Whipped cream was made for centuries before the mixer was invented.

You can do it with simply a balloon whisk.

Things that may help though: Very cold cream (not freezing)

Very cold bowl and whisk

(put them in the freezer for 20 minutes prior to using) Copper bowl

The process is simply to start slow until you see bubbles form, then speed up until you see the whisk begin to leave trails in the cream, then go full speed ahead until just before it starts to look soft and billowy.

At this point you can add your sugar and continue whipping until thickens and firms up to form soft peaks.

Advice

: Buy a hand-mixer at least!

Update

- Yes you can whip it with a stick blender.

I would be careful to avoid over- whipping with this method though.

It might be easy to over-do it, and you'll start to make butter.

Put cream in a small plastic bag.

Fill with air, twist to close.

Shake.

(responding to the update)

Yes, it can be made with a stick blender

, I had a roommate who used to do it all the time.

He had a tall, narrow container, not that that much wider than the paddle on the blender, and he'd just stick the blender in, move it around a bit, and it'd be done pretty quickly.

(it's been 10+ years, so I don't remember the exact time.)

Come to think of it ...

I can't remember him using that blender for anything other than whipped cream.

I've made it once by hand, with a whisk.

Like others, I had a sore wrist afterwards.

I do it all the time with a cheap stick blender because I'm lazy.

I especially like it for making a small amount.

I try to use a bowl which is about as wide as it is deep - deep enough to keep the cream from spilling, wide enough to move the stick blender around.

The problem I've found with using the stick blender is that once the cream starts to thicken, you have to be extra-careful to stir the cream around.

The blender will happily give you a dollop of whipped cream in the middle of a bowl of mostly runny stuff.

So every few seconds I shake off the cream that's stuck to the blender and stir the whole bowl a bit.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266/Ward - Reinstate Monica

Another option is to put the cream in a well-sealed jar (i.e. a mason jar) and shake it up and down into it reaches the desired consistency.

There is a risk of over-shaking and ending up with fresh butter, but if you're paying attention you should be safe.

It takes a few minutes and some arm strength, but it's not too bad.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251/In the Booley House

It is possible with a whisk or fork, but your arm might fall off before it thickens up :) Using a cold bowl and utensils (put it in freezer for a little while first) will help.

Do you have a food processor?

Whipping cream in my trusty Cuisinart is easy-peasy.

Put on the regular blade, pour in some cold heavy cream, turn it on for 20-30 seconds, et voila!

You can use a pressurized nitrous oxide dispenser .

They're a little pricey for casual home use, though.

Alternatively, you can use a whip cream siphon.

Coincidentally, I saw this video a couple weeks ago that altered my world: you can make it in a cocktail shaker, using the spring from a bar strainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5t3hZfMQiU

I saw it done on a program called "New Scandinavian Cooking!

The Swedish chef made whipped cream and fresh strawberries on top of a glazier by placing whipping cream and sugar in a zip lock bag blowing air into the bag then sealing it then after shaking and squishing the bag for a few minutes...

Voila" whipped cream!!!

Question: Is it possible to make whipped cream without a power mixer? How? Can it be made with a stick blender?

Whipped cream without a mixer?

A stick blender will work, but you can also use a balloon whisk or shake it in a mason jar. A pressurised nitrous oxide dispenser or a food processor also works well.

Traditionally, whipped cream is made by hand using a whisk. You can also use a hand blender or a food processor.

Whipped cream can be made using a whisk. You can also try putting it in a jar and shaking.

You can use a stick blender for whipped cream.

Try using a food processor, a nitrous oxide dispenser or a siphon.


Chipotle chiles, especially in adobo sauce (e.g., here ), give an excellent smoky flavor.

You should be able to find these in your grocery store in the Mexican section.

Don't forget cumin!

Cumin imparts an earthy smoky flavor.

One of my favorite store bought salsas is Trader Joe's Double Roasted Salsa .

If I were stranded on a desert island, an endless supply of this would be one of my must-haves.

It uses double roasted anaheim peppers and cumin to achieve

it's amazing flavor.

Here's the ingredient list: Tomatoes, water, double roasted anaheim peppers, onions, cilantro, cider vinegar, jalapenos, lime juice, sea salt, garlic, cumin, black pepper.

I haven't tried my hand at duplicating this, but I bet it'd be fun to try.

Double roasting a pepper consists of fire roasting it, peeling, and fire roasting again.

