The purpose of the water is to cook the custard slowly- essentially poaching it.

It takes out some insurance against it overheating and breaking.

Suspending the cheesecake over the water would not have the same effect- steam can get hotter than the curdling temperature of eggs.

It would be a thermal mass that might even out some temperature variation in your oven and it would keep things humid.

If your oven is working well these effects aren't needed.

Plenty of cheesecake recipes don't take out the water-bath-insurance.

My opinion is that suspending the cake above the pan would not be helpful.

I have to disagree with Sobachatina in this case: the thermal mass is not the sole purpose of the water bath.

Cheesecakes are prone to cracking, because the moisture of the outer layer of the filling evaporates.

They don't just form a skin the way a standard custard would, they get dry enough to crack later.

So, if you just suspend the cheesecake, you get half the benefits of the water.

It is entirely possible to bake the cheesecake without submerging it, or without using any water at all.

But you will get better results with water than without, and you will get better results if you submerge than if you just suspend.

You have to know for yourself whether the difference is large enough to matter to you, and whether the convenience gain would be worth it.

I just baked a cheesecake suspended above a water bath.

It seriously cracked.

I am trying the immersion method next time and hope for better results.

I bake lots of cheesecakes and have never used the water bath.

I always place a shallow dish of hot water under my cake.

The trick to baking a cheesecake is to use a low temperature and longer baking time.

Cool very slowly to avoid cracking.

I have baked cheesecakes both with and without waterbaths.

I also have used the direct in water method and the pan under the rack with the cheesecake.

By far, wrapping and placing the springform pan directly in the water is the best.

Even, non-burnt, and no cracking.

There's no comparison.

I will never cook a dry cheesecake again. :)

ok i treid last night.

baking pan full of hot water my spring form pan in a glass pie pan.

baked twice as long to get the top "crust" to brown, 2 hours instead of 1 hour.

oven set at 350 like i do with water bath.

results looked to be good as i inserted a long toothpick into thecenter that looked to be "set".

Oven off for 1 more hour with cake in oven.i looked great however noted these differences:-outer side what would have been a darkend "crust" (since I use buttered pan coated with powdered sugar, no bottom or side crust) was just darkened on the part that rose above the pan edge while cooking.

seems like the metal side did not get enough heat to carmelize the sugar.- thecenter

was very custard like though solid enough to cut slice that held together, however the part of the cake closer to the pan edge had been cooked more and was more like what i get in a water bath cooking cycleso

now I move to use a metal pan between the spring form and the baking pan water.

I figure it would get a little warmer than the glass pan but still not as warm as a direct water bath.

I might do another after that one using my convection oven cycle with a lower oven temp

say 300.

i love my NY

cheesecake an don't mind eating all of my experimantal bakes.

My wife however wants the water bath ones that is the goal to be measured against.

i may need to have friends over as 3 or 4 cheesecakes to eat by myself might be very ostentatious.

CI

I never use a waterbath, and my cheesecakes don't crack.

I wish I knew why--I guess we need a food scientist for that answer.

I do think that if you overbeat the eggs into the beaten cheese, you might get cracks.

I go heavy on the cheese and light on the cream; maybe that helps.

Question: I've heard of two separate ways to use a water bath when cooking a cheesecake: placing the cheesecake in the waterbath, or placing a roasting pan full of water on the bottom rack of the oven, with the cheesecake on the top rack. I like the idea of not putting my cheesecake in the water, which avoids the need to wrap the pan in foil. Do these two separate methods create any discernible difference in the final result? Is one better than the other?

Cheesecake in or next to waterbath

It is not always necessary to use a water bath if you bake your cheesecake on low heat for a long time, but of the two methods with water, wrapping your springform and placing it directly in the water is the best.

A water bath is considered an aid when baking a cheesecake and it is generally considered best to submerge the cake tin in the water. However, it is also possible to bake a cheesecake without using water. In this case a long baking time at low temperature is recommended, with perhaps a shallow dish of water beneath.

Using water helps when baking cheesecakes. Submerging the cake in the water rather than above it gives better results.

It is perfectly possible to bake a cheesecake without water. Long baking time and low temperature are the keys. A shallow dish of water can be placed below the cake.


Moisture-release is not a result of the cooking process but of the quality of the chicken.

Try the following experiment: Buy halal or kosher chicken breast

Buy the cheapest chicken breast you can find.

Now put two pans on the stove, and put the industrial chicken breast in the left pan and put the kosher/halal in the right.

Ensure both pans have the same heat setting, the same amount of fat (I prefer duck fat for frying chicken breast) and watch the amount of moisture coming out of the left one and the fat actually being soaked up by the right one.

So the easiest way to avoid this is to buy good quality chicken...

It sounds like you're buying a cheaper cut of meat - one that's likely been infused with water to plump and to rapidly chill the meat to a safe temperature after butchery.

Look for packages that state 'air-chilled' instead.

Most chicken breasts sold (at least the of the cheaper variety) that I have seen, say something about being infused with up to 15% chicken broth.

My guess is that most of the water you are seeing is the added chicken broth.

So look at the packaging of the chicken breasts before you buy them.

Most of the high quality chicken sold that I have seen

do not say that they are infused with chicken broth.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814/Echo says Reinstate Monica

Since every chicken farmer in America does it (plumping is the industry standard)

you should look for a brand that says "no added water" or "no retained water".

I have found only 2 brands that say this.

One is at Harris Teeter super market.

The industry standard is 12%.

That means you must assume all of the chicken is plumped unless it says otherwise.

The problem with chicken that is pumped full of water is it never gets to the right temperature for a proper texture, instead it is rubbery and the real chicken flavor is washed away.

If you decide to brine your chicken it will have a hard time absorbing because it is already pumped full of flavorless salt water.

Desiccate the outside of the chicken with salt for about 20-60 mins to remove the excess water and then brush off the salt after to make sure it isn't too salty; this should help concentrate the flavour and remove some of the water.

Sear the outside of the chicken on HIGH heat with butter or oil to seal in the juices and flavour.

You can also try dredging the chicken in flour to give it a crust.

Cook again in high heat with butter or oil to seal.

Personally I do BOTH

the first two options to get a crisp crust and a juicy tender inside

but you can very easily do all three.

The water infusion described above was news to me, but I have certainly observed this exact same problem when cooking chicken in a sauce (usually curries).

My solution (using cheap frozen chicken breasts that produce a ton of liquid) has been to cook the chicken separately – for example, grilling it on a BBQ or pan-frying it in a separate pan, or even boiling it in broth in a slow-cooker.

You don't need to over-cook it, but this gets rid of the excess liquid and then you add it back into the sauce to simmer and

you avoid watering the sauce down.

I suggest massaging the meat with flour and letting it absorb it for some time, that is, until the flour absorbs moisture from the meat and changes color from white to yellow-ish, and becomes sticky.

This should allow the meat to retain some of the water while cooking.

Question: I notice when cooking chicken breast in a pan, or in the oven, the chicken releases a lot of fluid, watering down the flavour.  This happens with fresh chicken as well as frozen (de-frosted) chicken.  How do I prevent this?

My chicken breasts release a lot of fluid when cooked. How do I prevent this?

It sounds like your chicken has been infused with water to plump it and make it easier to chill fast. When heated, much of this water is lost to the pan. Try dessicating the chicken with salt for 20-60 minutes to remove excess water before brushing off the salt, dredging the meat with flour  for a thin crust, searing it to seal in the juices or cooking it separately to prevent liquid running into the sauce.

Water released by chicken when it cooks is a result of plumping. There are a number of methods to prevent water release, including searing the chicken on a high heat and dredging in flour.

The water released from chicken when it cooks is the result of plumping - very common in the US.

There are a number of ways to counteract the water released by chicken when it cooks. These include dredging in flour, cooking chicken separately, cooking on avery high heat to sear.


Depending on how much salt is on them, and how it's been applied, you might be able to knock some of it off, and effectively decant it: Place the peanuts into a hard-sided container at least twice the volume of the peanuts that you can seal tightly.

Shake the peanuts.

A lot.

Not too hard, though, as the goal is to knock some of the salt off, not to smash the peanuts up.

Finish by shaking the peanuts side to side, or placing it on something that vibrates (like a washing machine) Open the container, and scoop the peanuts out, being careful to leave the excess salt at the bottom.

You save yourself some effort, you might be able to do the whole work on top of your washing machine, or leave the container in the trunk of your car for a few trips.

The larger the salt crystals, the easier this will be to remove.

If it was applied as a wet spray or while the oils were on the surface of the peanuts, it's going to bind more to the peanuts, and be more difficult to remove.

Although the diluting trick will work, you can also use the peanuts in a recipe that would have otherwise called for salt and leave out the additional salt.

You could also crush them up and use them as a topping for something that could use a little extra salt.

(ice cream, Pad Thai, etc.)

Remove all surface salt by quickly rinsing them and thoroughly drying them as fast as possible.

I have rinsed salted nuts well in water to remove the excessive salt and then dried in the oven.

Since salted nuts are already roasted, they don't "roast again" very well at all (or in general behave like raw peanuts when cooked) but you can certainly rinse to remove excess salt and dry at low temperatures.

If you want to just eat them immediately you can just eat them damp, but to preserve the quality or to use for something like peanut butter, they need to be dried again.

Getting them unsalted in the first place is more desirable, but not always feasible due to oddities of pricing (where unsalted nuts may cost 2-3 times as much as the same things with salt.)

Bring a saucepan of water to the boil, then add the peanuts and a small potato and simmer for half an hour.

The salt will travel from the surface of the peanuts into the potato, which you can then discard.

Since the peanuts are for peanut butter, boiling them shouldn't affect the final taste, though you can try a lower temperature if you're concerned, or if you want to preserve crunchiness.

