It's not that simple.

Every culture cuts their beef differently (or not at all!) and therefore has different names for it Around the Belgium, Dutch,

French low lands

they call what the US call brisket and flank, just flank.

And what other parts of France might call brisket is not always cut separately, it is just part of the chuck Confused, we are...

Many butchers in cities receive partially processed carcass parts, so parts like the chest (brisket) may have been removed for processed meat etc

So you need to take a cutting diagram to a butcher whom displays whole carcasses and you should be able to get what you want

As I understand it the brisket extends from in front on the fore legs, between the forelegs and a short way past them?

When we have a beast killed most of that goes into the salamis, yum!

Edit: Some common words used are: Flanchet Plat de côte Poitrine Tendron

A popular brisket cut is a long thin (10mm) strip of the full width of the brisket (left to right).

A serving is a single slice slowly grilled and topped with a chunky sauce

The UN has a standards document that contains translations of beef cuts from English to French, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese.

(To try to work around the fact that everybody has slightly different cuts of meat.)

They list: (Boneless) Brisket - Poitrine sans os Brisket deckle off

- Morceaude poitrine sans os épluché Brisket navel plate - Flanchet / tendron sans

os Brisket point end deckle off - Gros bout de poitrine sans os épluché

I live in Bordeaux but used to live in Texas.

Here is my "modus operandi" when I need a specific piece of meat like the brisket.

I show my butcher a diagram and show him the part I need.

The usual term for brisket is "poitrine" I ask him to cut a piece of 5 kilos and to leave the fat on the top of it.

He knows me now and always tell me when he has a entire beef coming in, that way he is sure the brisket is still there.

They usually don't sell it in France

so I pay +/-

5 euro/kg. "

Pointe de poitrine" seems to be the right word for brisket.

Enjoy!

If you're living in France then I apologize if my Canadian French leads you astray, but according to the (bilingual, obviously) Canadian Food Inspection Agency , the terms are: Pointe de poitrine (Brisket or flat brisket) Poitrine complète (Full brisket)

Here's that same page in English if you want to cross reference other cuts.

* Sources: http://www.civ-viande.org/ebn.ebn?pid=62&rubrik=4&morceau=2&contenu=1 http://www.civ-viande.org/ebn.ebn?pid=56&rubrik=5&item=37

(interactive graphic)

Use Google Translate to translate from French to English.

I do not speak French

The Canadian Beef Council has a bilingual chart of beef cuts (PDF) which might be useful.

(Although, French and Canadian cuts might not be the same, even if they're in the same language; I know US and UK aren't.

But with pictures, the butcher might be able to identify the correct bits for you)

In a fantastic French cookbook called Saveurs Américaines, Editions du Chêne, 2002 the brisket recipe calls for JUMEAU de BOEUF.

Google translate .

Pointe de poitrine de boeuf is the correct translation , I had it verified by my butcher when I asked him for the cut

he knew no question asked .

OK, be careful-

someone suggested poitrine, you need to specify poitrine de boeuf.

I say this because I accidentally bought what seems to be pork belly by just saying "poitrine".

Question: What word can I use to accurately describe  brisket of beef  in French? I usually go to the butcher with a chart of US beef cuts and point to it but it neer seems to correspond to the same piece. Does anyone know the definitive translation?

What is the correct French word for brisket?

Agencies like the UN and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have standard translations of beef cuts, and common terms are:  Pointe de poitrine  (Brisket or flat brisket)  Poitrine complète  (Full brisket), Tendron or Jumeau de Boeuf.

Brisket isn't a common cut in France It is roughly equivalent to pointe de poitrine.

The French word is le tendron , it is also known as le gros bout de poitrine .

Every culture cuts their beef differently (or not at all!) and therefore has different names for it Around the Belgium, Dutch,

Edit: Some common words used are: Flanchet Plat de côte Poitrine Tendron

The UN has a standards document that contains translations of beef cuts from English to French, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese.

The usual term for brisket is "poitrine" I ask him to cut a piece of 5 kilos and to leave the fat on the top of it.

Pointe de poitrine" seems to be the right word for brisket.