If you do experiment with fire roasting tomatoes as Joe has suggested, save yourself some trouble and use Roma tomatoes.

If you try using regular slicing tomatoes they'll just disintgrate.

Roma's are sturdy, and taste great.

Regarding your equipment, I don't think you need a smoker for salsa.

I've never had a salsa that had anything smoked in it that I'm aware of.

The smoky flavor has always come from either peppers or tomatoes being fire roasted.

You can fire roast things on your charcoal grill, but you can do it even simpler with your broiler, or even simplest directly on a gas stove burner.

I would avoid the liquid smoke until you've tried a salsa with fire roasted chilis and/or tomatoes, chances are you won't need it.

It depends on what sort of a smoky flavor you're looking for.

I've used chipotle peppers before, but you can also grill the peppers, onions and even tomatoes to get some char on them before chopping them up.

(well, the onions I slice before roasting or grilling, then dice them afterwards).

You could try to add a teaspoon or two of smoked paprika.

That gives a good smoky depth to the flavour, without being overbearing.

Not the classic answer perhaps, but definitely my fusion/experimental idea.

Chipotle chiles in adobo sauce are the most likely source.

Most people don't use a whole can at once

so when you open it, use what you need and then set the remaining peppers on a parchment/waxed paper lined baking tray and freeze them individually.

Once frozen, pop them in to a zip-top bag so you can retrieve one or two as needed in the future.

Save the Adobo sauce as well and freeze it separately to add to chili, stews, soup, or rice.

Chipotle powder can also be found in some spice stores.

Chipotle powder and smoked paprika (available in sweet, mild, and hot) are nice because they give you flexibility for multiple uses...add as a seasoning to the salsa or mix with other spices to use as a rub on meat.

Additionally, you can also smoke some of the vegetables themselves...

tomatoes, peppers, corn.

This can be done on the grill with a smoker box, wood chips strews on the coals of a charcoal grill, or by other means .

Question: I'm experimenting with making my own salsa. I recently had some that had an interesting flavor, rather smoky. Is anyone aware of what might add this flavor? I'd like to add that flavor to my own salsa.  I don't have a smoker, but I do have a charcoal grill.   Is there a disadvantage to just adding a couple drops of liquid smoke?

Source of smoky flavor in salsa?

You can smoke or fire roast the peppers, onions and tomatoes before chopping them up, but chipotle chiles are the most likely source of this smoky flavour. Cumin and smoked paprika also gives salsa a smoky taste.

You can either try adding ingredients like chipotle chilies, cumin and smoked paprika or try roasting the vegetables themselves.

Chipotle chilies give a smoky flavour.
Try cumin and smoked paprkia.
Try roasting or smoking the vegetables.


Storing brown sugar in a tightly sealed container (such as tupperware, rubbermaid, etc.) is the best method.

Once it dries out however it can be re-moisturized by placing a piece of apple or bread with it inside a tightly sealed container.

After a day or two the brown sugar will soften and the bread will dry up or the apple will shrivel.

This is due to the hygroscopic nature(ability to absorb moisture from the surrounding atmosphere)of brown sugar.

You'll see "brown sugar keepers" in gourmet and cookware shops that are round decorative unglazed ceramic or terra cotta disks.

The concept is to soak them in water for an hour or two and then dry and place in the brown sugar.

Save your money and use a piece of bread or apple when the brown sugar is drying up.

You can also soften it for immediate use by microwaving for a little bit.

This should only be used for immediate use because after the sugar cools it will have lost more moisture (due to the fact that microwaves are heating the moisture in food).

I use a ziplock freezer bag and get as much air out as I can, and generally it keeps pretty well, 6 months or more.

When it does get hard, slice a piece of apple and put it in the bag with the sugar for a couple of days.

There are also ceramic disks you can buy that you can put in the bag with the sugar that will keep it soft for much longer, but I've never used one myself so I can't vouch for it.

i happen to have one of those seal-a-meal vacuum sealers, and i use one of their container options and store the opened bag in that.

i have heard that the apple/bread slice trick works, too, so would give that a shot instead of buying some special thing.

I've found the best way to prevent it from happening is by keep a terra cotta stone in my bag/tupperware holding the brown sugar.

Something like this or this

(the latter says it keeps for 3) works great for me.

You wet it and leave it in there

and it keeps the brown sugar from drying out.

You'll have to re-soak it every so often, but it's not weekly or even monthly in my house, and I open the brown sugar so often

it's easy to remember to do it when I notice the stone is dry.