I used to use this method when boiling super-salty gammon steaks.

In this case, it should actually be more effective, since the salt is only on the surface of the peanuts, rather than begin suffused through them.

You really can't un-ring that bell...

you can, however, dilute the "extra salty" peanuts with other, unsalted, peanuts until the you get the desired saltiness in your peanut butter.

You could put them in an industrial sifter and use that to knock the salt off and separate the peanuts from the salt in one step, but that's probably overkill unless you have a lot of nuts.

Instead knock the salt off first, either with the shaking method that Joe mentioned or by placing the nuts between two sheets of clean fabric or clean, food safe paper and rolling and gently scrubbing them.

Then do the sifting step using a normal kitchen sifter/strainer.

For eating in general, I took around 400grams of salted mixed nuts, followed Ecnerwal's and Charles Moore's Idea (thank you), rinsed it a couple of times, Preheat conventional oven at 350F, I used an aluminum foil sheet, and spread these nuts on them, Leave them for 3 mins, turned most of them with a couple of swipes with the hand, Leave them again for 3 mins and turn off the oven, Let it cool for 3-5 mins and take them to a plate and let it cool again, before you move them into an airtight container.

I prefer to do this few at a time, than the whole 2.5lb container.

Here are some pics. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzj_F7fR53q6NnlfanpmUloyWlE

Wash, shake off excess water, put in baking pan, place in oven for 7 minutes at 350 degree, remove and let them set until cooled rebag and eat.

Now I want to know how much salt is retained in the nuts?

Put similar types of these two bowls together and shake them vigorously above a sink or any receiver and after few minutes most of the salt will be removed

Question: I bought roasted peanuts from the market and they have too much salt in them.  How should I reduce the salt in those peanuts as much as I can?  My intent is to make peanut butter.

How to unsalt roasted salted peanuts?

You can try to sift away some of the salt or knock it off by shaking in a large container. Rinsing or boiling them can remove excess salt, and the peanuts can then be dried by heating in the oven for a few minutes. Alternatively, the salted peanuts can be mixed with unsalted peanuts.

There are a number of methods recommended for removing excess salt from peanuts. These include washing with water and drying in the oven, mixing with unsalted peanuts and removing the salt in an industrial sifter.

Rinsing peanuts with water and then drying/baking in the oven is one way of removing excess salt.

Diluting the saltiness of peanuts by mixing with unsalted peanuts reduces the overall saltiness.

Put salty peanuts in anindustrial sifter to remove excess salt.


In general, the chances of significant heat damage to granite are very small, though depending on the pan, the granite, and any products that may be on the granite (not only sealant, but residue from granite cleaning or polishing products, etc.), you might sometimes get some staining/charring.

I would also take into account the amount of heat that will transfer from the pan/pot/tray -- a small pan which is nearly empty and not very hot is a very different thing from a giant cast iron dutch oven filled with chili or superheated cooking oil.

I personally wouldn't risk injecting a huge amount of heat into a small area, because it will cause the material to expand and contract unevenly.

When done repeatedly, it could even lead to cracking.

Unlikely?

Yes.

Impossible?

No, particularly if the granite is thin or lower quality (e.g., with some minor fissures or weak spots already in the stone, etc.).

Another issue is a safety one

-- granite countertops that absorb heat from very hot pans can stay exceptionally hot for a quite a while.

Since there's often no visual cue about the temperature (unlike a stovetop), it can easily cause burns if you forget that that part of the countertop may be hot.

Other answers have mentioned that most references on the internet say it's safe, but with just a quick search in the first 10 links or so that came up, I see a number of places that actually manufacture or install granite do NOT recommend placing hot things directly on granite.

See, for example: here : "Trivets or cloths are highly recommended.

" here : "Repeated exposure to high heat can eventually leave black marks and gashes on granite slabs." here : "The darker the material the more dense and therefore the more heat it will hold.

The biggest issue with putting a hot pan on granite is that if you touched the spot it could be as hot as the pan itself and therefore cause you an injury.

You should especially be cautious with black granite since it is the most dense and with repeat exposure may actually crack." here in a list of myths: " 'Granite is heat resistant, so it is perfectly okay to place hot pots on a granite countertop.'

While it’s true that granite is quite resistant to the sorts of temperatures encountered in kitchens, excessive heat can damage or discolor some types of granite sealers.

Rapid heating can also generate internal stresses that could cause a crack at a weak spot, such as a natural flaw or fissure in the stone.

An easy way to eliminate potential problems is by using a trivet with feet."

Many sites agree with these cautions.

There are other sites that say it should be okay, or it's safe up to X degrees, or it's okay

but you shouldn't do it repeatedly, or whatever.

Everybody seems to have their opinion.

And you can find sources that claim the cracking is a myth.

This video , for example, heats small blocks of granite in a toaster oven and with a blowtorch and observes no damage.

But the heat damage (if it exists) is not going to be caused simply by heating, but by thermal shock created when a large slab is heated unevenly and thus expands and contracts unevenly (usually repeatedly over a period of years).

If you look around a bit, the internet does have anecdotes of people who have had granite countertops develop cracks or discoloration.

Personally, I have granite, and I avoid doing it on a regular basis.

However, in a pinch when I have a lot of hot pans or trays around the kitchen, and I need to set something down, I don't worry too much about doing it once in a while.

I think the chances of damage are quite small.

But with the cost of granite, why take any risk when you can just use a trivet or something (as you'd do on just about any other surface)?

That's just my habit anywhere.

Yesterday, my granite/quartzinite (mineral combination of marble and quartz) cracked by using an electric skillet sitting without a trivet or cutting board.

The material is 3 cm thick.

Although I've used hot pads/trivets for pans when needing to place on counter temporarily, it never occurred to me an electric skillet 2.5 - 3" above the counter at 350 degrees for approximately 20 minutes would cause the granite to crack.

Appeared to be plenty of air flow space.

I'm an idiot.

Do be like me.

Put something between the heat source and the stone.

Granite is a naturally occurring volcanic rock so unless you've got tungsten kettles and a nuclear-powered stove, it should be very safe to put hot pots on there if its thickness is more then a few cm (>1").

If you don't know whether it's synthetically sealed, take an cotton bud and dab a bit of nailpolish remover on it and apply it to a small area on the (under)side of your counter.

If there are no stains left (either on the bud or on the counter), there is no synthetic sealer and it should be absolutely safe.

I know someone personally who took a pot out of a 450 degree oven and set it on their new granite counter, and the granite cracked.

That was enough to encourage me to ALWAYS use a trivet.

All the words on the Internet can't counter one personal experience.

Most reference on the Internet say it is OK to put a hot pan on a granite counter.

BUT.

If the granite slab is thin (YMMV), it might break due to thermal shock.

Personally, I never put my pan directly on the counter, always on a mat of some sort.

I have just broken my granite.

Hot pan.

I personally tested hot pots and pans on granite, and found even boiling pots of water will cause surface cracks.

A cast iron pan with oil will completely crack the slab.

Probably won't hurt the granite - but it can warp your pans, making them unstable on any stove and unusable on a glass top stove.

Question: Is it okay to put a hot pan/pot on a granite counter? Or will it burn it? I don't know if there's a sealer on it.

Is it okay to put a hot pan on a granite counter?

While granite is a volcanic rock and theoretically should be fine with pans at kitchen stove temperatures, in reality the granite may be thin and/or sealed and sensitive to heat. Granite countertops can crack when exposed to pans of boiling oil or water.

Granite counter tops should not crack when hot pots and pans are placed on them. However, on many occasions, people have experienced damage. This may be because their granite counters are made of a thin slab of granite.

Granite is a hard material and will probably not be damaged by hot pots and pans placed on it. However, doing this may cause your pans to warp.

A lot of people have experienced damage when placing pots and pans on a granite counter, with the granite cracking. This may be because the granite is thin.


I completely agree with Cascabel's answer.

I do want to add a bit.

Salt is an amazing flavor enhancer and most (sweet) baked goods use very little (1/4 to 1 tsp) considering that most of the recipes make 12-24 servings (more for cupcakes/cookies etc) but it does make a difference.

Most baked desserts gain quite a bit from having the added salt... and they don't even have to be baked.

Even in things like buttercream frosting, adding a little salt greatly helps to balance the overwhelming sweetness of the frosting and makes it more palatable to adults.

All of my favorite buttercream recipes have a small amount of salt.

Anyway, removing the salt won't cause the recipe to fail...

I'm sure I've accidentally omitted it several times in the past when I'm in a rush to get stuff in the oven...

it can just make the flavors not as strong or remove some of the flavor contrast, so things can taste a bit flatter.

In baking, salt is generally only for flavor: things won't taste as good without it.

So you can reduce it or leave it out if you want, just be aware that you may sacrifice some flavor.

This shouldn't have anything to do with the baking powder.

Baked goods that don't use baking powder usually contain salt as well.

I would just note that salt does sometimes play other roles in baking, particularly in yeast breads (but also in relatively lean doughs raised chemically, like soda bread).

Salt concentration slows down yeast growth, and it can also alter gluten formation early on.

It can also affect final texture and even browning to some extent (as a side effect).

It is possible to modify most bread recipes to bake without salt, but it may require altering the rising time (and perhaps how much you knead/fold/shape).

And of course there are notable bread traditions that are simply made without salt, like much bread in Tuscany.

I stopped using salt 40 years ago, therefore I never use salt in baking.

I have never noticed any issues.

Once your palate adjusts, you will enjoy the fresh flavour of food rather than the salty overtones.

I disagree with the other answers.

I've heard this opinion frequently, but never seen it work that way in practice.

I live in Europe, and baking recipes here rarely use salt in baking.

I certainly don't, and frequently omit it from American recipes too.

I don't notice much of a difference between making it with and without the salt.

