Great espresso requires these things: Proper Coffee Proper Grind Water heated to the proper temperature (boiling is too hot)

A method to push water at a specific pressure, through the grinds.

You can solve #1 and #2 by buying your coffee

already ground.

I would suggest you start with Illy espresso or find a local reputable roaster.

I would stay with Illy until you feel comfortable with the other variables.

You can solve #3 with your current equipment, but you may want a thermometer.

You can boil the water, then let it sit for a few minutes and you should be ok.

Regarding #4

, that is where you are missing the proper equipment.

This is where I would suggest an AeroPress or MyPressi.

They have been recommended strongly a number of times.

Aeropress: http://aerobie.com/products/aeropress.htm

MyPressi: http://mypressi.com

My suggestion is a "starter" suggestion.

You are going to find it difficult to make great espresso when you have so many variables to manage yourself.

With the above setup, I believe you can make good espresso and that may be good enough.

We have an Rancilio espresso maker at our office and about 10% of the people use it properly.

The rest of the people do not make a great espresso, but they make "good enough" and they are happy with it.

EDIT:

If you want espresso, as officially defined, the Aeropress above won't get you there.

This will get you close to it, with the resources you have, plus a minor purchase.

If you like it, then it doesn't matter what it is called.

You can get quite close, actually: Aeropress will give you a decent coffee extraction.

Warm up the milk in the microwave, and use a frother like this one made by Bialetti to achieve a really thick and smooth latte foam.

Your other option (as SAJ14SAJ suggests ) is an electric Moka maker.

I've seen this Bialetti Electric Moka make a decent espresso and last a long time (if instructions are followed).

Many Italian households don't own an espresso machine and simply go with a moka maker.

Bialetti is very often the moka of choice.

True espresso requires special equipment to generate steam and use its pressure to force water through coffee grounds.

If you are asking, can you produce espresso strictly with the equipment you already enumerated, the answer is no.

Still, short of buying a full espresso maker for your office, there may be an option: Since you have a kettle at your office, you must have a heat source of some type, unless you meant an electric kettle.

Even if you only have an electric kettle, now, you could always buy a small electric hot plate.

This will let you operate a moka pot , which produces coffee more similar to espresso than standard coffee pots as it generates some steam pressure internally (although not as much as an espresso machine): Evidently, electric moka pots are also available (such as this one ), which might be suitable for your office and would not require a separate heat source, although I cannot speak to their quality or reliability.

Of course, depending on what you mean by latte , you may also require steamed milk, which I am not sure how you would generate without an espresso machine.

The point of espresso is that it needs pressure.

This is why the different kinds of espresso machines exist - their core functionality is creating this pressure.

If you are willing to extend the equipment in your office kitchen, you can create not-quite-espresso fairly cheaply.

A portable hob and a Bialetti-style mokka pot together should cost around 50 Euro ($70), maybe more depending on pot size and quality -- a reasonable cost if multiple colleagues chip in.

An alternative is to explore coffee options beside lattes.

Lattes may be popular at coffee shops which have the proper equipment, but different drinks may be a better solution for your office.

You should be able to make cappuccino with drip coffee, and with a portable single-plate stove you can make Turkish coffee and all its derivatives.

I have actually boiled coffee in milk instead of water, sticking to the Turkish method in every other detail, and found the result surprisingly good.

If you are looking at such hobs, be aware that while induction is convenient (heats up much faster than alternatives), the units on the market often come with a safety feature that prevents you from heating anything with a diameter less than 12 cm, which will rule out moka pots and ibriqs.

Assuming, like most of the answers so far, that you want something that is tasty and espresso-like with a minimal investment (e.g., doesn't need to be strictly espresso/latte, or only with what you have), you might consider a "Vietnamese style coffee filter".

It's a little metal thing that sits on top of your cup; you put the coffee in, compress it into a puck, and add water.

It produces something a bit like if you used a Moka, with the bonus that you don't need a stove (e.g., if you meant that you have an electric kettle) and they are usually cheaper (~ $5).

Or you could use a French press - not espresso at all, but also cheap and easy.

Sort of between @talon8 and @sleeves on the grounds.