If you're living in France then I apologize if my Canadian French leads you astray, but according to the (bilingual, obviously) Canadian Food Inspection Agency , the terms are: Pointe de poitrine (Brisket or flat brisket) Poitrine complète (Full brisket)

In a fantastic French cookbook called Saveurs Américaines, Editions du Chêne, 2002 the brisket recipe calls for JUMEAU de BOEUF.

Every culture cuts their beef differently. Brisket isn't a common cut in France.

The usual term is poitrine or pointe de poitrine.


Bisquick-originated pancake and waffle batter lasts a day, two at the most.

Data: in college, I made pancakes or waffles every day for a year and a half, making the batter on day 1 and then cooking it on days 1, 2, and 3.

Once in that time I got sick on Day 3.

Based on that experience, more than 24 hours is getting sketchy, though 48 seems to work most of the time.

Unless you're making flat "crepe" style pancakes, your batter will not really work properly later.

Once the baking powder is mixed with wet ingredients, you need to cook it as soon as possible or its rising power will start to be lost.

This will be true of any batter that has baking powder as its rising agent.

You're probably better off to make all your pancakes and then refrigerate the leftover pancakes.

You can toast them to reheat them later.

I have no idea what type of pancake you're making, but I had answered your question for chemically leavened pancakes in case someone stumbled upon that question (even though the earlier question was specifically for crêpe like pancakes.)

If you're using baking soda as a leavening, it'll have already given its all by the time you cook it hours later ...

but you'd have to add baking powder to compensate when it's time, as there might not be enough acid left for baking soda.

Baking powder in the batter isn't as much of a problem if it's double-acting, where it'll give some leavening when it gets wet, and again as it gets warm.

Of course, you don't want to add too much baking powder, as it can give a metallic taste.

It's also worth mentioning that it is possible to halve an egg ; in this case, if you're going to be using the other half of the mix in a day or two, it might be easier to measure by mixing all of the wet ingredients together and then use half.

I found this site looking for the reason my premade pancake batter is turning out super flat pancakes.

I have found without fail that the batter we make fresh everyday makes a fluffy pancake, without fail the next morning that same batter hits the grill and looks like a crepes.

Don't count on the batter lasting very long.

Just make all the pancakes and freeze them.

If you refrigerate them, they'll get pretty stale, pretty quickly.

Question: I'm making a packet mix of pancake batter that doesn't lend itself to partial mixes - it's hard to split "1 egg" as an ingredient.  How long would pancake batter last in the fridge?  Even if it's a worst case of a day or two, I'd still like to know.

How long does pancake batter last in the fridge?

Bisquick-originated pancake and waffle batter lasts a day or two at the most, so make all the pancakes and freeze them.

Pancake batter will last for 2 days at the most. If you want to keep it for longer, then make all the pancakes and freeze them.

Pancake batter will last for two days at the most.


Turnip greens are a very common food in Southern US cooking.

The smaller baby leaves are good for salads since they have a milder flavor and are more tender.

Larger leaves are best cooked.

You'll definitely want to rinse them thoroughly in a sink full of cold water.

They tend to have a lot of dirt and bugs on them.

Just fill the sink and dump your greens in, jostling them around with your hand.

This allows the sediment to sink to the bottom.

The typical southern preparation involves boiling them for 30 minutes, dumping the green water (and much of the bitterness), and then boiling another 15 minutes with some bacon or ham hocks.

They are then drained, salted to taste, and served with either tabasco, vinegar (malt is good), or butter.

The flavor of turnip greens is very much like mustard greens, just with a bit of the sharp mustard flavor removed.

The grocery stores here often sell turnip greens right alongside the mustard greens - without the turnips, since presumably they're a slightly different variety, selected for leaves, not roots.

These large leaves are probably a bit tougher than the somewhat smaller ones you're likely to have on your turnips.

Incidentally, I see in On Food and Cooking that mustard greens are Brassica juncea, a cross between Brassica rapa (turnip, broccoli rabe, bok choy, napa cabbage) and Brassica nigra (black mustard) -

so the flavor similarity is perhaps to be expected!

I use them pretty much as I would mustard greens, in a variety of things - as a standalone dish, in soups, in stir fries, you name it.