For a quick fix, you can re-soften it easily by putting a slice of apple in with it for a bit.

Don't forget about it though, or the apple will go mouldy and ruin the sugar

(I speak from experience on this one!).

A better option with no such downside is a "brown sugar disc".

It's a piece of clay that you soak in water for 15 minutes, then put in with the sugar.

It will help keep the sugar soft, without getting it too moist.

You can usually find these easily in kitchen shops (or even grocery stores, sometimes).

Every few months you may need to re-soak the disc.

My mum used to store sugar in sealable pots with a layer of dried rice at the bottom.

The idea was the rice would act as a desiccant.

These days you could watch out for one of those little packets that seem to often come with electronic products like hard drives etc.

Those little sachets are full of silica granules which are highly absorbent.

You might toss one of those in to the top of the canister.

Don't worry, they are totally harmless to food and may even help with odour contamination as well.

I have found those Lock n Lock containers make THE BEST storage for brown sugar.

I have had brown sugar out of the bag stored in one for over a year without it hardening.

No clay discs, no bread pieces, no apple slices....

nothing.

Awesome containers for this kind of storage.

Question: I put a clothes pin on my opened bags of brown sugar and keep them in a dark pantry at room temperature.  Since I don't use it very often, it becomes hardened.  My work-around is to use a grater to grate it but it would be useful to avoid the problem in the first place.  How should I store it to prevent hardening? Do I put it in the freezer? If so, does it need to come to room temperature before using it?

How to store brown sugar without it becoming hard?

Placing it in a sealed container or freezer bag with as little air as possible will help to prevent this from happening. Storing with rice or a terracotta stone will keep it soft for longer, and adding a slice of bread or apple will help to soften hardened sugar.

Keep the sugar in a sealed bag or container. If it still hardens, put a slice of apple in with it until it shrivels up. The sugar should have loosened up.

Keep the sugar in a sealed container or ziplock bag or vacuum seal the plastic bag.

Try putting a slice of apple or bread in the bag to absorb moisture. You can also buy special ceramic disks for this purpose.


Usually I cut a peach in half, put a bit of salt and honey on the non skinned end, and grill it (cavity down) for a minute or two then rotate it to get good grill marks.

I then add a scoop of ice cream in the cavity and sprinkle with cut fresh mint.

Another fruit I like grilled are apricots, although really put them on for 20 seconds or so.

My rule of thumb is that, if it's a harder fruit then it can be grilled, and usually it can only be grilled on the non-skin side.

Further to grilled pineapple.

I like to quarter it and then marinate it in a bit of rum (1 oz), a bit of lime juice (1-2 tbsp) and then generously sprinkle some brown sugar over it.

Garnish with mint.

I love grilled pineapple myself...

You can put it on skewers, and marinate it, or you can just throw slices straight on the grill.

Any kind of sweet marinade will do fine.

Brush it with butter and brown sugar, and throw it on a jerk chicken sammich in lieu of a tomato.

Plantains are great grilled:

don't let the banana appearance fool you, they're tough enough to grill, as long as you don't slice 'em too thin.

Brush 'em with a little butter and maybe some sugar if you're doing them as a desert.

I'm a huge fan of grilled mango, and to be honest, I don't really do anything to it at all.

Slice it, skewer it, grill it.

The taste of a grilled mango slice is so much different than a fresh mango slice, even the picky eaters at my house liked the complexity of flavor when grilled (whether they like fresh mango or not).

In my experience, mango can get too charred very fast, so keep an eye on it.

I've seen recipes that say to cut cross-hatch marks in them, but in my experience they get too soft too fast when doing this.

I generally grill 2-3 minutes per side, with a high flame beneath them.

If they're not slightly charred around the edges by this point, I'll give them another minute per side

(I leave the skin on so I can use its char level as a gauge).

Mango can be tricky to cut, here's a video to get you started if you're not familiar: http://video.about.com/thaifood/Cutting-mangoes.htm

I agree with satanicpuppy's pineapple recommendation, I've had them marinated and just plain.

The butter/brown sugar combination is awesome!

You can also soak them in a good rum first (yum), but be forewarned, when they hit the grill you'll have quite the temporary light show, so place them using long tongs, NOT your hands.

I remember once, I had grilled pears at someone's house.

From what I remember they were just sliced and grilled, no seasoning or marinade, but I wasn't there when they were prepared so I don't have any specific recommendation there other than to give it a shot - they were delicious!