My best guess is that If you are accustomed to eating baking goods with salt, you'll miss it if they don't have it.

If you're not accustomed, you won't.

This would explain my observations in salt being used in some local cuisines and not others.

Salt preferences can certainly be changed for savory dishes by simply changing the amount of salt eaten until one has grown used to a new level; I've done so myself, and I've known others who do it.

There is a good chance it works the same way for sweet goods.

So, if you want to eat less salt, just omit it.

Even if it is a bit unusual at first, it will likely grow on you.

Just note that if you're serving to a crowd which expects salt, the results can be perceived by them as underwhelming.

I know this thread is old

but I'm going to post anyway.

All the previous people may not be aware that people who are "reducing salt" might actually mean reducing sodium.

Check your baking soda and baking powder labels if you're thinking home baking is not a source of sodium!

This still adds up.

Consider my recipe that uses 2 eggs (70 mg sodium each), ½ tsp baking soda (600 mg), and ¼ tsp baking powder (70 mg).

Divide that by 12 (muffins) and that's 67.5 mg of sodium per muffin.

That is without any added salt !

And just as little as ¾ tsp salt adds another 1770 mg of sodium to my recipe, which would make EACH muffin have 215 mg of sodium.

Please be aware it does add up bakers!

Salt is generally used for flavor in cooking, but when it comes to baking it plays more of an important role.

In baking, salt is used to activate the leavening agent in the product-like baking powder or baking soda.

This means that if you omit salt all together your product won't rise as much or at all.

You should be able to reduce the amount of salt you use and still get your product to rise, but I would not recommend omitting it all together.

Question: I'm trying to reduce my salt intake.  I've noticed in baking recipes where baking powder is used they add salt.  Can I omit the salt or would the recipe fail?

Omiting salt in baking recipes that use chemical leaveners?

Many bread recipes in Europe do not use salt, and usually it is there for flavour rather than baking properties. However, it can affect rising, especially with yeast, and omitting it may make the bread taste quite bland.

Different baking traditions have a different approach to the use of salt. In some baking recipes it is merely a flavor enhancer and leaving it out will not affect the result. In other recipes, it is an active ingredient and therefore reducing the amount may be better than leaving it out completely. European baking traditions tend to use less salt and some, like Tuscany, do not use salt at all in bread.

Removing salt from a baking recipe will not affect the result. It will make a difference to the flavor. Guests may find your dishes a little tasteless.

Salt does play a role in baking and the recipe may need to be modified to leave it out especially for leavened goods. Some bread traditions do not use salt at all, like Tuscan bread.

Salt is used to activate the leavening process in some recipes, so leaving it out may affect the result. Maybe reducing the amount would be a better idea.


About 8oz or 225g/person is probably a good place to start.

Think about when you have a standard steak or a piece of chicken in a restaurant.

The pre-cooked weight will usually be in the region of 8-10oz.

A good rule of thumb is to allow 1lb of meat (before cooking) per person, not counting small children who will obviously eat less.

It's better to have too much than not enough - you can always use leftovers.

It depends in part who you are serving--hungry college students (or those with that mindset) eat considerably more free food than do wealthy health-conscious professionals.

You also need to keep in mind that while you don't want to overshoot massively, it also looks bad to run out of food.

You may also need to keep in mind that a significant number of people do not eat pork for personal/religious reasons, so you want to not run too short of other options.

That said, the best way to estimate is to see what people who do this all the time provide.

For instance, CityBBQ provides 8 lbs of meat for 20-24 people .

Famous Dave's seems to offer about 8 lbs also , if you can count their 60 chicken wings as equivalent to your lasagna.

(This is likely cooked weight, though neither site says.)

For entertaining purposes the rule of thumb I've most commonly seen in your case, where the meat is the primary food being served, is about 8-10 ounces per person.

That's size per portion after cooking.

You are making pulled pork and brisket, and each of those will lose just over 40% of their weight during cooking.

So if you assume 5 ounces of brisket and 5 ounces of pork per person, that's about 8.3 ounces of each meat pre-cooked per person.

So you'd probably want

(number of meat eaters times 8.3) divided by 16 pounds of each meat type,

plus or minus any fudge factor you wish to include.

In the past, when I host a party at home

and I serve Buffet style with sides, Rice, Potatoes, Mc & Cheese, Salad and veggies

, I end up with about 2oz of beef, whether is flank, tenderloin, etc per person.

Remember, you have appetizers as well before the main and I serve, Garlic Shrimp, plus an assortment of dips & chips.

Depending on where you live, your local government food or health departments will publish a food guide or food pyramid

In many western countries that eat red meats, you will find this showing about 120 g (4 oz) of red meat, about the size of a pack of cards or a typical hamburger patie

At many functions and restaurants the host will serve more than this, this is marketing, not love In the case of pulled pork, a generous tong load into an open roll is about 50 to 60 g (2 oz).

I did a 50

+ person event recently, and there was only about 1.2 pulled pork rolls per person consumed.

Pulled pork loses nearly half it's weight from raw to cooked.

See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/57059/3203

For brisket, the loss is less (depending on beef type).

And again about 50 to 60 g is a roll full, especially by the time you add some coleslaw, sauerkraut etc.

So even with if everyone has a brisket and a pork roll, you are still at 120 g cooked, or 240 g (8 oz) raw.

Always over cater, as you never know who is going to turn up, and pulled pork makes great left overs

I have grilled, barbecued, smoked brisket whole my life.

I would say you´ll actually need about 2 pounds/person.

This is because as this homepage also tells, http://goodporkbadpork.com/how-much-brisket-per-person/ the brisket will lose about 40% if you plan on trimming it!

Question: Catering a small event tomorrow for twenty people. Serving beef brisket, pulled pork, and veggie lasagna. Question is how much brisket & pork should  allow for each person? also serving  three sides, rolls, etc.

How much meat should I serve per person?

This depends on factors like the people being served, but a common rule of thumb is to prepare about 8oz or 225g of meat per person, and less for children. You should try not to serve way too much or too little food, but it is better to serve too much and have leftovers.

8oz to 10oz is considered an appropriate serving of meat when it is the main component of the meal. However, the typeof people you are feeding needs to be taken into account. Always tend towards too much rather than too little and use up the leftovers another day.

8oz to 10oz per person is considered the right amount of meat to serve if meat is the main component of the meal.

How much meat you serve depends on who you are feeding. It is always better to have too much food than too little. The remaining meat can be used as leftovers.


Onion can be caramelized without butter.

Or any other type of oil.

However, unless you are actively avoiding using fat, there really is no reason not to.

The main benefit of using oil when caramelizing onion is the fact that oil can reach a higher temperature than water.

To caramelize onion you need to reach about 230F. Water boils at 212F and will not go higher than that.

So to caramelize without oil, you would first need to draw out the water and "dehydrate" the onion a bit before they reach temperatures that can caramelize the onion.

Note:

Never put water into the pan if you wish to caramelize onion.

The reason you very commonly see butter used is because it can reach temperatures above 230F and it's flavor profile works really well with the savory sweet flavor of caramelized onions.

As others have said here, butter isn't required.

The browning and good flavour come from the maillard reaction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

You can use oil instead of butter, though the flavour will probably be a little different.

You can also add a little baking soda, as the increased pH will increase the maillard reaction, which gives more great flavour faster.

This article has pictures comparing caramelized onions with butter vs oil, and with vs without baking soda: http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/01/how-to-make-the-best-french-onion-soup-caramelization.html

You can also use a pressure cooker, in which case you can achieve a temperature high enough that the maillard reaction occurs, even in a wet atmosphere.

At normal atmospheric pressure, you'll never get past 100 degrees when there's water, but under pressure the temperature is higher.

That's one of the reasons pressure cookers are a great tool, you can use them to pack more maillard goodness into soups and sauces, for example.

Butter is not necessary.

In fact, you can caramelize without any fat.

The browning of the sugars in the product is what creates caramelization.

To caramelize without fat, chop or slice onion, place in pan with a little salt.

Cover and cook at medium for about 5 minutes.

Uncover and cook any water out.

Stir often.

Deglaze the pan with a bit of water.

Cook and deglaze until you reached your desired effect.

No, you don't need butter to caramelize onions because they are very very sweet, and the sugar inside of them is what become brown as you caramelize your onions.

They do however get pretty sticky since you are basically creating caramel, so if you're not using butter, you should use some oil, or have a very nonstick pan, or you will struggle trying to scrape the brown bits at the bottom of your pan, and they might burn.

They brown and become flavorful for two reasons, not one: Two different browning reactions are at play in the process: caramelization, in which sugars break down into hundreds of new molecules ... and the Maillard reaction, in which proteins and sugars transform into an insane number of new flavor and aroma molecules.

https://www.seriouseats.com/2019/06/how-to-caramelize-onions-classic.html Serious Eats is a very good site for the best methods

bc they focus on the science behind the techniques and also are invested in creating the tastiest, most appealing food they can.

(Its director, J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, is a James Beard winner.)

With respect to an earlier poster, you not only can put some water in the pan, you'll have to (as the fond increases and needs to be scraped up).

Also, I'm pretty sure I learned years ago on America's Test Kitchen (another science-based resource) that certain bitter compounds in the onions will break down in butter but not in oil, but I can't substantiate that claim.

(I've tried both and find that the onions retain some bitterness when cooked in oil.

I share this info unhappily bc

it's at odds with my concerns about animal welfare.)

Question: Caramelized onions are great but I've only seen them prepared with loads of butter.  Can you caramelize onions without butter and still achieve the same effect? Or is butter what creates the caramelized effect?

Is butter required to caramelize onions?