Depending on your tastes, they might be too strong for salads, and they're also a bit tougher than traditional salad greens.

Try a bite and see what you think

- I expect if you use it in a salad, you'll probably want to mix it with milder things.

To find more ideas, just search for recipes mustard greens.

Radishes are actually in the same family as turnips, and just like the radish itself, the greens have a sharper, perhaps peppery flavor.

I usually just toss them in when I'm using other greens, to add a bit of zing.

Have a bite of those too

and I'm sure you'll decide that they could be an excellent addition to various dishes.

In traditional US Southern cooking, one of the more common places to find these greens, all the bitter greens get boiled forever, to make them extremely soft - but I find that I actually like them cooked more quickly, leaving a pleasant bit of texture.

I also don't think they need much special treatment to counter the bitterness (as hobodave mentions )

but I do admittedly have a higher tolerance for bitterness than many.

A couple example dishes that really let you taste the greens: Curried Greens with Golden Onions and Cashews - it calls for spinach, mustard, and dandelion greens, but turnip and radish will work great too.

Turnip Greens and Potato Veloute

- it calls for turnip greens, and mentions in the notes that radish greens work well too.

Radish greens are edible and can be used in salads, although they aren't to everyone's taste (my brother hates them).

Or you can try them in a stir fry or cook them similarly to spinach.

I wasn't sure about turnip greens

so I looked it up, and they're certainly edible as well!

I'll try some next time

I have some!

Radish greens can also be used in soup, especially blended soups.

I don't know much about radish greens, but you can use turnip greens as you would collards or mustard greens.

steam for 10-15 minutes + vinegar and/or (vegan) butter == yum!

(i can't imagine cooking greens for 30+ minutes -- what would remain after so much heat?)

Unbidden, my garden produced a super-abundance of a wide variety of mustard-y and radish-y greens this summer: leaves with bold but not overwhelmingly strong flavor, hairy undersides and juicy stems.

Determined not to put them in the compost pile, I first tried but did not enjoy the classic Southern US preparation with ham hocks.

Shout-out to Vivian Howard and crew for acquainting us with the history and uses of "Southern" ingredients in "A Chef's Life."

In the follow-up series, "Somewhere South",

Rakesh and Archna Anand prepared Saag Paneer using a variety of available greens.

Saag is a "curry" of pureed cooked greens, while Paneer is home-made cheese for which you can substitute cheese curds (aka "squeaky cheese") or feta.

(Note: Palaak Paneer, perhaps more familiar to non-Indian diners, is similar but uses spinach only.)

While the Anands started their Saag with a counter-top electric pressure cooker, the preparation continued on the stovetop for many additional hours.

My summer was saved by a recipe at SpiceCravings that produces delicious Saag in a small fraction of the time using only the pressure cooker.

My freezer runneth over with cup- and pint-sized pucks of Saag.

Thawing a puck, simmering in an added vegetable or protein and serving over rice delivers a quick and satisfying meal.

Though not a vegetarian, I prefer to replace paneer with pan-fried home-grown potatoes cut into 1/2-inch cubes.

(Home-grown = flavor; store-bought = bland)

For reasons I can't explain, simmering the pan-fried potatoes in the "gravy" for 10 to 15 minutes produces a whole which is far greater than the sum of its parts.

The flexibility of Saag with respect to greens, aromatics, spices and complementary simmering additions reveals it to be a kitchen MVP!

Question: Got a lovely bunch of radishes and turnips from the farmer's market, giant mass of greens included.    Can I use the greens for anything aside from compost?  Are they edible?  Worthy of salads? Stir-fry?

Uses for radish and turnip greens?

Radish greens are like mild mustard greens, and are good for salads, soups, stir fries and other dishes.

Both turnips and radishes are edible and can be cooked or used raw in salads.

Turnip greens are a lot like mustard greens. They can be used from soups, stir fries or salads.

Radish greens are edible and can be used in salads.


You want the ones that look like little tiny T-bone steaks.

Typically they are called Lamb Chops, but look first as there are different cuts under that name.