A few recipes suggest soaking the fruits in water or a lemon/water combination for 20 minutes before grilling.

The water is supposed to help the fruit stay juicy; the lemon helps it hold color.

I have tried the water technique, I didn't notice a huge difference other than I had to wait 20 more minutes to enjoy my fruit!

And since I generally grill fruit for myself, I don't really care if the color changes, but it's something to keep in mind if you're grilling for a party.

I can also recommend grilling pineapple and then adding it to a salsa with onions, lime juice, cilantro, jalapeno.

Good stuff.

Bananas!

I grill it as 1 piece with the skin on.

When the skin gets dark it is ready.

Question: I had a catered lunch the other day that had grilled fruit (apples, pineapples) it was great and I wanted to try it at home.  Are there any tips as far as preparation or what to glaze them with or basic techniques?

I would like to try grilling fruit - any suggestions?

Harder fruit can usually be grilled on the non-skin side, including peach brushed with a bit of salt and honey or mango without any dressing.

Many fruits can be grilled without any glaze.

You can add a bit of salt and honey to the fruit before grilling or just grill it as it is. Hard fruits should be grilled on the non skin side.


If you want to be really lazy about it, just get yourself a fat separator .

Pour in the soup, the fat will rise to the top, and you can do what you want with it (i.e. dump it).

If you're reading this in an emergency, you can do this with just a strainer.

You'll get better results if you chill the strainer before each skim, i.e. by rinsing it with very cold water.

The fat will tend to congeal on the cold strainer the same way it congeals when it's actually chilled.

I've also heard that the fat will cling to certain leafy vegetables, like lettuce.

If you have a lettuce head kicking around, try peeling off a leaf and dusting the top of the pan with it.

If you pour the liquid into a narrower vessel to settle, the fat layer on top will be thicker and therefore easier to remove with spoon, paper towel, or turkey baster.

Something like this thermos or this ice tea jug would work without needing to cool it down too much.

It is best done before any thickening with starch/flour.

Since some spices are oil soluble, you might end up straining out some of the flavor, and need to re-adjust the spicing slightly.

One quick way I have seen is to put a few ice cubes into your soup/stew.

The fat will congeal around the ice cube so if you take them out before they melt you can get rid of most of your fat.

Not to be contrarian, but the easiest way to do this would probably be to just drain off the fat before adding the liquid.

For instance, if you sautee your veggies and brown your meat before adding the stock, you'd just pour off the grease in the pan before adding the stock.

An ounce of prevention, etc...

I just tried this:

Pour cooled stock through a strainer, lined with paper towels, filled with ice cubes.

You may have to do it in batches, as it catches lot of fat.

This is a shortcut.

I just used bread on top of the soup, flipped it so both sides got covered, worked a treat, might fry the bread up with an egg tomorrow.

Waste not want not

If the soup or stew has a good layer of fat on top, I've just dropped individual sheets of paper towels on top.

Since the fat is on top, the paper towel absorbs it.

Remove, discard and, if there's still a layer of fat, repeat.

Once it starts absorbing stock/broth/sauce, then I stop.

Usually the fast majority of fat is gone by then.

Now, however, I have a fat separator, which is, essentially, a handled measuring cup with a spout that connects at the base of the cup.

I highly recommend spending a few bucks, it's tremendously convenient, especially for someone like me who loves making and eating homemade soups.

You scoop or pour in the liquid from the top of your dish, let it settle, and, like your pot, the fat separates at the top.

Since the spout is connected at the bottom, as you pour liquid back into the pot, it pours back the stuff you want, while the fat remains behind.

Once you can see the fat level dropping to spout level, you stop, and have almost entirely fat left behind.

It's also a great way to separate out fat from roasting drippings, so you can use the fat to make a roux for gravy, and have the rich de-fatted pan drippings added back to whatever liquid you are going to add.

So long as the liquid isn't being mixed (and bubbling from simmering or boiling counts as being mixed), it'll undergo what they call "type 1 settling", where oil floats to the top, and particulates fall to the bottom.

You can either let it stand in a gravy separator, or just let it come to the top of the pot, and either ue a paper towel, like Darin mentioned, a strainer like Aronut mentioned, or even a frozen bottle of water (which will chill the fat so it sticks to the bottle, where you ca wipe it off then try again).

Personally, I normally use the 'spooning' method, but use a laddle rather than a spoon, so it goes much faster.

you could let it settle so the fat rests on the top then use a turkey baster or syringe to suck the fat off the top.

