.

Question: I need to be able to cool down cooking oil quickly after using it in a countertop deep fryer- how can I do that safely?

How can I cool down cooking oil after using it in a deep fryer?

You will not be able to speed it up a lot, but adding cold thermal mass and increasing the surface area will help. Try pouring it into a wide baking or frying pan and setting it on a concrete or steel slab.

To reduce the temperature of oil faster you can place cold stainless steel utensils in the oil to dissipate the heat faster or pour the oil into a wider shallower container.

You can't reduce the temperature faster.

You can place cold stainless steel utensils in the oil to dissipate the heat faster or pour the oil into a wider shallower container.


Carrots get sweeter if they are left in the garden till after the ground freezes (generally under mulch to facilitate winter digging.)

Then again, I personally consider cooking carrots a good way to ruin them, as I find them far better raw.

There are many recipes for glazed carrots Google - glazed carrot recipes .

Generally using brown sugar or honey and butter, sometimes adding additional flavorings such as orange, bourbon or herbs.

There are varieties of carrots that have been bred for extra sugar, but you won't find them in your typical grocery store.

Most of the grocery store carrots have been bred for color, shape, production and storage.

In grocery stores that sell loose carrots, you can sometimes find 'winter carrots'.

They're quite large (nearly 2" / 5cm across).

These are carrots that have been left in the ground over the winter -- they are typically much sweeter than carrots that are taken out of the ground in warmer weather.

I have seen larger carrots at the latin markets and restaurant supply stores near me, but I've never done side-by-side taste tests to confirm if these are sweeter than standard grocery store carrots.

There are also seed companies (eg, Baker Creek , Burpee , Johnny's , Territorial , etc.) who sell varieties bred specifically for their sugar content, much like what's being done with corn.

If you grow your own, you can seek these out, or you can check to see if any of the farmer's markets near you carry them.

Much like heirloom tomatoes, they're often a bit stranger in color and shape than what you get in the grocery stores -- they might be short and stubby, or have a dramatic taper that isn't useful to make 'baby carrots')

While some carrot varieties are naturally woody in taste most carrot varieties have a natural sweetness to them, especially when they are well grown and fresh.

While I'm not on the organic band-wagon this is one case where I've found that buying organic does generally get you a better product as the carrots are grown better and allowed to mature, most cheap store carrots are picked before the sugars develop.

The best carrots I ever had were fresh from someone's garden, they were amazingly sweet, almost sugary.

I haven't had much luck growing them myself - in dense clay soil

they end up looking like nuclear mutants -

but I will try again as the result was amazing.

I find that there actually are (or maybe I got lucky as my sample size has been small...

).Where

I live there is a type of carrot that is usually sold massive in size

, it is around 2"-3" in diameter at the stem-end of the carrot

and it stays fat and thick all the way to the tip (usually about a foot long).

Some of the larger grocery stores carry them but the asian markets all have them too.

(In the normal grocery stores they are nearer to the things like bok-choy than to the rest of the carrots.

Growing up, larger carrots were always bitter and woody but the few carrots I have tried from whatever this variety is have always been abnormally sweet and very tender.

Question: These days I am trying to get my wife to eat her carrots. Usually we are just boiling them, and adding some spices and butter.  But she swears that she used to eat sweet carrots, but she can't say how long ago. Supposedly I should know the difference, but I don't recall such a thing. It must be that my sense of taste is weak.  In any case, is there a sweet variety of carrots? Or is there a common recipe to sweeten them up?

Is there such a thing as "sweet" carrots?

Some varieties of carrot are naturally sweeter than others, but in general they will be sweeter if left to mature in the ground, especially after the first frost. Organic carrots are more often allowed to mature like this and may be sweeter, or you can find speciality stores that sell sweeter varieties harvested or as seeds. There are also recipes for glazed carrots that are artificially sweetened.

Some varieties of carrot have been specially bred to be sweeter. However, normal carrots left in the ground longer or home grown and organic carrots tend to be sweeter that store-bought carrots. To sweeten ordinary carrots up use a recipe like glazed carrots.

Carrots that stay in the grounf longer and home grown and organic carrots tend to be sweeter.

There are many recipes for glazed carrots which are quite sweet.