You might also consider doing a rack, which is the equivalent to a Rib Roast, but obviously much smaller.

For the rack, I'd sear it in a pan, and then broil it until done.

(15-25 minutes, 140-160 degrees).

In the UK I'd use a cut called lamb leg steak, as you can prepare it in a similar way to beef steak.

Personally I prefer to griddle on one side, flip over and finish in a hot oven.

Make sure you rest it!

I know recipe requests are a bit ugh here, but I'd recommend making the lamb steaks a little bit spiced (rub with cumin, chilli & coriander) and serve with a smooth, creamy cauliflower puree

- it's a great combination.

I love lamb burgers.

You grind lamb, then mix it with onions and various spices.

You then put them on a spit and either broil them in the oven or cook them on a grill.

You serve inside grilled pita them with tzatziki (a yogurt and cucumber sauce) and taboulleh (a bulghur salad).

The latter is optional, it's just a nice side dish.

Roast Lamb Loin is very easy.

30mins per 500g on 180 degrees.

Seasoned with salt is the minimum; however it's easy to add Rosemary or Mint.

It works very well with a large range of sides including salads, purees, or roast vegetables.

A good wine match is a full bodied red such as Sharaz or Syrah.

You can't go past Lamb Backstrap .

It does everything a steak does in regards to cooking, remains very juicy and tender.

You can wrap in prosciutto , serve with soft polenta.

Basically whatever your imagination can come up with it will suit this cut.

Only down side is the price to purchase, but well worth it for a romantic dinner.

Question: I need to cook a romantic dinner and my wife wants lamb, which I've never cooked before. Usually I make us steaks in a cast iron - it's easy, tasty and quick. Can I do something similar with lamb? What is the name of the cut I need to buy?

Is there a lamb dish that is as easy to prepare as steak?

Lamb chops or a rack are good options, the second of which can be pan fried and then broiled. Lamb burgers, roast lamb loin and lamb backstrap are also good options.

A rack of lamb, loin backstrap, chops or burgers would be easy to do.

Lamb chops or a rack of lamb would be quick and easy. You could sear it in a pan and then broil until done.


If you use self-made beef stock, try boiling a bit longer, so that the flavour of the beef is a bit more concentrated.

Boil your soup a bit longer.

Use more beef stock and/or cubed beef.

I don't know how much herbs you put in.

Maybe a bit more pepper or rosemary can make a difference.

One way to boost flavour would be to roast some beef bones till they brown a little (you can get bones from your butcher) and then cook them with your soup.

You can take them out when the broth is cooked.

This will add a nice depth of natural 'beefy' flavour.

Reconstitute and chop up an ounce of dried porcini mushrooms, reserving the liquid. Filter the liquid to remove grit, and then add it and the mushrooms.

You'll add a good burst of umami and a nice earthiness, without adding too much bulk.

Also, fine-chopped celery works to give some interesting higher notes.

I have no idea how this works

but... I find with a lot of beef soups/stews letting it go cold and re heating it the next day seems to do the trick.

Some how all the flavor comes out of the meat when you cook it and then goes back in long after my guests have left.

If any one has an explanation for this please let me know!

I am making my version of Beef Barley soup and I add cumin,curry and tumeric as I am browning my diced meat and onion.

I only add a small amount of each

but it adds a lot of flavor

and I use vegetable juice instead of boulion.

It sounds like you had enough spices.

Are you sure you used meat meant for soup?

Cuts intended for frying/roasting are more tender, but have much less aroma.

For soup, you need older, tougher meat.

Also, you say "Cubed beef", which sounds as if the bones have been removed.

Cooking the meat together with the bones gives you more flavour.

Third, you are supposed to sear the meat and sweat the onions before simmering, because that develops flavour.

It doesn't get clear from your question if you did that.

Another way to have more flavour is to use more fat.

Even if the fat itself is neutral tasting, it makes you taste the other aromas stronger.

Add it when sweating the onions.

It may be worth trying to first roast the barley in the oven, or even prefrying it, like prefrying rice for a Balkan/Middle Eastern dish.

I haven't tried this and cannot guarantee that it will work.

You can also use MSG or other glutamates.