You can soak it up with slices of Bread.

I just did it.

Question: I've read that adding cork (from wine bottles) absorbs the fat. I'm not sure if this works or not.    Are there any other ways to remove excess fat without standing there and spooning out or refrigerating and then removing the solidified fat?

How can I remove excess fat from stews or soups without refrigerating?

Where the fat is rising to the top, you can soak it up with paper towels, bread or some leafy vegetables, or use a spoon or turkey baster to remove it. Pouring into a narrow container or using a fat separator will make this easier. Dropping a couple of ice cubes into the stew will help the fat to thicken.

Leave the dish to settle and scoop off the fat from the top. Alternatively, it will cling to an ice cube, a piece of bread or a paper towel.

Let the liquid settle and then remove the fat off the top.


While yes it can be done, I wouldn't choose to do it over another technique unless that was my only option or

I just needed some chicken cooked quickly for a recipe where it is used in the cooked form and will have a lot of other flavors added (chicken salad).

Remember that a lot of flavor is due to browning and cooking in the microwave eliminates those flavors.

At least with poaching, if the liquid is REALLY well seasoned you'll still impart flavor.

Any cooking technique can lead to tough and dry meat, including poaching where it's being cooked submerged in hot liquid.

Regardless of the technique, if the proteins heat too hot and too quickly they will constrict quickly and squeeze out the juices.

The result will be tough, dry, saw-dusty chicken or other protein.

This is the same thing that happens when scrambled eggs are rubbery...

cooked too long over too high of heat.

The proteins act like sponges that are being wrung out.

Personally I think you have much less control over meat cooked in a microwave because the cooking occurs from the inside outward and the residual heat continues to build more intensely than if it was cooked in a saute pan or on a grill.

Is this something that professionals do?

No.

Microwaves in a professional kitchen are mainly used for melting butter, chocolate, reheating things quickly...

much the same as I recommend people do at home.

We do not use them for "cooking".

Although I do use it for sweating onions if that's the only thing I'd be dirtying a pan for...

put the onions in a bowl with a little butter, cover and nuke for about a minute until tender.

I am very skeptical that a microwave can produce "the juiciest" results.

You really can't beat a marinated/brined piece of chicken, pan seared in butter, and finished in an oven on medium heat.

Don't overcook it; that is the key to moisture.

Or a nicely breaded piece of chicken deep-fried in oil.

Or a well-basted piece of chicken roasted in a hot oven.

Or a well-seasoned piece of chicken grilled over medium heat.

I'd almost suggest anything but a microwave.

Couldn't say if it's being used much, but can't see why it wouldn't work.

I don't have a microwave myself, so can't test it, but you just have to cut it to see if it's cooked.

If it's still red, or has red spots.

Don't eat it/cook it a bit longer.

I personally feel the best way to get a tender juicy chicken is to make beer can chicken: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/the-surreal-gourmet/beer-can-chicken-recipe/index.html .

I've done it several times and the chicken always fabulously moist.

Of course, to do this, you need to cook a whole chicken and not just the breasts.

With that said, I've always felt that microwaved food has a rubbery texture due to the way microwaves cook (heat from microscopic vibrations in the water molecules in food).

Although it may be rubbery, it will still cook fully in a microwave.

Just make sure there is no pink when you slice into the breast, the same check you'd do if you were cooking it any other way.

It can be done ... just like cooking omelette in the microwave.

Have to do it in 20-30 secs at a time and open the microwave door.

If I am not using the steam function for the microwave, I place a glass of water next to the chicken in the microwave.

Chicken comes out juicy and tasty - and cooked.

Cooking omlette is also easy.

I googled and found some suggestions which I followed except i don't wrap my dish in pastic wrap (I never use plastic wrap in the microwave).

Just watch the egg and stop the microwave every 20-30 seconds, until the egg is cooked the way you want.

Can add it cheeese, tomatoes and whatever.

I have been cooking chicken breast in the Microwave for years and it always comes out succulent and juicy.

The key is to use a covered glass casserole dish and never exceed about 4 min on a large 1/2 breast Cook one at a time - let the breast continue cooking in the dish after the 4 min is up - takes another 5-10 min.

or so to cook through.

You must remember that food cooked in a microwave continues cooking after the microwaves are turned off. Season as you wish before cooking - I use garlic powder and a coating (1&1/2 Tbsp) of Teriyaki marinade.