I wouldn't buy 'factory-ground' coffee, but if you buy decent beans reasonably often and grind them at the store (or at home), that works out pretty well - and might be preferable to bringing a grinder to work.

Piamo - a German company - is making a microwaveable espresso machine .

It doesn't appear the device is yet for sale.

I'm an italian coffee addicted, the best way to prapare an Espresso at office/home (often better than the one prepared in many italian bar...)

is using this device: http://www.bialetti.it/it/catalogue/scheda.asp?id_cat=399

I've been using it (in some different evolution release...)

more than ten years with great results.

Use a good coffee brand (Illy is perfect...) for great success. Gio

Question: I'd like to make espressos for lattes in my offices. However we don't have a stove or coffee maker -- just a kettle and a microwave, and that's about it.   Is it possible to make a decent espresso with just these appliances?

Make espresso in office kitchen- just have a kettle and microwave?

You cannot produce espresso with only a kettle and microwave, but affordable devices include Aeropress, a Vietnamese coffee filter or an electric Moka maker, which can make espresso or something close to it.

To make a proper expresson, some basic equipment is required. If you do not have the equipment, it may be better to consider different types of coffee.

To make decent expresso coffee some equipment is needed.

It is not possible to make expresso with no equipment.

If you do not have the equipment, try different types of coffee.


Stainless steel pots are pretty much indestructable and it should be safe to cook with.

Just give it a good cleaning.

Some hardwarevstores (lowes) have a ss cleaner that might get rid of the yellow tinge.

Otherwise, it'll look like every other well used ss pot.

18/10 ss is 18% chromium, 10% nickel, and balance in iron and stableto higher temperatures.

If you didn't drop the hot pot in cold water, or the bottom is really thick, you shouldn't have warping issues either.

An egg timer might be handy next time ;)

Stainless steel is not coated, and will not be permanently harmed by any temperatures achievable in the home.

It melts at about 1500 C (2750 F).

It might be warped or discolored, but it is fine to use.

You might want to try to use Barkeepers Friend or Bon Ami.

This is what allclad recommends for a task like this.

I have removed many stains from my allclad with these products even on the polished side of the pans.

It works great.

Super cheap product as well.

I burn stainless pots regularly and pretty much don't worry about them unless they impart a burnt taste to the food and hopefully even then they are safe.

I've found they best way to get the burn off is to apply a wet coat of baking soda to the inside of the pan and leave it there for a couple of days.

It should then scrub clean pretty easily.

If not, try boiling with baking soda and water.

I have signed up just to reply to your question .The

yellow color you see is the temper color of the steel.

It is used after quenching(hardening) to temper the hardness of the blade to soften it a bit up , a knife that is too hard doesent

mean it is tough , apply a bit of force to it and it will snap in 2 or a million pieces, you make the blade tougher by slowly heating up and watching the "temper colors" of the steel and depending on what you are making you want a different temper on different steels and tools you make , so for example if you make a knife you want to get to that yellow or what we call straw color , for an axe you want to soften it a bit further to maybe purple color.

The yellow stain can be removed with scratching(sandpaper) as this color is formed only on the surface layer you can also try using vinegar and baking soda or maybe even just with vinegar , it is rather quick...

I learned this the hard way.

I have made a knife

and I wanted to keep the temper colors on the spine of the knife

, it was a little rusty when I left it for a few days

so I placed it in vinegar to remove it

, this removed the temper colors as well..

Good luck

I might be too late for this post.

XDOh by the way

no need for special products just use plain old white vinegar and baking soda.

Forging temperature of steel is much higher yes but tempering of steel is done at the range of 250-350 °

celsiusWhich keeping a pot on a stove can definitely achieve ..

I've used an oven to temper my blades

it works flawlessly.

If it is a non-stick pan then you definitely run the risk of health issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever Stainless steel is forged at a temperature far higher then what you could do in your kitchen.

The issue is more with warping because it causes uneven heating.