Some varieties of carrot have been bred to be sweeter.


In my experience, it doesn't really save money, but it's still worth it because it's fresh and better than store-bought at the same price.

For me, 1kg of all purpose flour yields 1.6kg of bread (as two loaves).

Each 13x4x4"

(Pullman) loaf weighs about 800 grams after cooling and yields between 24-30 slices depending on thickness.

The cost per loaf is under $1.00, and includes all ingredients, tax, and electric for mixing/baking/slicing.

I've made a few hundred loaves based on variations of this formula: % grams cost cals fat protein sugar sodiumall purpose flour 100

500 0.417 1833 0 50 17 0 instant yeast 0.8 4 0.067 16 0 0 0 3 nonfat dry milk 4 20 0.203 70 0 7 10 109 canola oil

10 50 0.072 429 50 0 0 0

sugar

4 20 0.019 75 0 0 20 0 salt 2 10 0.006 0 0 0 0 3933 water 56 280 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 dough total 176.8 884 $0.783 2422 50 57 47 4045 To be clear, I no longer use a bread machine.

My answer focused more on how much bread can be made with 1kg flour.

The Pullman loaf pan was $25, and the electric knife was $20.

So for 300 loaves, that adds 15 cents per loaf.

The mixer and oven are used for other things besides bread, so I don't really consider them in the overall cost per loaf.

It would depend greatly on the recipe used.

However, for example, this recipe from Jamie Oliver for "Basic Bread" yields 1 loaf of bread and utilizes 1kg of flour.

Additionally if you are comparing for economic reasons, you'd also need to take into account the cost for yeast, salt and any enrichments (egg, sugar, etc as specified by recipe).

The average loaf of store bought bread weighs either 16oz or 24oz here in the US which would be 453.6g or 680.4g respectively.

I know that until 2008 bread in the UK was required by law to be sold in specified units so they were commonly sold in 400g and 800g sizes.

Most of my bread books specify that on average bread dough loses 10-20% of weight during baking/cooling.

So some "back of napkin" math gives us 1kg flour =

g 625ml H20 =

625g 21-30g yeast =

(average) 2 tbsp sugar =

30g 1 tbsp salt = 15g Total dough weight = 1695

g 1695 - 169.5 = 1525.5g (10% loss during cooking)

1695 -339

= 1356g (20% loss during cooking)

(1525.5 +

1356)/2 = 1440.75g average cooked weight.

So we can estimate that the average weight of a cooked loaf of bread from this recipe would be 1.44kg.

Basic bread requires flour, water, salt and yeast (nothing more).

The salt and yeast contribution to the weight is negligible.

Water, in my experience, shall be - before cooking - about 70% in weight with respect to flour; the actual quantity depends mainly on the kind of flour, but 70% is a reasonable average estimate.

Loss of total weight during cooking is due to water evaporation and can be estimated between 10% and 20%; the bread will anyway continue to loose water even after it reaches room temperature, but this is slow.

In conclusion I would say, for example:

1 kg of flour + 0.7 kg of water (I use kg, I am Italian) =

1.7 kg dough 1.7 - 1.7*15% kg =

> 1.445 kg

In Italy flour can be found for sale at less than 0.50 €/kg,yeast (for 1 kg of flour) 0.15 €, water, salt, electric power: negligible cost; Total 0.65 €

/1.445 kg =

0.45 €/kg =

0.45 €

/kg; In comparison 1 kg of bought basic bread is around 2.5 to 4 €/kg.

If you do not take into account oven, etc and the work needed , in Italy it is very convenient to make it by yourself!

flour/water : 100:50 - 100:65 as you like the dough -> 1kg flour

: 1,5kg -1,65kg dough.

You have 10% loss of weight by backing.

Thats all.

Here in the UK, I can use 1/3rd of a 1.5kg bag of strong white bread flour (95p/3=32p) and 1 sachet of dried yeast at 11p to make a loaf for 43p, and that gives me a loaf equivalent to this 800g supermarket sandwich loaf at £1.00.

Tastes better, too.

So that's better than double, in my experience.