I guarantee if you follow this method you will get the juiciest chicken breasts you have ever made,

Question: I hear that chicken breasts can be cooked in microwave and that it's the best way to get it juicy and tender. I have also seen some articles about it on the internet.   I wonder if this is just a myth or if professionals also use this trick?   Wouldn't you risk that parts of the chicken is not cooked properly then causing infection?

Cooking chicken in microwave?

Microwaved food can have an unpleasant rubbery texture, but to achieve juicy chicken breast, halves can be cooked one at a time in a covered glass casserole dish for no longer than 4 minutes, then left in the dish to continue cooking for a further 5-10 minutes. As with other cooking methods, make sure that the inside is not pink when you slice into the breast.

Cooking chicken breast in the microwave is possible but is not the preferred choice. You can try placing it under a glass casserole dish and cooking it for a few minutes at a time.

It is definitely possible but is not the best cooking method. Just cut into it to see if it cooked through.

Used a covered casserole dish and never exceed 4 minutes at a time. It should be very juicy at the end.


The lid can do one of three things: Keeping the lid down increases the temperature of the air in the grill.

This means that in addition to cooking with the direct heat of the coals, you are also cooking with convection of the air.

This won't happen with the lid up.

In a charcoal grill, the temperature the coals burn is based on the airflow through the grill.

Open is as hot as it will go (assuming the bottom vent is also open).

By closing the lid and altering the airflow, you can control the temperature of the grill.

My grill can keep fine temperature control between 200F-700F depending on how you set the airflow.

Which leads us to smoke.

It seems obvious that if you are smoking, you will impart more flavor by trapping the smoke with your food rather than letting it float in to the sky.

Additionally, you want wood to smolder not burn for your best smoke production.

This works better at a lower temperature (see #2).

Keeps the Dog from stealing the meat on the grill!

It keeps the heat in, so you can switch techniques from a pure grilling technique (Open Lid, hot coals = direct radiant heat) to a baking/smoking technique.

For example, when I do a duck breast, I put all the heat on one side of the grill (i.e. 2/4 gas burners, or pile the charcoal on one side).

I sear the breast skin up directly over the heat, and then flip it to brown and crisp the skin.

Once the fat starts to render, I get flare ups that are completely un-manageable.

The solution is to move the breast to the cool side, and shut the lid, so that it bakes and smokes for a few minutes to finish off the cooking.

Like the people say, open lid means directional heat from the coals.

You'll cook the bottom of your food much faster than the top.

You'll also get more air to the coals, so they'll be hotter, and to the food, which dries it out faster (at least in dry places like Calgary, where I live).

Closing the lid, keeps the heat more 'omnidirectional', cooking from all sides more evenly.

And generally keeps the moisture in.

All evidence of this is from my cooking (on stoves, outdoor grills, campfires) and from what I've picked up from my family and friends.

Take it as you will.

I am assuming you are talking about a charcoal grill.

When grilling over direct heat, using the lid serves two functions:

First, your food will cook, albeit to a far lesser degree, on the sides that are not facing the coals.

Putting the lid on will trap heat in your grill, providing convection as well as direct cooking.

Also, you will be providing less oxygen to your coals with the lid on.

This is key in controlling flareups.

This is the more important benefit.

The biggest risk to ruining your grilled food is the intense heat from flareups on your grill.

Question: I have just bought a new half drum barbeque which can with a fold down lid.    I have heard that these lids are good for creating a smokey flavour, or for keeping food moist whilst it cooks. A lot of this seems to be based on peoples personal opinion with evidence based answers about what the benefits of cooking with the lid down are.   Does anyone have any evidence of exactly what cooking with a lid down on a barbeque actually does?

What are the advantages of a lid on a barbeque?

The lid retains the heat and increases the air temperature in the grill, allowing food to be baked/smoked rather than just grilled.

Keeping the lid on increases and retains the temperature in the grill, which is useful for smoking.


If you're cooking it on the cob, remove the silk after you've cooked it.

I typically microwave my corn in the inner husk, when you pull it out the silk just slides right off.

I use a soft brush (technically, it was sold as a mushroom brush).

Just brush along the length of the ear, towards the stem end, and it removes almost all of the silk.

(way more than I'd get done using any other method). update :

So I was husking corn with my step-father, and noticed that I have much less silk left on the corn I was working on that needed to be brushed off, so I think some of it is the initial husk-removal technique:

If you attempt to peel off each leaf of the husk, you'll end up with almost all of the silk still on the corn.