The caramelisation comes from the browning of the sugars in the onion, so butter is not necessary and they can even be caramelised dry. However, butter is often used because of its high temperature tolerance and the balance of flavour profiles, and using butter or oil will help to prevent the onions from burning and sticking to the bottom of the pan.

No butter or oil is needed to caramelize onions but it may be preferable to use some for flavour and to prevent the onions from sticking to the pan. Butter is generally used because its flavour goes very well with onions.

Butter is not needed to caramelize onions

Onions can be caramelized with no fat or using oil, as it is the sugars in the onions that caramelizes. However, without some oil they may stick to the pan.

Butter is used because it can be heated to a high temperature and its flavour matches well with onions.


"Fibrous" and "dry" are good descriptions for bean which haven't been prepared properly.

Mostly, they have either not been soaked long enough, or haven't been cooked for long enough.

Normal times for beans are about 12 hours soaking in water and another 1-3 hours cooking, depending on the desired texture.

Also, sometimes beans can be cooked with about quarter/half a teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda, which softens them nicely.

That should be a start towards solving your problem.

To answer your question, I think that white beans and pinto beans are a good start (you can make a chili, for instance), and that chickpeas are also a very good starting point.

Cooked chickpeas are great as-is, and can be seasoned with cumin, salt and lemon juice for a nice snack.

It sounds like your beans were undercooked.

You should try this recipe.

You do not have to pre-soak dried beans or spend hours cooking them to have soft creamy beans.

Put your beans in an oven safe pot with a tight fitting lid.

Dutch oven and caldero would both work.

Pre-heat the oven to 250F.

Boil the dry beans in water (3:1 ratio water to beans) for 15 minutes.

You can use soup stock instead of water, or add spices and garlic/onion to the water.

After boiling put the lid over the pot and put the pot in the oven for an hour and 15-25 minutes.

Afterwards your beans should be perfectly cooked.

For a first timer I think pinto beans or black beans are the easiest to cook.

Larger beans like chick peas and kidney beans may require a little more boiling before baking them in the oven.

Beans like lentils or split peas do not even need to be baked, they cook through in 15-20 minutes of boiling on the stove.

When you use canned beans, you pretty much have to make do with what's sold.

Cooking from dry beans gives you greater control over the end texture.

Most recipes that start with dry beans involve pre-soaking the beans before simmering.

If you add 1 T salt / Gal to the pre-soaking water (this is called, 'brining')

you can get really creamy beans after simmering.

This is because sodium ions disrupt the pectin gel that binds the bean cells together, which loosens them to the point that water can better penetrate and hydrate the core of the bean during the pre-soaking period.

This means they cook more evenly, giving a creamy texture.

The folks at Cook's Illustrated did a great write-up on this technique in a recent issue -

I'll try to track down the reference.

Making the cooking water more basic in pH (rather than acidic) can also help.

Baking soda both supplies sodium ions and makes the pH more basic.

This makes for even creamier beans, but in my hands it can also be overkill (i.e. the beans fall apart into mush).

Don't forget to switch out the brine before you simmer, or you'll have a super-salty dish!

Source:

A nice Cook's Illustrated instructional video

Different beans do have different flavors.

I find that kidney beans and black beans have a fairly strong and distinctive flavor compared to most beans.

Black-eyed peas and most lentils have a milder flavor, but still, if you were to cook them separately and taste test you would find they do taste different from each other.

I don't think there is any particular bean that is harder or easier to cook if you are open to experimenting (which it seems that you are).

They can mostly be interchanged in recipes (with the knowledge that there will be a slight difference in the resulting color, texture and flavor) and they are generally quite forgiving as long as you err on the side of over-cooking.

If you're having trouble with getting them cooked well enough, you might try either a slow-cooker or a pressure-cooker.

Either one is a good way to make sure beans get thoroughly cooked without having to watch them on the stove for a long time.

For the slow-cooker, soak the beans overnight then add the beans and other ingredients to the cooker in the morning and let it go.

In general, for beans in a slow cooker, you will probably need double the time they would have taken boiling on the stove, but you don't need to watch them.

For the pressure cooker, start soaking the beans in the morning to cook them in the evening.

You need about 1/4 the "boiling in a pot on the stove" time (or less) in the pressure cooker.

There are some good references for cooking times around online, or converting a recipe from "regular" to slow-cooker or pressure cooker.

Note that the pressure cooker time starts from when it gets up to pressure, which will vary based on the volume of the cooker and the volume of the ingredients being cooked.

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/10-top-tips-using-slow-cooker http://www.fagoramerica.com/my_fagor/common_cooking_times

try lima beans , they are soft and creamy when fully cooked, yet I suggest brining overnight to boil it faster then, I usually stop to boil when shells start to come off and float on top

If cooked with kidney beans they look more like a sauce when kidney are just getting soft.

Question: I've recently started adding beans to my diet to get more fiber. I've never been a fan, but it's better than the alternative. I've also discovered refried variations, which helps a lot.  What I'm looking for is some kind of bean that isn't as "fibrous" or "dry" as the red kidney beans I've been trying. Are there different tastes? Different textures? Any beans considered "safe for beginners"?

How do I avoid fibrous, dry beans?

Using dry beans gives you more control over the texture, but fibrous and dry beans come from improper cooking or undercooking. Try adding a quarter/half teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda and cooking them in a slow cooker. Start with beans that are easier to cook like white beans, pinto beans, chickpeas, black beans and lima beans, and which can be brined overnight to allow faster boiling.

Beans require a lot of cooking and undercooking results in them being dry. Investing in a slow-cooker or pressure-cooker is one way of solving the problem. Moreover, beginners may wish to start with chickpeas, pinto beans, white beans or lima beans.

If beans are dry it usually means they have not been cooked enough. If you cook them from dry, you have more control over their end result. A slow-cooker or pressure-cooker produces good results.

Chickpeas, pinto beans, white beans and lima beans are all good for beginners.


It seems like you are primarily interested in reproducing the umami of the meat.

Tofu does in fact have glutamic acids that will add to the umami; just make sure to thoroughly dry the tofu (extracting as much liquid as possible) before use.

In addition, you can use minced mushrooms, as Stephie mentioned in the comments .

You can also experiment with adding Bragg's Liquid Aminos, since it has a lot of umami but has less than half the sodium of soy sauce.

Keep in mind, though, that the meat in the original recipe is also relied upon for its fat; tofu does have some fat, but not as much as meat, and it's unlikely to render out during the initial fry.

Therefore, I would suggest adding 7 grams of fat (e.g., vegetable oil) for every 100g of meat you are replacing.

Let's recapitulate the textural options you have: Crumbled firm tofu, sauteed (with or without some soy sauce and/or wheat paste - mind

the color you want too!)

Brunoised

/minced fresh/reconstituted shiitake mushroom (potent taste, and you get a great stock from rehydrating :) ), sauteed.

Brunoised/minced "perfectly normal, western mushroom" (Cremini, Champignon or whatever it is locally called :) ), sauteed thoroughly.

TVP mince, cooked in strong soy sauce broth.

Firm (baked) seitan, chopped.

Now about the umami you are missing: Most of the things mentioned are absorbent (mushrooms, crumbled tofu...), so they will soak up umami rich sauces when sauteed with them, especially when you add them when most of the water is fried out.

Other are made with or cooked in a liquid (seitan, TVP).

So let's look at some umami sources we have: Soy sauce.

Try korean gukganjang (strong, but doesn't discolor things much).

Shiitake broth.

Or Soy sauce with shiitake extract (commercially sold).

Or a full shiitake + kombu dashi.

Tian mian jiang (sweet bean sauce).

Nutritional yeast.

Straight, unapologetic MSG.

Doenjang (strong taste) or Miso.

Minced fermented black beans.

Marmite.

Various Chinese pickled vegetables (strong taste).

Doubanjiang (strong taste).

Jackfruit supposedly works well as a pork substitute.

[ Source ].

When jackfruit is ripe, it has a sweet taste and can be used in desserts but

when it’s unripe, the taste is savory .

The texture is similar to chicken and pork and is often called “vegetarian meat.”

The part of the fruit used as a meat substitute is the fleshy coating around the seeds.

Serious Eats used a dry fried minced mushrooms to substitute for, in that case, beef in a dish.

I don't know if it will substitute for pork mince in the same way, having no firsthand experience, but it may be worth trying.

The results are, reportedly, rich and savory and deeply flavored, lots of umami - which sounds like it would do a similar job of adding depth and flavor to your stir fry, even if the specific flavor added is different.

To make the mushroom mince, they used button mushrooms, well minced and fried until the water had mostly evaporated out and they were deeply browned, and added them to the minced mushrooms they had on hand from the broth in that recipe.

With a bonus of very mushroom-flavored oil, to fry in.

That's a nice addition, adding flavor and, also, fat (since meats usually add both).

For your stir fry, it seems like a similar substitution might work - start with a few minced mushrooms, making sure they get quite dry and brown by the time you're done.

They should give the flavor some of that extra depth and savoriness, just as a meat mince would do.

You might want soy sauce or liquid aminos or even something like kombu to touch up the umami flavor a bit more - your stir fry might need a little more since that recipe had other flavors to rely on.

Don't know many dishes that start with pork mince because my experience is limited to North China, mostly Beijing.

There, mince was added to noodles mostly; with veg was eggplant, sometimes mushrooms; and of course in Mao Po Tofu.

I believe it's the mince browning that adds the flavor.

Getting some good caramelized flavor can be done by adding just a bit of sugar -very typical in wide range of recipes- allowing to really brown.

Also, black vinegar from Shanxi adds some caramel flavor.

Consider also adding just pork seasoning: a bit of 5 spice.

Not really a sub

but adds depth: couple of drops of szechuan oil (prickly ash)with dribble of toasted sesame oil, replacing a bit of plain cooking oil.

You could try pressed bean curd.