But if it's a pot filled with water it shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Question: I was boiling eggs and fell asleep. I think it was boiling dry for about an hour, would the pot be unsafe to cook with now?  It was clean inside but the outside is now slightly yellow tinged. Does stainless steel have any kind of coating in it that might of burnt off? I don't really want to throw the pot away as it is 18/10 and pretty expensive, but I don't want to risk my health.  Thanks

I boiled dry my 18/10 ss pot, is it damaged and unsafe to cook with now

If it is a non-stick pan, then this could cause health issues, but a plain stainless steel pan is not coated and apart from possible warping and discolouration, will not be harmed by the temperatures achievable in the home. You can remove the stains with stainless steel cleaner or vinegar and baking soda.

It is considered unlikely that a stainless steel pan can be damaged by temperature achievable in the home. However, if the pan is non-stick, reusing it may be a health issue. Special cleaners and vinegar and baking soda can be used to clean off burn marks.

Stainless steel is unlikely to be damaged by temperatures achievable in the home.

Special stainless steel cleaners of vinegar and baking soda can be used to clean burnt pots.

Burning a non-stick pan may be a health issue.


Cows, goat, soy, almond, and coconut milk have around the same carbohydrate levels, so there is not enough difference to make the effort to rework recipes etc.

Also coconut milk has more than 20% fat compared to milk having 1% to 5%.

A normal human body can use fats as efficiently as sugars, so total energy of coconut milk will be very high Approximate carbohydrate %, and kJ per 100 g of milk Skim Cow

..... 5%, 150 Full Cow ....... 7%, 260 Almond

4%, 275 Coconut

....... 5%, 880 Goat

4%, 290 Human

......... 7%, 290 Soy .............. 6%, 190 Each country, recipe, and supplier will have different figures, these are standardised with Wolfram Alpha, a recognised accurate source, and a neutral source, as they are not involved in the food or dietary industry

In many countries, "standard" milk is homogenised half fat milk, so about half way between skim and full cow milk figures

Non-sweetened almond milk is probably what most people on low carb diets drink, when they drink it.

It has < 1g of carb per cup.

Personally, I completely stopped drinking milk because of carbs years ago

and I don't look back.

I only drink a little bit of half and half with coffee, and even though it still has carbs, it's so little that it makes little difference.

[Unsweetened Almond Milk] - 2g Carb in 1cup (240g), 1g from sugar and 1g from fiber and fiber should be subtracted from your carb count due to how your body processes it.

Because fiber doesn't absorb like other carbohydrates, don't count it in your overall intake of carbohydrate.

So this would be a NET of

1g Carb in 240g.

Considering TFD's Almond milk has 4% in 100g leads me to believe that almond milk is sweetened.

If you're on a low carb diet then the unsweetened almond milk is obviously the way to go.

For those of us looking to add our low carb protein powder to something other than water or regular cows milk, almond milk is a nice solution.

Stay low carb, maintain ketosis ;)

Unsweetened Soya alternative to milk has 0.2g per 100g.

Though I wish someone would come up with a way to separate the carbohydrate (sugar) out of cow's milk...

Silk unsweetened Almond Milk is 1 carb .per

1/2 cup .

I use the, Silk almond milk with my 1 carb mocha high protein powder by Vega and some ice in blender and with a cup or two of water and make a big chocolate mocha shake that is 2 carbs.

I try to keep my carbs at 10 a day.

Carbmaster milk is milk that has been put through a filtration process which removes most of the sugar (the carbohydrate in milk is all a form of sugar).

It has one quarter the sugar of regular milk (3 g per cup) and is fat free.

I prefer some fat content, so I just add a little heavy cream (adds no sugar).

With this addition, Carbmaster tastes as good as any regular 2 percent milk I've ever had.

It is a product of the Kroger company, which sells it in its supermarkets, and also in a regional chain called Harris Teeter, found mainly in the Carolinas.

(Kroger stores are found in many states across the country).

Question: What kinds of milk are low in carbs? I have heard about coconut milk but I'm not sure what's best.  PS: I am from India, maybe someone might want this info:-)

What kinds of milk are low in carbs?

Cow, goat and coconut milk have similar carb levels, but non-sweetened almond milk or soya milk are better options. Carbs in milk are all forms of sugar, but Carbmaster milk has been put through a filtration process which removes most of this.