For me,1 kilo will yield 2 kilograms of bread,,,ex.for 1 kilo I put 700 grams of water,plus the ingredients, here is my example; Marikina bread 1 kgsalt 75 gsugar 155 gshortening 85 gyeast

80gimprover 25geggs

2 fl ounceskimmed milk 15 g water 700 g

Question: I wish to calculate how economic a breadmaker is compared to store bought bread. Does anyone know how many kilos of bread can be made from one kilogram of flour?  To make it simple, let's say generic white bread and basic simple white bread.

How many kilos of bread can I produce with one kilo of flour?

The price of flour, yeast, salt and other ingredients for a plain white loaf should be below $1.00, and this becomes more affordable when you use a breadmaker and save time and energy. Even at the same price, it may be worth using a breadmaker as a homemade loaf will be better and fresher than a supermarket loaf.

The quantity of bread made from 1kg of flour varies greatly depending on the recipe used. Moreover, the cost of a homemade loaf varies too. Nevertheless, in Italy and the UK it is definitely cheaper than shop bread.

The cost of homemade bread depends on many other things than just the flour. However, in Italy and the UK at least, it is definitely cheaper than shop bread.

1kg of flour gives very different results in terms of bread weight, depending on the recipe used.


Lard is the fat of choice in many "el cheapo" canned refried beans, and could be what you are missing.

My first guess would be: more salt than you think.

This is probably the main "secret" for most processed foods.

Ortega Traditional Refried Beans have 560 mg of sodium per serving (that's a serving of 131 g, making 3.5 servings in a standard can).

A 1/4 tsp of table salt has 590 mg.

If you're making the equivalent of 1 can of beans, you would have to put in a little over 3/4 tsp of salt.

If you're making a biggish pot, starting with 1 kg of dry beans (makes about 2 kg cooked), that would be about 4 tsp (9.5 g) of salt.

Yeah, it's a lot.

You can think about whether you really want to do that.

Other suggestions I have heard: sugar and cinnamon. Haven't tried it myself, though.

You're missing fat in the equation.

The previous member suggests bacon

but I don't know how you feel about the smoke flavor but fat will do you good.

Try mashing the beans with butter and bacon drippings along with just a enough cumin so you can "tell" it's different but you can't taste the cumin.

You might be missing epazote .

IMHO an absolute must in any Mexican bean dishes.

Do not overdo it though.

Lard.

It's all you need.

There is usually a tub of it in the same part of the store as Crisco (vegetable shortening).

Question: I see plenty of advice out there on how to make canned pinto beans taste delicious, but does anyone know how to recreate that  cheapo refrito  taste? I've tried countless combinations of freshly cooked pinto beans, salt, garlic, chili powder, onions...  They always seem to be missing some crucial element, and I don't mean the sitting-in-a-can-forever-flavor!

How to make homemade pinto beans taste like canned refried beans?

Cheap canned refried beans often use lard, so you could mash the beans with this or with butter and bacon drippings. You may not be adding enough salt, or the missing flavour could be cumin, epazote, sugar or cinnamon.

There a number of ingredients that could be mssing when attempting to recreate "el cheapo" beans. These include fat, sugar, salt and epazote.

Fat is probably missing from the "el cheapo" recipe.

Sugar or salt may be added to get the desired taste.


Probably not.

Carrots naturally (or due to selective breeding) come in an extremely wide variety of colors from white to yellow to orange to red/pink to purple.

It's likely that you were simply looking at two different varieties, one of which was more pale than the other.

click image for source Even the color being only "skin deep" isn't necessarily a sign of it being a dye as many carrots have white cores, or at least cores that are more white than their surrounding flesh.

Which you can see an example of below:

It's probably not anything so sinister.

Even typical orange carrots do vary somewhat in hue.

And as with many other vegetables, "heirloom" varieties of carrot have started to make a bit of a comeback in the US.

As you can see here there's a wide variation in color among these heirloom versions; they can range from very pale, almost white to brilliant orange to a deep purple.

The other answers did not mention the packaging.

Carrots that come in bags (like baby carrots) often have an orange grid pattern painted on the bag.

This makes the carrots look significantly more orange than their non-bagged counterparts.

Carrots come in lots of colors from pure white, yellow, orange up to and even including deep purple.

They are not dyed.