If you chop it up, it might have a similar texture, and it does provide protein.

It comes in plain and seasoned kinds that you can try.

This idea works for me when I'm cooking Italian-style foods, but it should translate to Chinese cooking with some modifications.

I use green lentils, cooked through and then mashed and spiced.

For Italian-style, I use cumin, smoked paprika, nutmeg, salt and pepper.

For Chinese, I would suggest some hoi-sin sauce, with cumin and ground coriander.

Question: In Chinese cuisine it's very common to start a vegetable stir fry with a bit of minced meat, typically pork, to give the dish a deeper flavor. To make a vegetarian version I usually just leave this out, but I've been wondering if something else would give a similar effect taste-wise.  Typical meat replacements like tofu or seitan don't work here because they focus on providing the texture and protein of meat, but not so much the flavor.

Vegetarian replacement for pork mince in Chinese style stir fry

Tofu, TVP mince, firm (baked) seitan, jackfruit, mushrooms, green lentils and other ingredients can add to the umami and texture, especially when paired with an umami-rich sauce like liquid aminos, soy sauce or black vinegar.

Pork mince is considered easy to replace in Chinese stir fry. Possible ingredients include seitan, tofu, jackfruit and lentils. The missing caramelized flavor, on the other hand, can be achieved using a little sugar or some black vinegar.

There are number of options for replacing pork mince, including tofu, seitan, lentils, jackfruit and TVP mince.

To get the umami and caramelized flavor use a little sugar or maybe black vinegar.


That looks a lot like melted aluminum.

I'd use a solution of sodium hydroxide to dissolve it; probably won't even hurt the oven paint.

Easy

Off Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner is NaOH based, so that'll probably work for you, and is easier to find than straight lye nowadays.

Just follow the directions.

If the aluminum is thick, you may have to do things twice.

Other brands of oven cleaner will likely work as well as long as they contain sodium hydroxide (lye).

It will help A LOT for you people who need aluminum foil off your oven!

There was an article about How to Remove Melted Aluminum Foil from the Oven , but following several disappointing results by the participants, a user suggested a solution that was met with resounding success by those who tried it.

The author suggested an application of naval jelly (from the paint department at your local hardware store) as the solution that actually worked.

Naval jelly is pink goop containing phosphoric acid that is used to remove rust from iron or steel, leaving a clean surface.

Essentially, you spread aluminum jelly over the aluminum, smear it around every few hours, leave it overnight, wipe clean and repeat process until the residue is gone.

It might take a few days, but it is a gentle process with no fumes.

The solution was was verified enthusiastically by several users in that conversation.

You can read more about the process and reviews starting here:

BK says: Back in November, I searched for a way to fix our new oven … Bonus solution:

The original article also claims that the entire bottom plate of your oven can be replaced usually for less than US$30.00.

Contact your manufacturer for a replacement part and guidance on installing it.

Trying to burn it off with self clean heat does not work.

I tried.

Maybe made is worse.

Easy Off Heavy Duty works but takes many tries.

I'm on sixth application and o 75% gone.

Putty knife helps.

Careful of the fumes.

I read that when sodium hydroxide reacts with aluminum it can be dangerous.

Unfortunately I can't post my pictures.

But I recently did exactly what he did here and with worse consequences of foil.

After reading everyone's post on several web sites, I tried the Heavy Duty

Easy Off Oven Cleaner.

After 4 applications and scraping with a "decal razor" scraper, I got nearly 97% of the foil off.

I let the solution sit for an hour on each application.

I was able to take the oven plate out of my oven and do this outside of the house.

Lining the bottom of an oven with aluminum foil or a foil liner is quite common and acceptable provided that the electric heating element is ABOVE the oven bottom, not below and that the liner is between the element and the bottom.

This of course is not possible with a gas oven.

With that said, you could try scraping the foil off with a putty knife, if it is not interfering with the operation of the oven, leave it.

Unsightly, but better than scratching up the porcelain finish of the oven.

The oven bottom should be removable and you could order another and be back to pristine in a matter of a few days.

Probably not what you wanted to hear.

If you are thinking of ordering a new bottom pan, you might get a friend to try heating the stuck on aluminum with a portable propane torch to soften the aluminum and maybe it can be scraped off with little to no damage to the underlying oven bottom thus saving you some money.

The Works toilet bowl cleaner from Wal Mart will dissolve it.

Put it on and let it sit for 4 or 5 hours.

What ever is in it dissolves the whole mess.

Question: I had this  brilliant  idea to put aluminum foil at the bottom of my oven while I cooked pizza at very high temperatures. I was hoping it would catch any toppings that fell off so I could quickly remove them and prevent smoke. The result is that the foil bonded to the oven and now I'm not sure how to get it off. Any chemicals or tools I should use in this situation?

How do I remove aluminum foil from the bottom of my oven?

Easy Off Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner or other NaOH-based cleaners should dissolve it, but may take several tries. You could also try softening the aluminium with a propane torch, smearing aluminium/naval jelly on it, leaving it overnight and wiping clean before repeating if necessary. The Works toilet bowl cleaner  from Wal Mart will also dissolve it.

Chemical solutions for removing aluminum stuck to the oven include solutions of sodium hydroxide, Works toilet cleaner and a propane torch. Naval jelly is another solution that seems to work. A chemical-free method would be to scrape the aluminum with a putty knife. The self clean heat option does not work. The easiest option may be to buy a new oven bottom.

Any solution that contains sodium hydroxide will do the job.  Alternatively you could try Works toilet bowl cleaner or a propane torch.

Naval jelly works in removing aluminum stuck to your oven.

A chemical-free option could be scraping it off with a putty knife.

Ordering a new oven bottom is another option.


I had the same problem before, but I learned this great trick from Larousse:

Try sprinkling slices of your eggplant with plenty of salt on both sides and let rest for about fifteen minutes.

The salt will draw out a lot of water from the vegetable, making it less spongy.

Then, dry off the slices before adding them to very hot oil in a frying pan.

The hot oil should help make a nice sear, sealing off the eggplant, so it doesn't soak up anymore oil.

If you need to, turn down the heat after the eggplant is browned to let it finish cooking.

I've had the best luck using the following method:

Gently rub some salt on the eggplant and leave for a few minutes

Dab the eggplant pieces with a paper towel to absorb the excess moisture.

Microwave

(I know, it sounds awful, but give it a shot)

the eggplant for couple of minutes.

This will partially cook the eggplant and also collapse the air pockets in the eggplant, reducing the amount of oil that it will absorb when frying Fry with a bit of oil

The result is some of the best fried eggplant I've had.

Spray them lightly with olive oil on both sides, add your choice of fresh herbs¹, put them on an oven shelf and bake them in the oven at 150°C (300°F) until you get the texture you want.

Don't go above that T° as the smoke point for olive oil is 160°C.

Disadvantage:

It's not really frying, it's baking Advantage: no extra sodium! :-)

¹

: I like a mix of oregano and thyme myself, but YMMV...

I experimented with salting and brining.

Brining the cut-up pieces of aubergine for a few hours gives by far the best results.

This methods gets rid of the bitter taste, and even takes care of the slightly allergic reaction I always get eating aubergines.

The brine becomes quite brown.

They will hardly take up any oil like this, cook quickly and evenly.

I brine in water about a salty as sea water, more or less.

This website agrees with me, check it out!

i have grilled egg plant before with a little brush of oil and it came out fine.

i think this could work with frying if you fried it on a gentle heat for a longer time so the water was released,and so it steams in its own juice.

they are very juicy when they are cooked.

i have also baked with minimal oil, just a drizzle and tossed, and into a medium oven.

i think keeping the heat down is key as it allows time for the moisture to be released.

According to other answers I read "rub some salt on the eggplant and leave for a few minutes" is great, but it might not be the way to reduce its absorption of oil, I guess !?

My way is : 1) Use round pan 2)

Pour some oil (a small amount - but enough amount to fry the eggplants) into the pan 3)

Shake the pan after the oil has been cooked.

(make sure oil are all over the pan and not gathering in the middle) 4)

Fry those eggplants.

Preparations before above steps

You can cut the eggplants into round shape (slicing horizontally) or stick shape (slicing vertically).

Don't cut into very big size.

And yes, rub it with a little salt together with water in a bowl for 10~15 minutes before getting started to fry.

Hope it helps! ;-)

Question: Frying eggplant is somewhat tricky, as it absorbs oil like a sponge. I read some tricks like brushing egg white or flour on the eggplant slices before frying. None of these tricks are good enough to avoid oil soaking into the eggplant body.  Is there any practical way to fry eggplant using minimal oil?

How to fry eggplant with less oil?

Drizzling or brushing with a litlle olive oil before grilling or baking is one way to reduce the oil needed to cook eggplant.

If you want eggplants with less oil, bake or grill them rather than frying.


I'm aware of three reasons that you might not want to do so:

You tie up spices that you might want to use in other dishes individually

You don't always want to add the spices at the same time.

You can't always keep spices well-blended.

If you only tend to cook one dish or you leave some of each spice in reserve, the first one isn't really a problem.

The second one is a function of the dish being prepared, which I'll assume isn't the case here.

The last one is less of a problem with ground spices, but can be significant for whole seeds -- as you jostle the container with use, some spices will tend to float to the top, while others sink to the bottom.

The end result is that when you go take your measure of mixed spices, it might not have the same proportion as what you had expected.

You can partially mitigate the issue by taking your container and rolling it around on its side for a bit before righting the container and taking your measurement.

It's not perfect, but it will help in re-distributing the spices.

If there are certain spices that would be a major problem if they weren't help in balance (eg, ground hot peppers), you can blend everything else and leave that one item separate.

Assuming you're using spices which are all dried and ground, there should be no problem.

In the middle-east, there are always several spice mixtures available in shops.