They are usually not sold pure in the supermarkets, but are included in other products, like broth cubes and seasoning powders.

Maybe you can get them pure in a Chinese shop.

None of the ideas above apply to your already cooked batch soup (you could take out some of the liquid, dissolve a broth cube, and put it back, but it will make it much saltier).

The only things I can think of will add flavour, not strengthen it, thus changing the original idea.

I don't know if this is a problem for you.

If you don't mind changing the flavour, you can 1) add other herbs (they need to be fresh, dried ones should have cooked a bit).

Parsley, marjoram, and lovage come to mind.

2) Add condiments.

Worceshire sauce is unusual in soup, but works well for my taste.

Cook chopped dried mushrooms in a very small amount of liquid, then add them to the soup together with the liquid. 4) throw in crumbled feta cheese (good quality, preferably from sheep milk).

Other ideas which change the flavour, but cannot be applied to the already cooked soup, would be adding celery and bay leaf.

I've had good luck adding a small packet of unflavoured gelatin, it's not enough to gel the soup (gross), but it adds some of the body that long simmered beef bones would add.

Celery is essential, as someone else mentioned.

You wouldn't think it would add much, but there's something magic about it.

I also toss in some celery seeds (not celery salt!)

I grind them to a fine powder for beef barley soup but add them whole for chicken soup.

I too have trouble sometimes when making soups.

I recently discovered that about a half of a medium rutabaga peeled and diced in 2 quarts of soup adds a lot of flavor.

It takes about an hour to cook them so plan to put them in at the beginning.

You can also add a pinch of dried thyme.

Be cautious with thyme because it can easily overpower your soup.

Yes, with the beef stock add same amount of chicken stock, and a touch of sirachi sauce

Question: This time around my beef barley soup is tasting a bit on the plain side. It has the right amount of saltiness but is lacking in the flavorful department. The ingredients used thus far have been:  Beef Stock, Water, Salt, Ground Black Pepper, Seasoned Pepper, Rosemary, Onions, Carrots, Barley, and Cubed Beef.  What can I do to help boost its flavor?

What can I do to add more flavor into my beef barley soup?

Makr sure you sear the beef first to release flavour, and try letting it get cold and heating it up the next day. Adding more beef or chicken stock, cubed beef sriracha sauce, pepper, rosemary, dried mushrooms, feta cheese, celery and bay leaf or half a rutabaga can help.

Try using more stock or a mixture of stocks. Add some mushrooms or some rutabaga.

Try using more beef stock or add some chicken stock with it.

Add more pepper or rosemary. Add some mushrooms, some rutabaga or sweat the onions.


I'm going to guess that you mean bean-sprouts, and not Brussels sprouts.

In that case, you just roll with the crunchiness.

There's a lot to be said for balancing textures and not just flavours.

Tomatoes and cucumbers are relatively soft; peppers, sprouts and celery give crunch; lettuce and cabbage give a sort of fibry texture.

They can all happily co-exist in the same salad.

If you did mean Brussels sprouts, I would recommend just using cabbage instead.

It can be finely chopped into a salad and gives a nice touch.

For sprouts it can just be as simple as taking them out of the package, washing, tearing in half by hand and either mixing with greens or bedding under vegetables.

As for matching up textures, I find sprouts fit well with crisp vegetables, seeds, and beans, but not so much with meats.

Store-bought sprouts tend to be rather mature.

Some robust sprouts (soybean and the like) can be lightly blanched, although this is only recommended because of potential impurities.

To blanch sprouts, just dip them into boiling water for 30 seconds using a colander, and dip them in ice water immediately.

You may want to try germinating your own sprouts.

Growing your own sprouts offers a few advantages: Variety

: Try out different types of seeds, grow the ones you like most.

Choice of Maturity: Try out at what age you like them most.

3-day-old sprouts tend to be softer and milder.

No doubt about cleanliness: If you grow your own sprouts, you know they are clean.

I'd halve them, par boil for a few minutes in salted water, then stir fry them with some pancetta, before tossing through the salad leaves.

Drizzle on the pan juices and dress with olive oil and some kind of acid (vinegar or lemon juice).