Carrots are not dyed, but they are orange because of a substance ( Carotene C 40 H x ) in them that is actually named after carrots.

Many other orange foods get their orange color from Carotene.

In response to your question, carrots are not dyed.

(Unless of course you are talking about the mini frosting carrots on carrot cakes)

Regular carrots, however contain a natural pigment known as carotene which is also found in humans to some degree.

This carotene is naturally orange leading to the color of carrots.

Technically speaking, if you ingest enough carrots, or any other food such as tomatoes rich in beta-carotene, you will take on a slight orange color in a condition called Carotenemia.

Question: I was in the supermarket and I noticed that one brand of "organic" carrots was a very pale orange, but another brand of carrots was bright orange.  Is this color difference because the carrots are being dyed?

Are carrots dyed orange?

The carrots are probably not dyed, but rather contain a substance called Carotene C 40 H x. Carrots can vary in colour from white to deep purple, but even regular orange carrots will naturally have different shades.

Carrots are not dyed their orange color is a result of carotene. They also come in other colours.

The other answers did not mention the packaging.

Carrots come in many colors. The orange ones are orange because of carotene. The shade of orange varies greatly.


Citrus juice is probably the most widely available substitute.

However, if you can get your hands on some Verjus (or Verjuice) you will be pleasantly surprised.

Verjus is the juice of pressed green grapes.

It is similar to wine but the grapes haven't had a chance to ripen and there isn't any alcohol.

It has a much more neutral flavor than lemon juice.

It can be difficult to find though.

I buy mine at a local vineyard.

You may be able to find some online.

Citric acid powder or granules, as opposed to lemon juice.

This will impart less undesired flavor than lemon juice, should be a better substitute.

1/4 teaspoon substitutes for 2 tablespoons of 5% vinegar, or 1 tablespoon lemon juice.

I got mine from Amazon.

I have been allergic to vinegar for years, I cook frequently and have not found a substitute for most condiments because as a couple of you noted- citric acid usually tastes bad, and nothing tastes like vinegar.

A few tips: Coleman’s mustard doesn’t have vinegar!Make your own hot sauce by boiling and pureeing habenaros (wear a mask).

Make your own mayo with lemon juice.

Homemade hollandaise is also vinegar free when lemon is used

I also can’t tolerate vinegar due to inflammatory actions.

I also can’t tolerate ascorbic acid or citric acid.

To compensate I found a chefs tip that I tried for a suitable substitute.

I Add 1 part Amchoor or Amchor powder with two parts water, mixed and refrigerated overnight to allow the two to meld & produce a nice tart substitute that I can use in place of vinegar in cooking and salad dressing.

It’s not acidic

so it’s not a preservative.

Amchoor or Amchur.

Powder is dehydrated green mangos.

I hope maybe this might help you.

I find rhubarb juice home made is fabulous in oil and “ vinegar” salad dressing.

I can’t eat vinegar or alcohol or citrus.

Didn’t know about ascorbic acid.

Rhubarb juice rocks it and there is a lovely pink color

Unfortunately there really isn't anything that tastes like vinegar except for vinegar, and the lemon juice you're trying is about as close as you're going to get.

It just comes down to chemistry.

Most categories of edible compounds, like starch, protein, hydrocarbon lipids, etc. have a ton of different compounds in them, so if you have to avoid one you can often find another with very similar characteristics regarding flavor and how it reacts with other compounds when being cooked.

These chemical similarities are what allow for good substitutions.

The problem is that vinegar comes from the much less human-friendly compound category of acids.

The list of edible acids is incredibly short, and once you rule out the ones you either can't use (carbonic only exists in carbonated drinks) or wouldn't ever want to put in your mouth (butyric and lactic come from spoiled dairy products), you only have a handful of possibilities.

The food acids you're left with at this point are: oleic (olive oil) palmitic (palm oil) oxalic (tomato) tartaric (tamarind)

citric (citrus obviously)

acetic (the vinegar you're trying to get away from)

The only thing on that list that even remotely shares vinegar's tanginess is citric acid, which is why lemon juice is the standard suggestion to use in a pinch if one is out of vinegar.

Your best bet would be to experiment with other citrus juices and see if perhaps using something other than lemon would help things taste better.