The most famous of which are Ras-al-Hanout and Baharat.

These are spice mixtures sold as pre-mixed combinations by the shopkeeper, who is usually the one who grinds the spices.

You may want to keep them separate for shelf-life reasons.

If you combine them, the shelf life of the mixture will be limited by the freshness of the least-fresh spice you mixed into it.

Different spices' flavors also degrade at different rates, though generally you don't have to worry about the flavor of dried, ground spices degrading for at least 6 months.

Depending on how much of this mixture you use, these things may not be a factor.

For some here there might be two other reasons: Practice, and variation.

Mixing spices as part of the prep trains your memory, and sometimes helps you understand the mixtures, and there is a learning effect both from getting the balance slightly wrong and from getting it right in a subtly different way.

This can also prevent a dish from getting boring if you make it a lot.

You can combine them and make your own spice mix, but keep in mind, there may be some separation and you may need to shake or roll your space shaker to keep things mixed.

The coarser spices will end up on top while the finely ground will end up on the bottom if you don't mix up before use.

Question: I always use the same spice mix for dal. Instead of taking 1-2 tsp of each, I would rather keep a special container for the dal of the ready made mix in the proportions I want.  Is there any reason not to do so? Shelf-life, aggregation, ..?

Is there a reason for storing ground spices separately (unmixed)?

You can combine them to make your own spice mix, but the shelf life will be limited by the freshness of the least-fresh spice, it may be difficult to keep it properly mixed and ensure even proportions, you will be forced to add the spices at the same time and you will not be able to adjust the proportions to taste. In addition, you will need separate containers of individual spices if you want to use them in other dishes.

It is generally considered better to keep spices separate and mix them as you use them. This means different shelf-lives can be respected and you can train your memory as you mix your spices. There is , however, no harm in making a dried spice mix, as long as you remember to shake it so the individual spices do not separate.

Keeping spices separate is useful for many reasons, including using spices separately, different shelf-life of the different spices and training your memory when making a spice mix.

If all the spices are dried mixing them is no problem. An occasional shake is needed to keep them fully mixed.


As Lars Friedrich already wrote, curing with salt is a way to kill bacteria.

A high sugar content and the removal of water in general alters the water activity .

Some chemicals are toxic to bacteria (and to some extend also toxic to humans) like borax (which is used to preserve caviar; I'm not sure if it only inhibits the growth of bacteria) or ethanol (drinking alcohol).

Sulfites are used - not exclusively - in wine making and on dried fruit.

You can alter the pH .

I doubt the food will be edible as-it-is.

Last but not least you can irradiate the food to sterilize it.

Irradiation is also commonly used to sterilize (disposable?) medical equipment.

Please note that freezing does not kill any bacteria.

Side note: There are some other bacteria that survive even in such adverse environments but they are not common as foodborne pathogens.

If you really want to be sure that the food is sterile without cooking, you have pressure-sterilize, "poison" it or irradiate it.

You can also preserve food even with bacteria and fungi: A sourdough has an almost indefinitely shelf-live.

It basically only consists of flour, water and a mix of many different bacteria and yeasts.

Cultured milk also has a very long shelf life.

For further reading: The FAT TOM rule describes the six favorable conditions required for the growth of foodborne pathogens. 1 Caveat:

(Botulinum) spores survive in honey.

Do they count as bacteria?

The most common method to kill bacteria without heat is curing with salt.

The removal of the water and the addition of salt leads to an osmotic pressure that draws the water out of the bacteria.

The term is "cold sterilization"; most methods will indeed be out of reach of home users.

Some of the methods used in industry seem to be just sieving the bacteria out (microfiltration), pressurizing everything to 50000 psi, or obviously chemicals that remain in the food as preservatives or that self-decompose into relatively inert compounds in storage (Dimethyldicarbonate).

Some compounds in common seasonings (Turmeric, Onions/Garlic, Chilies) are claimed to have an effect that lowers bacterial growth (but does not completely inhibit it).

Classic sour pickles actually contain a very small amount of salt -- just enough to discourage most bacteria and encourage the growth of Lactobacillus acidophilus.

LBA's byproducts then kill off whatever else was trying to compete with it.

Vinegar pickles likewise are a hostile environment for most organisms.

(Folks not too much younger than me can remember when stores had barrels of pickles and you'd just grab the ones you wanted with a pair of tongs.

No refrigeration needed.)

Other folks have covered other traditional ways of preserving food -- drying, smoking, etc.

A properly cured ham can hang on a hook for years and still be edible, though you may need to trim off the moldy outer surface.

While we're speaking of mold: cheese is another food protected by curing, using various cultures.

And again, if you don't mind trimming off the rind, many hard cheeses can pretty much look after themselves.

So can butter, actually

-- it may go rancid due to chemical breakdown if not kept cool, but other than that it doesn't need to be refrigerated.

Ditto most oils.

Ditto most fruit; it may get moldy or start to ferment due to harmless organisms, but otherwise can look after itself longer than most Americans think it can.

Certain viruses can be used : In the Federal Register of August 18, 2006, FDA announced that it had approved the use of a bacteriophage preparation made from six individually purified phages to be used on RTE meat and poultry products as an antimicrobial agent against Listeria monocytogenes.

In Home-settings; our family do as the following - For meat => Use Lemons or limes - Just simply slice the lemons and squeeze it over the meat in a bowl. - Leave it for 15 minutes or more (can also refrigerated for overnight if you wish to prepare for another day) For vegetable =

Use salt - In a bowl of water, add some amount of salt - Then, add vegetable (after cut) - Leave it for 15 minutes or more

I hope that's what you are looking for.

Thanks.

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is used to treat liquids such as milk and stored water.

Only a couple of drops of 3-7% aqueous solution of H2O2 in 1L of liquid is enough to disinfect.

Fresh milk could last 2 weeks easily when treated.

Question: The title says it all. Context: food preservation

Is there any way to kill bacteria in food without using heat?

Salt, vinegar and other chemicals like borax, ethanol, sulphites and hydrogen peroxide can be used to preserve food, often by making an environment hostile to bacteria and other unwanted elements. Altering the pH, irradiating the food, cold sterilisation, drying, smoking, curing and even bacteria and viruses can also be used to preserve food using tratitional and modern means, but not all of these will be available to home cooks.

Natural methods of killing bacteria include include curing, pickling, drying and smoking. Chemicals may also be used or the food may be irradiated. It should be noted that freezing does not kill bacteria. On the other hand, some foods are preserved with bacteria, like sourdough. Cold sterilization and use of viruses are not really available to home users.

There are many ways to kill bacteria in food without using heat. Salt, chemicals, vinegar can all be added to food to kill bacteria. Food can be smoked or dried.

Some foods are preserved with bacteria, like sourdough and cultured milk.

Cold sterilization is not available to home users.

Viruses and hydrogen peroxide can be used to kill bacteria.


Give it a good salt scrub and re-season.

Cast iron is virtually indestructible.

As long as it's not cracked, it can always be cleaned up and used again.

It is hard to tell from the picture, but this doesn't look like burned off seasoning, it is more like a burned on residue.

If that's the case, you can try cleaning it some way.

The problem is that physical cleaning methods probably won't be sufficient, chemical cleaning with alkali will damage the seasoning and chemical cleaning with acid, if the seasoning is compromised, can rust the pan a bit.

So there is a high chance you will end up reseasoning.

If this really looks and feels like a buildup and not like exposed oxidised metal, my preference would be to soak in

warm, not hot, acid.

Vinegar or a citric acid solution should work well.

Afterwards, try to scrub off with a stiff plastic brush.

If it doesn't go away, or the seasoning goes away too, or if this was missing seasoning from the beginning, you have to strip and reseason.

We have several questions on the topic, and the Internet is also full of suggestions.

I personally prefer doing it with lye (best results, strips both old seasoning and rust), owners of self-cleaning ovens like incinerating it, and there are a list of other methods to work with.

Don't worry, it takes far more than that to damage a cast iron pan.

The worst that could happen is that you overheat the seasoning on it, in which case it may flake off.

If it does start flaking then you need to remove what is loose and then re-season.

That's the great thing about cast iron.

Rub it with salt, steel wool, sandpaper, heck even sandblast it.

Give it a good rinse, re-season it and carry on.

Like @Jason Whipple says, unless you've cracked it, you can usually recover it.

I did this same exact thing

and I believe the reddish-brown powder is rust.

It stuck on my fingers like rust would.

When I wiped off the powder, the bottom was no longer slick

so I think I burned the seasoning off.

There were no flakes per se, but around the rust area there was a light yellowish ring which I beleived to be the seasoning starting to peel away from the metal.

I used sandpaper on it, rinsed it, and reseasoned it.

This looks like rust.

I believe what happened is you burned the seasoning clear off and quickly so that ash didn't get a chance to develop but went up with the smoke.

While cooling the bare iron developed a surface layer of rust.

This happens also when you strip your cast iron in the clean cycle of your oven.

As it cools it turns orange, which then needs to be scrubbed off again, and the cast iron put back in the oven to warm just enough to drive off the moisture before wiping on the first layer of oil.

The resolution here is to use hot water and a green scrubby to get rid of the rust.

The hot water simply preheats the pan so it dries faster.

Put the pan back on the burner, and wipe out the water with a paper towel.

Check thenair about an inch over the surface of the pan starts.

When is starts to feel like the pan is near cooking heat, pour in a teaspoon or two of your prefered seasoning oil.

Spread it out and wipe it back up with a paper towel.

Leave the pan on medium low heat, and don't go anywhere.

As the oil starts to lump up (it will climb into drops on the bottom of the pan) use a fresh paper towel to wipe them up.

Let the bottom of the pan get dry from the heat, then pour in another teaspoon of oil, and repeat 3 or 4 times to restore a few layers of seasoning.