Almond milk is considered the best replacement for milk if you are looking to cut carbohydrate intake. Other options include soy milk and Carbmaster milk.

here is little difference in the carbohydrate content of different milk and milk substitute beverages.

Most people consider almond milk the best low-carbohydrate substitute for milk. Soy and Carbmaster are other options.


If you want dry seasonings to stick to popcorn, you will probably need to add a liquid to adhere them with.

You could try adding butter or oil to your popcorn while it is hot, then adding the salt and tossing it together.

If you're avoiding extra fat, a few spritzes of a non-stick spray (like Pam) might do the trick without adding significant fat.

I air pop my popcorn and then I spray it with Dr. Bragg Liquid Aminos .

It has a salty flavor and if you spray it lightly it doesn't make the popcorn soggy.

If all you want is the salty flavor then this will do it

but it also has the added advantage of allowing other spices to stick as well.

In addition, as Sourd'oh says, to using some fat as glue.

Water will also work if you don't want calories, but will soften the popcorn somewhat.

Use popcorn salt.

This is salt that is very, very fine, so that it sticks more easily to popcorn.

Additionally, applying the salt immediately after popping when the popcorn is very hot will help.

Put the salt in a spice grinder (such as this one )!

My grinder has several options for granule size.

Unfortunately, it has no markings or logos on it

so I can't tell you what the exact type it is else

I'd highly recommend it.

The problem is not liquid.

The problem is the size of the salt.

You have to grind the salt.

If you don't have a spice grinder, (I use a mortal & pestle)

you can put a cup of salt in a blender :) and use it in the future.

Why not add the salt to the oil while it is heating up - or otherwise mix with the kernels before throwing them into the oil?

I have done this both with sugar and salt and it works well for me (and the salt does not appear to burn or damage the saucepan...

If you shake everything up (as you should do) while cooking, then the popcorn gets evenly coated.

However, no-one else seems to suggest this, so there may be something I am not considering...

Question: I've been popping my own corn and I want to season it with salt, but when I sprinkle it over the popcorn it just ends up at the bottom of the bowl without taking to the popcorn. How could I get the seasoning to stick to the popcorn?

How do I get seasoning to stick to home-popped popcorn?

You probably need some kind of liquid for adhesion, which is usually butter or oil but can be liquid aminos or water (which will also soften the popcorn). Try using popcorn salt or adding the salt immediately after popping.

In order for salt to stick to popcorn, the popcorn must be wet or hot. Methods include andding butter or water or adding the salt when the popcorn is still hot.

Some kind of fat or liquid is needed to make the salt stick to the popcorn, for example butter or water.

Using popcorn salt or adding the salt when the popcorn is hot helps it to stick.


Many kinds of pizza base are made from a yeast-raised bread dough.

As with other breads (and beer, and wine, and cider etc.)

the yeast, while it feeds and gives off the gas that causes the dough to rise, produces other substances which contribute to the flavour.

So, a dough used as a pizza base which was not leavened with yeast isn't going to taste the same because it's not going to have these yeasty byproducts in it.

Texturally, it's also likely to be different.

One of the other things that happens while the yeast is working at making the dough rise, and during any kneading that is part of the process, is the formation of gluten, which is essential to the structure of many risen breads.

Anything else is unlikely to have the same behaviour.

Take for example soda bread, which, despite being made from wheat flour, is made in such a way as to minimise gluten development and thus has a very, very different texture to a yeasted loaf made from the exact same flour.

So, your non-yeast pizza recipe is likely to be quite different to yeast-risen pizza.

That doesn't necessarily mean it won't be nice, but you'll have to make it in order to find out.

I once made a pizza with a base made from scone dough, which has the advantage of being fast, as would a pizza based on a soda bread base.

Yeast takes a while to work, so there's no way you're going to get a good yeasty base inside 30 minutes.

It'd be hard to do it inside an hour.

My usual strategy involves a no-knead dough recipe set up the night before, so actual preparation of the pizza takes perhaps three quarters of an hour, with the yeast doing most of the work while I'm at work or asleep.

But I'm just airily speculating.

The only way to know for sure what this recipe is like is to make it and find out.