If you grab with both hands at the top of the ear, then pull in opposite directions to tear the husk, and pull down (I aim for taking off about 1/3 of the husk at a time), most of the silk will stick to the husk, leaving only a little bit of silk left that can be taken care of with a brush.

Rachel Ray has a suggestion...

Use a rubber band to "thread" it off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn19YBlw9bc

If after taking out of the microwave you cut off the stem end with a large knife, and include a little of the bottom row of corn, it all just slips off clean as a whistle.

Running it under cold water while rubbing it helps a lot.

For informal meals, I just use dental floss to pick it out of my teeth later.

I also refrigerate it for a bit before I clean the corn.

Sticky things get less sticky when they're cold.

If the corn's at room temp or higher, the silk is going to stick more.

I find that running towel down the cob helps to pull all the silk away from the corn.

It would help to wet the corn first, but it's not necessary.

Basically, you're just trying to get a better grip on it.

I'm sure you've used towels before to help you open a jar or can

- it's the same idea here.

Use a couple of wet paper towels under cold running water, and rub toward the stem end for a few seconds. Works like a charm.

Corn Silk Removal using "Norwex" Vegtable cleaning cloth (size of dish cloth).

Directions: After cob is husked, and easliy removed silk is pulled off, place cobs in tub of water.

Place the vegtable cleaning cloth product in one hand, cob in the other, keep submerged, rotate in spining motions, then linear movements (two cobs per minute).

Then it's done - 99% effective for silk removal.

Blows the doors off of brushes, burning over a gas flame and microwaving.

I know this is an old post

but I have found a wonderful corn brush just recently.

It works better than I hoped it would!

Easy way to remove Silk from corn.

Use a cornsilker machine!!.

Can do 15 ears a minute, removes silk from husked corm and does not damage kernels.

Question: Does anyone have any tips for how to easily and quickly remove silk from ears of corn? I find that it takes a long time to pick it all out.

Tips for Removing Silk from Corn?

A cornsilker machine is designed to do this, or you can easily remove the silk after cooking. When removing the husks, a lot of the silk should come off at the same time, leaving a little that can be removed with a soft brush. Other methods include running the ear under cold water while rubbing it, refrigerating the corn first or using a towel or wet paper towel.

If you remove the silk before cooking, then try brushing with a soft brush, rubbing it under running water or with a wet paper towel. After cooking, just slice off the stem and the husk should just slide right off.

You can get a machine for removing corn silk.

Remove the silk after cooking. Cut off the stem end and it will just slide off.

You can refrigerating it beforehand, then running it under cold water and rubbing. You can also use a towel or a wet paper towel to rub off the silk.


Cook the pancetta on a large pan, so that it fries in its own fat.

It must turn red, but don't cook it too much as you are going to cook it a bit more later on.

Open two eggs.

If you like the color of the carbonara intense, throw one white away, and keep one white and two yolks.

Put them in a bowl, then add grated parmigiano and mix with a fork.

The amount of parmesan should be at least the same volume of the eggs, maybe even more (twice does not hurt).

This will give you a rather firm but still flowing compound.

Firm is better than too liquid.

Cook the pasta.

Spaghetti is the norm for carbonara, but also penne is a good choice.

Get them "al dente" or some second later, as you prefer.

Drain the pasta and put it in the pan you used to cook the pancetta (where the pancetta still is).

Pour the egg/cheese mix on top of the pasta and put the pan on gentle heat, while you continue moving and mixing.

Detach any layer of cooked egg from the bottom of the pan while you mix.

The perfect carbonara must not be liquid, and it must not be clumpy solid, so keep mixing or you will get a pasta omelette.

Once you are done, turn off the heat, and take spaghetti up with a large fork, so to disentangle them while you transfer them on the dishes.

move them in the dish with a small oscillating movement to disentangle a bit more.

Continue like this for all the dishes you have to serve.

At the end you will have the pancetta remaining in the pan, and you put it on top of each dish.

Add more grated parmigiano and some ground black pepper and eat as soon and hot as possible !

Additional notes: try to stay a bit scarce on salt in the pasta water, and do not add salt to the egg.

The fact is that the pancetta is already pretty salted, and you risk to obtain a very salted final result.

Carbonara should be salty, but not too salty.

I heard about modification with butter and cream, but I have never seen them used, at least in my family and circle of friends.

Carbonara is a tipical roman dish and there are few things to be aware of.

First, you don't use bacon (or pancetta)

you have to use "guanciale"

, it's similar but comes from the cheek of the pig.