If you wish you can continue this for even up to 9 times SO LONG

AS YOU DRY THE OIL EVERY CYCLE, but you eventually lose return on investment.

It just won't get any better.

The only way to continue to improve the seasoning is to use the pan and care for it properly and the seasoning will build up nice smooth and slick.

Question: This morning, as with many, I let my skillet dry by leaving it on the burner. Unfortunately, my attention was drawn away and I forgot to take it off the burner! Of course, the moment I noticed, I moved it to another burner to cool, but this light-brown ring appeared.   After it cooled, touched the ring and discovered it was a powder, not merely a discoloration:   I'm not sure what this signifies. How do I recover the skillet?

How do I recover from overheating my cast-iron skillet?

Cast iron is very resilient, and will not be permanently damaged by this. Unless it is cracked, you can just scrub it with sandpaper, rinse it and re-season.

Cast iron is considered very hard to damage. Minor issues can usually be resolved by scrubbing, rinsing and reseasoning.

A damaged cast iron pan can be scrubbed clean with salt or sandpaper, rinsed and reseasoned.

It is very hard to damage a cast iron pan, unless you crack it.


I assume you're trying to extend shelf life for a couple of days, not weeks.

One possibility is dough enhancers, many of which improve shelf life.

Most can be very easily incorporated into an existing bread machine recipe.

There are a variety of possibilities , and you can also buy commercially available dough enhancers that combine various helpful additives for you.

I'd personally buy a dough enhancer formulation first, see if it made a difference in how my spouse liked the results, and then start experimenting with other (less expensive!)

additives such as lecithin, gluten, powdered ginger, potato flakes, buttermilk, or more.

Searching for "dough enhancer recipe" brings up lot of suggestions which I can't personally vouch for, so I won't include one here :) Changing the storage method can also help improve the longevity of a loaf.

This is covered in another question ; suggestions include covering the cut end (moisture escapes more easily there than from the crust), and pre-slicing and freezing the portion

you know you won't get to.

Leaving the bread out uncovered overnight is likely one of the larger issues with staling.

All bread will start to stale immediately after it's come out of the oven -- commercial bread simply has other ingredients to help slow this effect.

(and I know we've had a question on this topic)

They also package the bread in plastic to hold moisture near the loaf to slow the staling.

You might want to consider how you're storing it .

If you're in a dry area where bread stales (rather than going moldy), consider getting a bread box , or bagging the bread before you leave it out overnight.

At the very least, wrap it loosely or place in a paper bag to allow steam to continue to escape, but still keep moisture near the loaf.

And before you throw the bread to the birds, you can either revive it by placing it a damp paper bag in a medium low oven, or make it into any number of things: french toast bread pudding / strata Panzanella salad fondue stuffing / dressing panade for meatballs or meatloaf bread crumbs

Do you use any fats in your mix?

On this page there is the suggestion that adding some fat -- say, 50g of butter or oil -- can extend shelf life.

Fats (butter, oils, milk, eggs).

Fats enrich and flavor the bread.

They also soften the dough and preserve it: whereas a fat-free loaf of bread like a French bread goes stale after only a few hours, a loaf of bread with a small amount of olive oil or butter (like a sandwich bread) retains moisture and will stay fresh longer.

Fats increase the bulk of your bread.

Rarely do you get the kind of large, irregular holes inside an enriched bread as you do in a fat-free bread.

A few options: Add a bit (or a bit more) sugar to the dough.

Use a sourdough starter instead of yeast.

The ideas in Sourdough in Bread Maker? might be helpful.

Add lupin flour, as mentioned in

"Why add lupin flour to white bread?" Store in a paper bag.

If you're not using a breadmaker, leaving the dough overnight to have the yeast really do their job would also help.

I would like to share some tips for crispy bread and keep it for a long time Letting a few slices of sliced apples or a few slices of potatoes together with a loaf of bread will help keep the bread longer than usual.

To get inside a plastic bag containing one to two stems of vegetables, tighten the mouth of the bag.

To do this, 2 to 3 days of preserved bread is still delicious.

Pack the bread in a covered nylon bag and put it in the freezer of the refrigerator.

Keeping this way can leave bread all month long.

Want to save bread for a long time but still soft, should use oil paper or nylon bag, tightly packed inside to have a lump of sugar and then to cool.

Question: I have an issue with the bread we make in our bread maker. My wife claims it is not fresh enough to eat if it is more than 1 day old; however, she will eat shop brought bread that is 2 days old. This leads to the birds in our garden getting fat!  Is there a way to make (or keep) the bread so it is perceived by my wife to be fresh so we can use it on a 2nd day?

Breadmaker bread not remaining fresh long enough

Commercial bread generally has dough enhancers and preservatives to improve shelf life, but even adding oil or sugar to the dough will help. Homemade bread will turn stale quicker if it is left uncovered, so place the bread in a paper bag or bread box to allow some steam to escape without the bread drying out. A few slices of apple or potato left with the bread will also extend its life. You can also put it in the fridge or freezer for longer storage.

Bread goes stale quickly if it is fat-free and does not contain dough enhancers. Adding sugar, fat or using sourdough are ways of making a loaf that will last longer. Moreover, the way bread is stored is important in keeping it fresh. Plastic wrap, bread boxes and storing with apple slices are ways of ensuring freshness for longer.

Dough enhancers are available to make bread stay fresh longer.

Storing is very important in keeping bread fresh. Some option include putting it in plastic, storing it with slices of apple and keeping it in a box.

Bread that contains some fat lasts longer than bread that does not. You can also add some sugar, or use a sourdough starter instead of yeast. Leave the dough overnight to rise well.


How about using orange zest instead of the juice?

That way you'll get a lot of the aroma and flavor we think of as "orange" without really changing the sweetness or acidity.

You might try zesting the orange, reducing the juice a bit, and then adding the zest to the syrup and then cooking it down a bit more.

You may or may not wish to strain it after letting the zest cook for a minute or so.

If you do this, take care.

I believe cooking it too long will make the zest overly bitter.

Alternatively, you could use frozen orange juice concentrate.

You have a couple of solutions: Make it thicker with agar agar instead of starch Use something like jam or marmalade

The latter might be to close of the sugary paste you dislike.

However agar agar contrary to starch has a really wide range of thickening.

You can just make things from a tiny bit thicker than water to jelly.

More over the boiling needed will reduce it a bit already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar#Culinary

You might want to experiment a bit with it to find the right dosage.

Jelly cubes between your meatballs would work rather well.

As contrary to a liquid sauce they won't spread, keeping flavors separated.

The only good way I know of to concentrate fresh orange juice and maintain the flavor is by removing the water.

But not by heating it, as the heat will destroy the flavor.

You need a vacuum distiller or freeze dryer for your orange juice.

Pulling a vacuum will boil the juice at room temperature, removing the water without adding any heat.

If you have enough time, you could make an orange extract.

Just peel pieces of zest from several oranges (avoid the white pith) and soak them in vodka for a couple of weeks, then filter it.

Then you could add it to the pan like wine, boiling off the alcohol (assuming you don't want alcohol in your sauce).

You could also follow a homemade orange liqueur recipe, but they might add too much sugar for your use

( Here is one from Serious Eats ).

It's probably easier to just use zest directly in most cases, though.

I've poached white fish in orange juice with hot chili peppers (I used dried chipotle or even habanero, but I think the recipe called for fresh).

I reduced the cooking liquid a bit, and poured some onto the rice I served the fish with.

It was pretty potent, esp.

the time I made it with habanero, though!

There was some nice orange flavour, and the heat of the chilis made the sugar of reduced orange juice not a problem.

(It was juice from concentrate, not fresh-squeezed.

I maybe could have mixed up concentrate with less water instead of reducing for as long after taking the fish out.

:P)

Question: I poured squeezed orange juice over my meatballs and I thought how well it complements them, but that it's too watery to enjoy with meat. I proceeded to reduce squeezed orange juice on the stove with and without starch and it just did not work - it's either too watery, or when reduced to a proper texture it's like sugar paste with orange flavoring.  How can I enjoy the flavor of orange juice on meat as a condiment while reducing it's wateriness?

How do I concentrate the flavor in orange juice?

You could use orange zest alone or cooked with reduced orange juice, or try frozen orange juice concentrate or marmalade. Orange juice can be thickened with agar agar and added as jelly cubes, freeze dried, vacuum distilled or made into an extract.

To concentrate the orange flavour, using ornage concentrate or zest instead of juice is recommended. If using juice, thicken with agar agar make into jelly. More complicated techniques include buying a vacuum distiller or freezer or making an orange extract.

To make get an orange flavour without the watery sauce, use orange zest.

Orange juice concentrate would give a thicker result.

The orange juice can be thickened with agar agar or you can use jelly cubes instead of juice.


Use a sharp knife, dull knives don't slice, they split the same way an axe splits logs and that will generate that sideways force that throws carrot bits.

Also learn to practice your slicing and chopping technique.

You shouldn't be dropping the blade straight down like a axe or guillotine.

You should be moving the blade in a orbital movement, so that you are slicing in a forward direction while the blade is on its way down to and through the carrot.

By slicing properly much less of your veg will have that energy buildup because they won't "snap" apart but will be sliced apart neatly.

Search YouTube for Basic Knife Skills and watch several videos, then practice, and start slowly.

You will get faster with time and time only, don't rush it

or you'll get sloppy and may hurt yourself.

Both Escoce's and Elendil's answers are great: the key is a sharp knife, and the vast majority of people (in my experience) do not have very sharp knives in their kitchens.

When people come over to my kitchen and try to cut something they are often shocked at how easy it is.

If your knives slide off of food (like onion skins or tomato skins)

rather than cut cleanly into them, they aren't sharp enough to make slicing easy.