Yes, it is possible to make a pizza without yeast but there is no guarantee how good it will be.

here i give you a recipe to make a pizza without yeast.

Ingredients : 2 c. flour1 tsp.

salt2 tsp.

baking powder2/3 c. water1/4 c. vegetable oil Mix flour, salt, baking powder and water.

Knead on floured counter just until workable and spreadable, about 2 minutes.

Put on pizza pan, with fingers spread vegetable oil on crust (helps so tomato sauce won't soak in crust) then put pizza sauce on, next put on toppings.

Bake at 425 degrees for 20 minutes.

Try above recipe to make a yeast free pizza.

I just tried it, and I found it is somewhere between a buttery biscuit and a cracker... and it can work.

It does not have a developed yeasty taste, nor is there any chewy pull, but it can be a basic base for good toppings.

It will be like a pliable biscuit if barely browned, or a nice crunchy thick cracker if darkened well on the bottom.

Use good toppings and some salt and I would not be too embarrassed to feed it to some friends.

You won't bee selling it on the street, but when you are out of time or yeast, this can work.

So expect and accept a basic blander tasting pizza crust

and you might not be too disappointed.

I used about:1/2 cup all purpose1/2 tsp baking powder1/2 tsp salt (or more to pull out what little flavor is in flour)1/2 tbs melted buttersplash olive oil1/8 milk (plus however much more needed to make dough consistency.)

Mixed all these, kneaded for about 5 min, let rest for 5 min or more, roll out with rolling pin

, par bake around 450 on bottom rack on cookie sheet till it starts to develop brown on top, then add your sauce and toppings as desired.

This made a small single serving.

While not a direct answer to your question, you can make a good pizza dough without commercial A good alternative is to utilize a Sourdough Starter which uses the wild yeast in the air to leaven the dough.

I have made many pizzas without yeast because it was not available?plain flour, 2 table-spoons of margarine, pinch of salt, 1 cup of milk.

the oven first, in bowl put 2 cups of plain flour, add butter.

use your hand to mix.

salt and cup of milk and mix with hands.

the mixture is sticky now.

(If you want you can add teaspoon of herbs or Italian herbs in the dough.)

the kitchen bench with flour and put the sticky mixture in the centre.

knell the dough slowly until the mixture is not sticky and ready for the rolling pin.

roll the dough out to the size you want on pizza tray.

the dough on the pizza tray and place in the oven at high heat for 5 mins.

While the pizza base is being treated, you can cut up the ingredients for the pizza.

5-Use gloves, get the hot pizza tray and squeeze BBQ sauce as the base sauce add 5 different types of meat:

I preferred cold cooked chicken, hot dogs, salami, sausages, ham.

sprinkle some cheese over the pizza then back in the oven.

6-second pizza I often make is garlic pizza, mix 1/3 cup of garlic with 1/2 cup of margarine, very lightly with cheese.

strong but popular

Question: I have been looking into some recipe without yeast. Jamie Oliver has a recipe in his 30 minute book that does not need yeast.  Will pizza have less crunch or flavour without yeast?

Does pizza need yeast?

You can make it, but the texture and flavour will be quite different. If not using commercial yeast, sourdough is also an option for adding yeast to the dough.

There are many recipes for pissa without yeast and they may give good results but the pizza does not have the same taste and texture as dough using yeast. The only way to find out if a recipe is good is to try it.

It is possible to make pizza without yeast but it does not have the same taste or texture. Many recipes are availale.

The only way to find out if the recipe is good, is to try it.


I like mine really smooth, so I make the whole thing in a food processor.

You can use the "pulse" feature if you still want a little chunkiness, but if you want it really smooth, just process the heck out of it.

If you don't have a food processor, a blender may work too.

If you have neither of those, you could try a very fine potato masher

but that would be a lot of work.

For extra fanciness, I also like to top my serving bowl with a little pool of chilli oil to allow my guests to add spiciness if they wish.

In my experience the two key factors to getting really smooth hummus are: Be sure that your chickpeas are cooked thoroughly.

This is not the time to leave them al dente, you want them to be completely tender.

Emulsify your hummus.

Puree your chickpeas, seasonings, and a bit of the cooking water until it is thick, but smooth.