That's if sprouts weren't the devil's own vegetable, of course ;)

Careful about the maturity of beansprouts: too young and they are still toxic in their raw state.

40 people went to hospital from a conference salad buffet featuring chickpea and kidney sprouts.

Mung bean is the most common store-bought cooking sprout.

sprouting at home means that the water used has not been contaminated by animal agriculture, ie E Coli and other beasties that have broken out in commercial production.

Nearly raw mung beansprouts are less bruised and darkened in salad and have more tender crunch.

Pour boiling water over sprouts in a sieve.

Shake a bit and let cool.

Can be stored in the fridge at this point a day ahead.

Chinese would dress with a drop or 2 of sesame oil (dark)and a splash of vinegar and perhaps a bit of garlic with salt and pepper (white) to taste.

Another Chinese way is with lengths of chives making the dish 'green and white snakes'.

Normally served hot but why not as a crunchy cold salad?

Question: Alfalfa/Bean sprouts can have a strong taste or they are too firm to chew on easily. I tried adding salt or salty ingredients with some success to soften the sprouts and reduce bitterness. What is your advice for combining them in salads?

Advice on preparing/incorporating sprouts in salads?

Some robust sprouts like soybean can be blanched to remove impurities, but otherwise wash, halve and mix with greens or bed under vegetables.

You can blanche them in water for a few minutes. Or you can tear them and mix them with other leaves.

Tear them and mix them with other greens.

The sprouts can be blanched in salted water.


Your chard most likely tastes bitter because chard is bitter .

You can't really change that with cooking technique alone, but you can: Use older chard, which tends to be markedly less bitter than the young chard you're using; Avoid bringing out the bitterness, by cooking at lower heat; Mute any remaining bitterness with salt, which is pretty common for leafy greens.

My favourite chard technique is to start by sauteeing chopped onion in olive oil until it is starting to brown, then adding chard with the rinsing water clinging to it, and putting the lid on.

I then turn off the heat.

The combination of lower heat and the sweetness of onion and olive oil means that the result is only slightly bitter, just how I like it.

I blanch chard in boiling and aggressively salted water.

Then reheat in a hot pan, little butter, some shallot, splash of white wine to finish.

Season well, enjoy.

Another technique is to sweeten the chard; for example, you might add a little sugar and some raisins.

This is a classic French technique for Swiss chard.

Here's a recipe: Ingredients 1 bunch Swiss chard 3

TBS unsalted butter 1 TBS olive oil 1 TBS sugar 1 TBS chopped, fresh rosemary 1/3 cup (2 oz) dark or golden raisins, roughly chopped 2 TBS pine nuts (optional, but best) Salt and freshly-ground pepper to taste Steps Remove the stems from the chard, and slice it roughly.

In a large saute pan over high heat, melt the butter and oil until it sizzles.

Add the sugar and stir until the sugar begins to brown, about one minute.

Add the chard and rosemary; stir well to coat the chard with the butter mixture.

Continuing to stir, cook until the chard wilts to about half of its volume, about a minute and a half.

Add the raisins and stir to distribute evenly.

Add the pine nuts, if using, and continue to cook over high heat to evaporate any moisture.

Season with salt and pepper, transfer to a warmed serving plate, and serve immediately.

Cooking bitter greens like chard and kale long and slow in animal fats, as in stews or soups, tends to get rid of the bitterness.

The simple best way to get rid of the tanic acid in cooking chard greens only is the cut up the greens and bring them to a Rolling Boil and boil them for 3 min.

pour of the water then rinse them in hot water.

Next cover them with just enough water to finish cooking them till tinder, maybe 20min.

will be like High quality spinach & season them how ever you like.

Question: I've tried cooking it in various ways, but it always ends up tasting bitter. What am I doing wrong? I'm using fairly young chard (homegrown), using the whole leaves.

Why does my chard taste bitter when I cook it?

Chard is a bitter vegetable, but this can be reduced by using older chard, cooking at a lower heat, or muting the bitterness with salt, sugar or raisins. Try cooking in animal fat or adding to sauteed onion.

Chard is a bitter vegetable. Cook slowly in animal fat with onions. You can also add sugar and raisins.