The one thing I would add is to start with a long knife, and learn the "rocking" chop motion first with it.

That is, keep the end toward the tip of the knife on the cutting board, and only lift the back end of the knife high enough to clear the carrot.

With a smaller knife, you need to do what Escoce mentions and make an "orbital" motion rather than straight down.

I think that's harder to do properly for beginners, so start with a big knife and rock it until you get the hang of it.

I tend to use a 10-inch chef's knife to chop carrots; minimum of 8-inch. Lots of people see such big knives and think they are too scary to use.

But they really make chopping incredibly easy, especially if they are kept sharp.

With a big sharp knife, you should barely feel like you need force at all to slice quickly through a carrot.

Use a bigger, sharper knife.

If you're having to apply so much pressure to cut a vegetable that it's flying off into the ether, your knife isn't sharp enough.

Furthermore, a blunt knife is a dangerous knife, because it is more likely to slip off the surface of the thing you're cutting and end up in your hand.

If you are not bothered about the shape of the vegetables, you can cut the (for example)

carrot along its length, then place the flat side against the chopping board.

You can then slice, dice or whatever with much less effort, and the carrot pieces won't roll off the board.

I agree with the other answers (particularly using a sharp knife).

When I'm cutting something that tends to fly away like carrots, I'll keep the tip of the knife touching the cutting board.

It gives you a reference touch point so that you don't quickly cut through the object and hit the cutting board if you apply pressure.

It also makes you cut it at an angle similar to scissors or one of those paper trimmers/cutters that you see in offices.

It's crucial to consider the chopping surface here.

If you are using a glass or ceramic board you will have problems with slippage.

Use a wooden or plastic board, and (as others have said) a sharp knife of a suitable type.

Beyond the comments about knives, which is right on, I use cafeteria trays with sides in place of a standard cutting board for the majority of my chopping and cutting.

I've never had the dreaded roll off problem

and I can carry the trays from place to place without fear of the same vegetable fly off.

Question: Whenever I chop veggies like onions or carrots they sometimes just fly off the chopping board into the open space of the kitchen. Carrots do that especially often – I cannot chop them (dicing is also problematic) without the occasional pieces flying off the board.  What am I missing here? I try to imitate Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay chopping videos bit by bit.

How should I keep the vegetables from flying off the board when I cut them?

A dull knife will split the vegetables and create a lateral force rather than slicing them, so make sure your knife is long and sharp and practice your technique, using a rocking motion without applying too much pressure. Keeping the point in contact with the cutting board will help pieces not to fly away. Use a wooden or plastic cutting board with enough grip, or even a tray with sides.

The knife is considered the most important aspect for cutting vegetables. Knifes should be big and sharp. Moreover, correct cutting technique is important. In addition, the cutting surface can make a big difference: plastic and wood are not slippery whereas ceramic and glass are.

The most important point when cutting vegetables is using the correct knife. The knife should be sharp and big enough. Chopping technique is also important.

The cutting surface is important: glass and ceramic are slippery; wood and plastic are not.


You need a sharper knife.

With a dull knife, you'll have trouble getting through the skin, and end up tearing and smashing, releasing a lot of juice.

With a sharp knife, you'll get through the skin cleanly and leave the tomatoes much more intact.

Serrated knives are another common option: they get through the skin very easily.

A dull serrated knife will tear the flesh up a lot, though, so you still do need a reasonably sharp blade, and while a cheap bread knife or steak knife might be better than nothing, it's not ideal.

The best ones are probably the ones actually marketed as tomato knives: they're sharp, not too thick, and have a serration pattern that's meant for this.

If you're forced to make do with an inadequate knife, you can break the skin with the tip, then extend that with the blade and slice from there.

If the knife is so dull that it still makes a mess, you might be out of luck.

This is pretty time-consuming, though, so I wouldn't suggest it as an everyday method for a lot of slices.

Freezing, as you suggested, doesn't sound like a great idea.

If you freeze tomatoes thoroughly enough to make them firmer and easier to chop, then you'll have formed a lot of ice, and once they thaw, they'll tend to disintegrate and release all that juice.

It won't affect the flavor, but it's kind of pointless, since if you're willing to mess up the texture that much, you might as well just hack it up whatever messy way you like.

Although a sharp or serrated knife are the best solution, there's also a trick that you can use when you're working with less than ideal knives (ie, in someone else's kitchen).

Use the tip of the knife to stab the tomato at the spacing that you'll be cutting it.

Slice at each of the stab marks

If dicing, place a couple of slices on the board, and then slice down through them.

When dicing the ends, place the slice skin-side down before cutting.

Effectively, you're breaking the skin of the tomato like a serrated knife would to help you get it started.

For the other slices, you're not cutting from the skin side, so you won't have the problem with the knife slipping.

My favored way is a very sharp cooks knife.

Others have said serrated knifes.

I also do that if my cooks knife needs sharpening (sometimes I neglect it).

Note: there are general use serrated knives, often used to slice bread.

Also on the market are serrated knives specifically made for tomatoes .

I think the serrations purpose-built for tomatoes are gentler on the flesh and meat of the tomato.

I've seen them at decent prices 6 to 8 U.S. dollars.

Tomato Knife

Here's another (I've never used a knife like this, but it has 400+ reviews and 4.5 stars on Amazon)

Use a serrated knife with a long blade.

Like a bread knife!

When cutting, try not to apply too much pressure (i.e. press down into the berry, or use a vigorous sawing motion).

That squeezes out tomato juice.

Instead, let the weight of the blade do most of the work.

This is why I recommend a long blade.

A nice, slow draw from the heel of the knife to its tip across the flesh of the berry should get you most--if not all--of the way through the fruit.

If you have a particularly tough-skinned tomato, try using the tip of the blade to make an initial slit, then finish the cut with the serration.

Once the interior of the tomato is exposed it should be smooth going.

While using a sharp serrated knife, place the whole tomatoe upside down on the cutting block.

Cut down through the tomatoe without cutting through

(I.e. Let the top of the tomato hold together).

Cut as thick or thin as you want.

If you want slices, then once you have cut then all then turn the tomato on its side and hold the tomato together with the top toward your knife and slice through and you'll have a neat stack of slices.

If you want diced or chopped, then leave the tomato upside down and turn it 90 degrees.

Hold the slices together.

Slice down to but not through the top again, as thick or thin as you like.

Now the fun part.

Turn the tomato over onto its side so that the stem points away from the cutting board.

Hold the tomatoe around so the pieces don't slide all over, and slice down through the tomatoe starting at the bottom of the tomato for the first slice.

You should be gifted with a perfectly chopped or diced tomato, uniform pieces and a top of the tomato being all that's left.

Works perfectly for onions too, with the exception of cutting the onion in half through the base first.

Get a ceramics blade knife!

It's just the best for cutting tomatoes and will stay sharp FOREVER ;)

Question: Chopping tomato is real mess sometimes. I just want to know that what is the best chop tomatoes without any mess?   One trick I did was to deep freeze tomatoes before cutting them and then used to chop them. But if we don't have time to deep freeze i.e 20 mins then what are other options?

What methods make tomato chopping less messy?

Make sure your knife is sharp enough to slice through the skin and flesh cleanly without pressing down on the tomato, or use a serrated knife (which should also be sharp to avoid tearing up the flesh). If you need to use a blunt knife, pierce the skin with the tip and then cut from there.

The correct knife and cutting technique are considered essential for cutting tomatoes. A long bladed sharp knife or serrated knife are ideal. Ceramic knives cut well too. Combined with knife, use the correct technique. Make an incision in the skin if your knife is dull. Freezing is no help in making tomatoes easier to cut.

A sharp cooks knife or serrated knife is best for cutting tomatoes. There are special tomato knives on the market. Ceramic blade knives are also good.

Cutting technique is also important. With a dull knife, make a small incision in the skin before starting cutting.


Sure it's safe, there's no risk in putting jam in baked goods.

It says refrigerate after opening so it doesn't spoil after being left out too long - some people don't realize it needs to be refrigerated after opening because it is stored in the cupboard before opening.

The important thing for food safety is to make sure that the pastries are eaten soon enough after baking.

The cream cheese will go off sooner than the jam will, so don't let them sit around.

Yep.

No problem at all.

This is standard practise for using up left over pastry: jam tarts.

Just be careful to let the jam cool down before you bite into it.

You don't want molten jam all over the roof of your mouth.

Should be safe to heat your jam.

I have reheated jams over the stove but never in the oven and have not encountered any problems with it.

It is always safe to reheat your jam.

Reasons for reheating jams may vary, but be warned: "they may or may not form a gel again once they are re-heated, as over-cooking of pectin can reduce or destroy its ability to form the gel structure."

-National Center for Home Food Preservation.

A traditionally made jam is actually a preserve that has, by the copious amounts of sugar involved and often by natural acidity, some added resilience against spoilage compared to a random ingredient - the practically most encountered spoilage mode for jams is mold.

A "diet" style jam that uses artificial sweeteners and no or little sugar could conceivably spoil in different ways if left in conditions outside of the usual 2 hour/4 hour/danger zone envelope (not an issue in reheating, can become an issue if reheated goods are kept on the table for hours).

Short answer:

Yes, but make sure to eat the pastry before the cream cheese spoils.

Question: I just got a bottle of strawberry jam. I am trying to make puff pastry filled with Jam and cream cheese inside it.    I have never done this before. It is just an Idea in my mind so far. I need advice to know that can I heat the Jam in oven. The jam jar says to store in fridge after opening but nothing about it being heated. Can anyone explain whether it's safe to do so or not.

Can Jam be reheated?

It is perfectly safe to reheat jams on the stove or in the oven, although you should eat the pastry before the cream cheese spoils.