Once you've got this as smooth as you can get it, slowly drizzle in your oil based ingredients (tahini & olive oil).

This seems to be the most important factor, as I've made incredibly smooth hummus without removing the chickpea skins.

This might be helpful , they use baking soda to soften the chickpeas before and during cooking.

One trick I've always used to "smoothen" things in the kitchen is to use a mesh strainer and a plastic bench scraper.

What you do is "push" the hummus through the fine mesh of the strainer after it's been run through the food processor.

This will give a very smooth texture and remove any large chunks that the processor missed.

In order to make really smooth hummus, you have to find a way to deal with the skins of the chickpeas.

One way might be a more powerful food-processor or blender, or simply more time pureeing, to get smaller chunks.

The better way would be to get rid of the skins altogether.

This is what a food mill is designed to do.

It purees the soft parts of food while holding back tough parts like skins.

Or you could peel the chickpeas.

One trick I heard uses two kitchen towels and a rolling pin: http://eatsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/paula-wolfert-smooth-talks-hum.html/

Cooking the chickpeas in a crockpot will yield a well cooked product that will puree into smooth hummus

Question: I found many Chumus recipes online. The general gist is to cook the chickpeas for a few hours (or let them sit in water for a day, then cook them), grind them, add water/oil/Tehina/lemon juice, and salt/pepper.  The result comes out more or less chunky (not that there are pieces, but it feels thick). I've seen "professionally made" Chummus (like Sabra) come out rich and smooth.  How do they do it?

How to make smooth Chumus?

For an extra smooth result, remove the skins, use baking soda to soften the chickpeas before and during cooking, and cook the chickpeas in a crockpot. Pulsing the mixture with a food processor or blender will help to make it very smooth.

Smooth hummus needs the chickpeas to be well-cooked. This can be done by adding baking soda to the water or cooking in a crockpot. A blender or food processor is considered another essential for making smooth hummus. A final factor is finding a way to deal with the chickpea skins.

A food processor or blender is required to make really smooth hummus.

Cooking the chickpes with baking soda or cooking them in a crockpot to make sure they are really soft is another tip.

To make really smooth hummus, you have to find a way to deal with the chickpea skin.


A vegan is not going to eat your pan, just the food that was made on it.

As no animals were harmed in the making of your pan (well, probably but how would you know)

the pan itself wouldn't be an issue.

Of course if a tiny bit of pan seasoning could go into the food, however anything else used in the preparation of the meal like cutting boards could cause a small amount of meat product to go into the food as well.

Your kitchen is not vegan, and if a vegan has a problem with that they should not come over for a meal.

I'd be extremely surprised if the subject of your pots and pans came up to be honest,

vegans

I know appreciate people going to the effort of making a vegan meal for them.

You'd have to ask your vegan to be absolutely sure.

If they're practical, they'll acknowledge that there might be a bit of meat fat polymerized onto the pan

but they won't be actually eating it, as long as you've seasoned and cleaned well.

If however they're sufficiently strict, they could conceivably say, no, it's touching an animal product, I won't eat it.

I wouldn't call that person a common vegan (most are more practical), a reasonable vegan (they're not actually consuming animal products), or a polite guest (if you have extremely rare dietary restrictions you should communicate them clearly), but it's at least possible, so I feel it's worth pointing out since you sounded like you might be prioritizing avoiding offense over reason.

You could in general safely assume she's the practical kind

- I don't know any vegetarians (or vegans) who would be that picky.

But if you can't ask her, there's of course no way to be totally sure, so if you want to make sure she'll eat everything and think she could be a very strict vegan

, I suppose you could find another pan.

I am a vegetarian and I am totally put off by the idea of seasoned pans that don't get cleaned with soap and water.

One of the reasons I am a vegetarian is because I consider meat to be unclean (not a religious objection, just my own many-years' judgment), and I won't eat out of a pan I would consider uncleaned, which seasoned pans would be to me.

It isn't that I don't understand the chemistry---I do---I know the germs are destroyed by the heat.