Older chard tends to be less bitter. Cook slowly with onions and olive oil or with sugar and raisins. Cooking in animal fats can also get rid of bitterness.


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

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

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

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

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

Amines get released as bacteria work to release them.

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

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

Sure, some fish are smellier than others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's very much not to my liking

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

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

It's just a small fortune here

so I don't buy it often.

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

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

Panfried cooking methode make the smell become stronger

I have never had mackerel that didn't smell.

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

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

Mackerel has a REALLY pungent fish smell to me.

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

It's in a league of its own.

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

Fish should never, ever smell!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

On Cooking textbook

Part time commercial fisherman and fishmonger

most my life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some fish natural smell, for example halibut, lingcod.

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

I wont eat it.

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

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

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

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

It should always smell fresh and neutral clean.

If that makes sense?

Salmon starts to deteriorate as soon as dead.

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

Put on ice.

Tuna is a oil fish.

I think the pink has a stronger smell.

Fish caught on seaweed can have a stronger smell.

Over those caught on the reef.

But fish should not have a strong smell.

Or be soft to the touch.

Fish spoils fast.

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

Look at the gills they should be pink.

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

Then they start to smell.

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

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

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

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

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

That results in the mucus turning blue.

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

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

Do some fish smell "fishier"? Why?

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

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

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

Fish smelling is because of a lack of freshness.


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

I make chili a lot.

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

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

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

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

I'd imagine it's less than expected.

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

Still it imparts some flavor depending on the context.

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

They differ greatly in flavor and composition.

For some suggestions on pairings check out this question.

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

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

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

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

wild yeast can do amazing things in a dish.

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

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

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

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

So I think the flavour is definitely an important component.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beer is by nature bitter.

It comesfrom the hops.

Malt adds a sweetflavor that counteracts andharmonizes with the bitterness.

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

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

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

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

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

The yeast is perfectly suited to baking and battering.

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

Beer tenderizes meats, making for good marinades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeast, sugar, flavor...

What's not to like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recipes normally just specify red or white wine.


Coffee beans have a natural oil in them.

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

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

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

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.)

Argh.

The oil is not the caffeine.

The oil is not (alone, or even predominantly)

what makes the flavor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beans stale relatively fast.

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

Darker roasts are best in about half that time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The beans will usually reabsorb the oil as they stale.

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

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

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

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

I noticed one thing.

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

I had it everyday for one month and was well.

Any oily beans always produce immediate stomach upset.

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

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

It may also taste 'heavier'.

Both oily and non-oily can taste excellent.

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

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

That's what my taste buddies tell me.

The oil on darker roasted beans is something shiny.

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

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

Imagine hanging out at the beach..

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

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

Oily coffee is bad coffee.

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

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

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

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

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


Stone is a much worse heat conductor than iron.

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

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

Another argument for stone will be the smooth surface.

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

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

The mortar surface should be as smooth as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must also consider possible chemical reactions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both iron and stone will work.

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

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

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

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

Proper maintenance could alleviate this issue though.

For me, stone mortars are more traditional.

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

Why fix it if it isn't broken?

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

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

I've been using a ceramic mortar for years.

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

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

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

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

Work on a couple of teaspoons at a time

and you get powder.

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

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

I saw once an agate mortar

and there I don't know) are porous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone or iron mortar?

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

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

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

Marble is acid sensitive while granite is not.


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

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

It also depends on the size of the chips.

Standard North American chips?

Chunks you hacked out of a block of couverture?

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

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

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

Average that number

and there you are.

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

how many chips are too many?

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

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

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

bag of standard-size semi-sweet chocolate morsels.

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

I have a 12 oz.

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

It says the bag contains 23 servings.

That's 736 chocolate chips per bag.

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

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

I tend to chop chocolate to pretty big pieces

(cubes approximately 2cm long).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Add a nice risotto (mushroom?)

then send me an invitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you can even add bay leaves to the water.

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

I always like it when breads are served with lobster!

Lobster is really popular in North Western France.

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

something like this .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


No you would not.

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

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

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

I think you should read McGee on this one.

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

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

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

Restaurant cooks prize thick pasta water.