Question: Hi I have recently really been getting into cooking however the girl I am dating has allergic reactions to vinegar, which is in a lot of sauces and stuff.  Looking for possible substitutes that might work when recipes call for this, currently use lemon juice but sometimes that tastes weird (For example I tried to make ketchup since she can't have kraft ketchup which she use to love, however lemon juice tasted quite horrible for my try at it).  Let me know what I should be using! thanks:)

Possible substitue for vinegar

Citrus juice is the most widely available substitute, but you can also try citric acid powder or granules, Verjus/Verjuice, a 2:1 mixture of Amchoor powder and water that has been chilled overnight. Homemade rhubarb juice is also very good in a salad dressing with oil.

Although there are many substitutes for vinegar, including citric acid and Amchoor, nothing really tastes like vinegar. However, experimenting with different products will help you find your preferred taste.

Citric acid, Verjus, Amchoor and rhubarb juice are possible substitutes for vinegar.

Nothing tastes exactly like vinegar. Experimenting with other citrys fruits will help you find your preferred taste.


A Google search led to Pepperidge Farm's recipe for Chicken Pot Pie .

Since they are the big name in the US for puff pastry, I tend to trust them.

They recommend lining the pan with a defrosted, lightly rolled sheet of puff pastry and pricking it with a fork before blind baking covered with aluminum foil for 25 minutes at 400F (~200C).

Don't use pie weights, that will interfere with the 'puff'.

They don't call for any egg wash or seal, and I can say from experience with the stuff that it isn't necessary.

They fill the baked bottom layer with the chicken filling, add a lattice top of puff pastry, then bake the whole thing (on a sheet pan or cookie sheet) for 45 minutes (or until the filling is bubbly and the lattice top is brown and puffy).

Be ready to put aluminum foil along the edge if it seems to be getting too brown.

I make individual chicken pot pies using fresh puff pastry I made myself.

Although it's not absolutely required, I always blind bake the crust bottoms.

It makes for a more consistently crispy and flake crust too and bottom, and since I make individual pot pies, the bottom is what people see on their plate when serving.

Additionally, the blind baking assures the bottom crust will be stiff enough for the pie to pop out onto the plate, whereas not blind baking may cause the crust to stick to the pie plate a little bit making a sloppy serving of pot pie.

I blind bake the bottom.

In my experience, it's the only way to get that dough to cook--

I suppose because liquid filling right next to raw dough keeps it, the dough, from reaching cooking temperature.

I have a neat trick for the pie weight-- pennies!

They're made of copper so the conduct heat well, and help the blind crust cook from the top down as well.

I put them in parchment paper

I've prepared using Heston Blumenthal's tip

: cut a large enough square, ball it up, un-ball it up, and then do this another 4 times.

A the little crinkles allow the parchment to take the exact shape of the blind crust.

I usually take the weight off of my crust at the end and give it 5 minutes more minutes.

Recently I have taken to applying an egg wash at this point.

It makes a good seal.

I don't believe in docking or pricking.

This is just my opinion, and I've never conducted a side-by-side test, but I believe it prevents the pastry from puffing during the blind bake because it lets the steam out, and it causes sogginess during the second bake because it lets the liquid in.

I don't use puff pastry though,

so maybe that's the difference.

I use regular "3-2-1" pie dough, 3 parts flour, 2 parts fat, 1 part liquid.

Plus salt.

I just baked 2 puff pastry bases.

1 just pricked with a fork the other filled with beans.

The 1 I pricked with a fork totally failed.

The sides of the base just fell into the center of the dish ending up with a thick flat bottom and no sides.

Use beans when you blind bake

I just did a pie with no blind bake

and it was fine.

Cooked it a little longer, so maybe 30-40 mins in the oven.

No pricking, no nothing, just put the packeted puff pastry in the base with some butter to help it not stick.

It wasn't soggy or undercooked.

Judging by the responses above it sounds like a blind bake is preferable, but I would say far from essential.

Question: I am making a chicken pie. I've made it before with just a pastry shell on top but I'd like to line the dish with pastry this time. Will I need to blind bake the base of my pastry first? Is it then also necessary to seal the pastry with egg?

When using puff pastry in the base of a savoury pie, do you need to blind bake it?