But the concept of having my food cooked in a pan that is never actually stripped of its old oil (for the sake of the iron pan's surface health and nonstickability) makes me know that seasoned pans would not be for me, even with someone else cooking for me, and I love to be cooked for.

Just a weigh-in here...also, all the vegans I've ever known are wayyyy fussier than I am, and I would be surprised that they wouldn't object to that type of pan.

I've only been a vegetarian for a little over 3 years.

My roommate used a cast-iron skillet with vegetarian-appropriate seasoning to fry burgers.

I thought I could handle it, but when the meat was cooking, and for several hours afterward, the smell of the cooked meat was literally disgusting.

I am most surprised at myself, as I always loved burgers, even miss them some times.

I didn't quit eating meat because I didn't like the taste, it was specifically for compassionate reasons.

I guess after 3 years, it has become repulsive.

I tried to cook with the pan after scrubbing it well, but the smell of the cooked meat rose up as soon as the pan was hot, and I knew I could not use the skillet again and went and bought a new one.

I don't care if he uses one of my non-stick pans, or forks or knives, they don't absorb the animal juices like the seasoned cast iron skillets do.

What people seem to be missing in some of these answers is that some people will become very ill upon eating trace amounts of animal material.

Ask you guest if it is suitable or inform your guest of your intent so they can decide for themselves if they would like to eat your food.

There's no dishonor in asking the question.

Question: I have a cast iron skillet and one of the guests coming for dinner is vegan. Since cast iron is seasoned by all kinds of grease over time I wonder if this is suitable for vegans. I don't want to offend anyone or witness some drama.

Is cast iron skillet suitable for vegans?

This will depend on the vegan in question, since they may have food intolerances or objections that would prevent them from accepting food prepared in this pan.

Some vegans do not mind eating food cooked in a cast iron skillet where meat has been cooked. On the other hand, many dislike the idea or find it repulsive. Some people may get ill from eating traces of animal product. Therefore, it is best to ask the guest to be sure.

Vegans probably do not mind eating food from a cast iron skillet.

Some people may become very ill from eating traces of animal products.

Many vegans find the idea of contamination with animal products repulsive.

If you are not sure, it is best to ask the guest to find out.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It runs around 200F degrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you are going to get.

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

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

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

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

Follow the instructions for your slow cooker!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should I cook my pot roast on high or low?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow the instructions for your slow cooker.


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

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

I performed a simple experiment with Frangelico.

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

I reduced

1/4 cup of store bought Frangelico to cca.

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

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

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

So, what can you do?

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

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

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

Rotary evaporation .

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

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

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

Freeze distillation .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not tried reducing liqueurs myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was not in direct sunlight nor in shade.

I assume something could be done with others!

(not vodkas or whiskeys, etc)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main vendor these days appears to be LorAnn .

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

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

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

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

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

Can liqueurs be reduced?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it depends only on how the item is cooked.

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

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

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

It may even upset your stomach.

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

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

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

Are cooked shrimp shells edible?

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

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

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

Shrimp shells are edible but unpleasant.

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

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


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

I like to make my own sugar glass.

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

C Corn Syrup -

the clearer the better .25 t Cream of Tartar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prevent drying out which leads to cracking.

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

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

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

whichever hydrocolloid they used will probably work well for you.

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

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

It is probably the easier way out.

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

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

Skip the melted candy windows!

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

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

Use sheets of gelatine instead.

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

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

So beautiful.

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

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

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

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

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

Then I have candy windows.

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

Then I put my ginger bread house together.

I also put a light under my houses

so it looks like someone is "home".

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

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

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

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

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

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


Store them in a well ventilated place.

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

And buy green bananas.

Your bananas are alive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a positive feedback mechanism.

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

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

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

Still, don't expect any wonders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this keeps the bananas suspended away from the other fruits.

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

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

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

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

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

No loss of flavour or texture.

I always buy two bunches of bananas.

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

The second bunch is as green as I can find.

I then keep these two bunches separated in my kitchen.

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

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

This works very well!

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

Refrigerating or freezing them quickly turns them black.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't keep bananas very long.

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

This is 80 years of dealing with bananas.

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

Looks like ethylene absorbers are used commercially

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

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

Keeping bananas fresh for longer

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

However, I never do.