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

Just to add a little to this discussion.

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

I will have to back @ElendilTheTall here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many pasta sauces are actually referred to as gravy.

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

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

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

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

I am ethnically Italian.

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

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

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

KEEP IT.

USE IT.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

written specifically on this subject.

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

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

Using citrus zests will spice things up as well!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A boxed cake could be that basic recipe.

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

The vanilla

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

And then a add a touch of cinnamon and nutmeg.

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

How can I bolster up a boxed cake mix?

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

Add extra spices and creme fraiche instead of the butter.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pork and ginger is a common combination in Chinese cooking.

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

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

I am surprised seeing this too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS IN THE SAUCE that was separately made.

NOT cooked through with the PORK.

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

Just to clarify.

Hope

I made some sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seem to be many exceptions to this rule.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great flavor and heat for just about everything.

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

They also produce gochugaru here.

Here's a link .

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

Buy dried chilis and blend them into powder

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

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

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

pasillas, moritas, guajillos, puyas and more.

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

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

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

You can use a chili guide to inform your adjustments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ouch!

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

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

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

(like I was the first time)!

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

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

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

I find Aleppo chilies are quite similar.

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

(10,000 scoville).

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

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

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

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

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

Make your own mix from chilis or order from Amazon.


Keep your hands wet.

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

Moisten your hands with a clean, damp towel.

This helps the rice not stick.

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

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

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

Damp towels work too.

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

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

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

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

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

I make sushi all the time now

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

Yum!

Good luck, ENJOY!

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

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

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

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

Also i have found water works as well.

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

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

Renolds makes a non-stick foil .

It's the bomb for spreading and pressing.

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

A moistened micro cloth helps as well.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Both are good in their own way.

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

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

Where I live in Germany

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

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

The cream gets then pasteurized at 90°

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

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

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

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

EDIT: source [German]

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

Every morning and evening my Uncle would milk this cow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is butter usually labeled "Sweet Cream"?

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

Sweet cream is cream that hasn't been cultured.


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

Was making tamales

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

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

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

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

Pleasantly surprised and glad I did t throw it away.

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

Hope this is helpful to someone out there.

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

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

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

Successive treatments do reduce the warping.

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

No, there isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very important.

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

And this needs to be on a STURDY table.

You'll see why.

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

Don't be shy.

Hit it hard.

Test.

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

Just a few whacks, test it.

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

NOW...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone mentioned deglazing.

When deglazing use room temperature liquid.

Cooking wine shouldn't come directly from the fridge.

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

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

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

Bowed bottom on Stainless Steel fry pan

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

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

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

In future, avoid rapid temperature changes to stop warping.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would therefore take longer to heat up.

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

Your design would also cause some serious sticking-

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

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

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

Less water = more sticking.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also works for other "long" foods like asparagus.

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

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

Why do we use so much water to cook spaghetti?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So maybe this step comes from that..

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

Another reason would be to get rid of extra starch.

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

Normally you just rinse it until the water runs clear.

Rinsing is a matter of personal taste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps its the way I cook rice.

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

Always perfect.

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

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

Nothing changed - the rice remains fluffy.

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

Why rinse basmati rice?

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

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

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

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


Paneer can be used as is.

Sometimes it is fried to extend shelf life.

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

This makes paneer very soft.

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

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

paneer is almost always cooked.

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

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

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

That is where the real magic of cheese lies!

P.S. Google "paneer pakoda".

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

It does not have to be cooked.

It's cheese!

I didnt think paneer melts.

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

But you can eat it raw! :-)

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

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

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

You have to prepare paneer in boiling water.

Remove paneer from refrigerator.

Cut it into cubes.

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

Uncooked Paneer tastes like putty.

No taste.

Paneer aught to be fried to a golden crust.

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

That gives the best Paneer.

It depends on which dish you are using it in.

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

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

There is no black and white reply to that question.

All depends on the dish being cooked or the chef.

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

Generally it is cooked for very short time.

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

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

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

Like in some dishes it is deep fried or roasted.

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

Does paneer have to be cooked?

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

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

Paneer can be eaten raw but it is normally cooked.

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