It is recommended (but not essential) to prick a puff pastry base with a fork and cover with aluminium foil before blind baking for 25 minutes at 400F (~200C). When blind baking, use beans to weigh the pastry down. It is not necessary to use an egg wash or seal.

When making a chicken pie the base should be blind baked first. However, there is debate about whether the pastry should be pricked or not. Finally, egg wash or seal is not needed.

Puff pastry should be blind baked before the filling is added. Use beans for the blind baking. Pricking or not pricking is debatable.


If a dishwasher is present, get dishwasher-safe boxes with a lid on them, and store less frequently used items in these boxes.

Whenever doing a "deep clean" of your kitchen, put the boxes in the dishwasher while sorting out the contents.

A cooker/range hood.

The proper sort will suck in all that greasy fumes, pass them through a carbon filter (which needs changing) and vents it outside, or upwards(in smaller kitchens without a place to vent it.

Its also helpful if you're cooking something that may have irritating fumes.

There's pretty much nothing that will mitigate the problem as well.

I guess cleaning them up is the best.

I always clean my work station immediately after cooking, be it deep-frying or just stir-frying because oil spatter that easily.

Do not assume that you could clean them up later, or maybe after a few rounds of cooking because they will stick and harden.

Soon enough, it would be difficult to clean.

But if there's a case where your grease build up isn't that bad, using coke with lemon does the job because of the level of acidity in the 2.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20617/Teo Chuen Wei Bryan

Use less fat and a lower temperature.

Can also use grease a screen.

Grease will vaporize and then condense on walls / surfaces.

Without a fan that is going to happen.

Can also bake or crock or ....

Use methods other than frying to cook your food.

Seriously put a lid on your pan, use lower temperatures to cook and use higher temperature oils and fats.

Clean regularly as soon as possible after cooking, old coatings are more difficult to remove

I have the same issue -- and I have no range hood, as it's a ~85 year old house, and I'd have to lose or change the upper cabinets to do it.

My only suggestion is to keep things that are annoying to clean in a cabinet when you're frying, and then clean the cabinets afterwards.

If you don't have a good storage place, you can cover them with a plastic bag.

You might be able to coat the cabinets in something -- tape up a dropcloth or similar

so it's not exposed. ...

unfortunately, I have a pot rack above my stove, and hooks with utensils right behind it ...

so they're not really in a good position to protect them without taking it all down.

(and cleaning the pot rack sucks, as some of the hooks on the potrack can't be removed w/out disassembling)

Some times I cook splattering foods

and I lay a kitchen towel over things I want to protect.

I have started doing bacon in the oven and seldom fry anything but eggs.

But if you try covering things until At least after doing the dishes, it helps

There actually is a solution after degreasing everything with vinegar first then create a baking soda paste to further remove any stubborn build up once everything is clean and dry take a napkin/paper towels moisten with a little mineral oil and wipe everything it won’t stop the issue

but it makes it less of a pain to clean later prevents that grease buildup from becoming stuck on.

Hope that helps also hope I reiterated the steps properly.

I seen this on YouTube a kitchen cleaning hacks video.

Question: My kitchen items end up getting a sticky grease coating when I cook regularly. Things not even near the stove top. I don't have an overhead fan, what can I do about this?

Good way to prevent grease build up in kitchen?

A cooker/range hood would help and difficult to clean items could be kept in a cabinet while frying, but the most effective solution would be to oil fry less, use higher temperature oils and fats and cook at lower temperatures with less oil. A screen or lid on your pan would catch spatter, and cleaning as soon as possible after cooking would prevent the buildup of old grease. Degrease with coke and lemon or vinegar, then remove any stubborn buildup with a baking soda paste. When clean, wipe surfaces down with a little mineral oil.

It is probably better to prevent the kitchen getting greasy in the first place by getting a hood, using cooking methods other than frying, using grease screens. However, if grease builds up vinegar, baking soda and coke and lemon are good cleaning products.

There are a number of methods for stopping grease coating items in the kitchen including getting a hood, using less fat, covering the pan, not frying and putting items inside cabinets.

If your kitchen is greasy, clean it immediately, using vinegar, baking soda or coke with lemon as older layers of grease are more difficult to clean.