I keep it in with the rest of the whites

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

So you can

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

It's up to you.

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

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

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

Either way, they will be caught in the straining.

They are essentially imperceptible in any other application.

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

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

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

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

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

The curd contained two eggs and one yolk.

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

It was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NO!

It would not.

They will break, possibly violently.

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

No, this is a very, very bad idea.

The thermal gradient can lead to uneven expansion and shattering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO!

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

That's why I was looking this up.

I had it sitting there and turned on the wrong burner

and it went everywhere.

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

NO Mine exploded on top of my stove.

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

It was really loud.!!But

I will buy another one.

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

Are Pyrex casserole dishes safe for use on electric stovetops?

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

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

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

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


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

Treat dry yeast right

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

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

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

The thing is, yeast is a living thing

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

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

A month?

Probably.

Two months?

I wouldn't count on it, but maybe.

6 months?

Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

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

Moisture and air are your enemies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Properly stored, yeast usually dies at least somewhat gradually.

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

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

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

It's easy to see why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this useful:

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

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

I do this to approx 70% of the yeast

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

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

Mixed in with the flour and frozen

I find the yeast keeps for a couple of months

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

Good Luck

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

Neither do I like dried yeast

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

I disagree with eschewing fresh yeast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe 4 months is the conclusion I see

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

Thanks all

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

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

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

I have had it rise fine and other times

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

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

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

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

That's why most stores stop carring it.

They are loosing money.

If they bought smaller quantities more often they would sell more

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

How long can fresh yeast be frozen?

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

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

The life of fresh yeast can be prolonged by freezing.

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

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


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

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

, Japanese style roux:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding fussiness:

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

Once reasonably dissolved, add it to the curry pot.

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

The liquid will thicken as it boils.

Indian Style Curries

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

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

Allow the pot to boil a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In most of the indian cooking that what used.

This will added up richness to your recipe.

Yes, cornstarch is another good option too.

Rather than adding thickener why not reduce your sauce?

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

It will thicken it up, and concentrate the flavors.

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

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

yes dissolve cornstarch with water then mix it.

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

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

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

How do I thicken my Japanese curry after the fact?

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

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

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

Slow cookers trap moisture and result in thin sauces.

Reduce the sauce rather than add a thickener.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too cold.

Turning golden?

Great.

Turning brown/black?

Too hot.)

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

I tend to put some oil in.

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

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

If it spits, then it is hot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


It is not a good idea.

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't take the chance.

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

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

BUT I make too much flour all the time too.

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

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

I then fry

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

Once it's cooked through

I have a little chef's treat to enjoy!

Safe depends on your definition of the word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

After our family makes fried chicken.

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

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

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

This is a difficult substance to manage.

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

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

I'm not dead,

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

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

Saving seasoned flour used for dredging chicken

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The weevils will eventually suffocate.

Once dead, they will dry up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TLDR:

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

Is dry ice available where you live?

You can use it to kill bugs in grain .

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

You have to be careful about your choice of container.

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

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

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

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

Before this just sieve the rice to remove existing bugs.

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

How do I get rid of bugs in rice?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Do not store tea in the freezer or refrigerator.

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

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

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

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

I use a tin that some posh tea came in.

The lid fits pretty tight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green tea requires more preservation than other teas

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

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

Keep it sealed under low light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tea should not be stored in the fridge or freezer.

Green tea requires more careful storage than other teas.


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

Really it depends on the wavelength of UV.

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

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

The UV irradiated strawberries lasted 9 days without growing mold.

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

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

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

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

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

UV light also causes clear plastics to degrade over time.

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

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

I have no knowledge of UV affects on vitamins.

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

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

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

You will never achieve a truly sterile environment at home.

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

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

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

I cannot speak to the stability of vitamins under UV.

UV light will destroy bacteria etc.

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

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

Is it a sub zero?

Sub zero uses a uv light to filter the air

every 20 minutes not light up the entire fridge.

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

This is not a new concept

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

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

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

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

What is the use of UV LEDs in my fridge?

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

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

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

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

UV light causes plastics to deteriorate over time.

Good sanitation is better at removing bacteria than UV light.