Second, use pecorino, or a mixture of pecorino and parmigiano for both your beaten eggs and the final toppings.

Third: there is no cream or butter in the recipe, the creaminess comes from the eggs partially cooked by the hot pasta.

If you put them, call it with another name, but stop calling it carbonara.

I like stefano's suggestions

and I think rigatoni is another great substitute.

My method has never substantially failed me in this way: take your ingredients (butter, cheese, bacon/pancetta) and add them to the bottom of your serving bowl along with beaten eggs.

Drain your pasta, let it cool a little (30 seconds), add to the serving bowl, and toss.

The pasta retains enough heat to cook the egg gently.

I do not eat egg so at home

so I make my Carbonara sauce with reduced thickened cream and grated Parmesan.

Leaving out the egg eliminates all problems

and I have been enjoying delicious, rich and creamy Cabonara for years.

At college I was taught that the modern Cabonara origniated in World War 2 when italian women started making it for allied soilders who's rations including little more than bacon, egg and cream.

The point I am trying to make is that although the traditional recipe calls for egg to thicken the sauce, it is a risky and unnecessary ingredient.

If you absolutely have to have egg, only use the yolk and make sure that you let the liquid cool to the point that it doesn't steam before you add it

or you will end up with scramble egg sauce.

The way I do it is; Use a buttered glass, oven-safe, baking dish that's been heated, in the oven, to 350°F.

Once the pasta is done drain and toss in the buttered dish, (this keeps the pasta from sticking to itself).

Add the liquid ingredients and toss until thickened.

The glass retains enough heat to gently 'cook' the sauce without curdling the egg.

One of the fastest dishes to make.

Whilst boiling the pasta, everything else can be prepped.

Question: Carbonara can be absolutely delicicious if everthing goes perfectly; but it can also be tasteless, chewy and lumpy, if the egg is overcooked. Does anyone have what they regard as a fool proof method for preparing Carbonara?

How to prevent overcooking of eggs in Carbonara sauce?

Fry the pancetta in its own fat in a large pan, use up to twice as much parmesan as eggs by volume and keep mixing to avoid a liquid or clumpy carbonara.

Cook the pancetta in its own fat. Use lots of parmesan and keep stirring once you've added the egg.

Use the same amount of parmesan as eggs.


The next answer is a simple pan sauce.

After sauteing a protein in a pan, there are caramelized bits of fat, spice, and flesh that make for a great sauce base.

Getting those bits into a sauce takes a little work, but it's easily accomplished by adding an acidic liquid to the pan and allowing it to deglaze , or breakdown the fatty bits into the sauce.

You can deglaze with red or white wine, stock and lemon juice, or alcohol (be careful if it's high proof, since it will flame).

After adding the acid, stir to break up the bits and let simmer for long enough to reduce the liquid about 30 to 50 %, longer for thicker sauces.

Then add fat, either butter, oil, or cream, and whatever seasonings (tomato paste, mustard, Worcestershire sauce, etc.

you want in the sauce).

Simmer for just long enough to incorporate the ingredient (1-2 minutes max).

This is a good technique because it can work with any pan-cooked dish and whatever ingredients you have around.

The basic steps are the same, but the results are varied and quite tasty.

I think even more important than learning the mother sauces (though they certainly have plenty to teach), is learning the underlying fundamentals on both a culinary and scientific level.

You need to be able to envision how you want a sauce to taste, feel, look and smell (not so worried about hearing) and then translate that into ingredients and execution.

Needless to say this is a lifelong study.

Here's an example of what I mean.

I can think of three major ways of thickening a sauce.

I'm probably forgetting some.

(1) emulsification, such as happens in a vinaigrette, hollandaise, or mayonnaise, in which droplets of one liquid get surrounded by another that can't dissolve it.

(2) starches/colloids which interfere with the flow of liquid, such as cornstarch, flour, arrowroot, or all sorts of fun engineered starches

(3) reduction - simmering out some of the water so the solids are a higher percentage of the volume.

Each of these methods has pluses and minuses.

For example, reduction avoids adding any undesirable starchiness or diluting flavors to the sauce, but requires prolonged cooking or high heat which may change the flavors for better or worse.

I could go on an on!

But the point I'm driving at is, instead of trying to memorize a few sauces, you'll do yourself more good in the long run by learning the principles that they rely on so you are free to create and adapt (and fix when things go wrong).

The five best candidates would have to be five mother sauces of French cuisine.

These are: Béchamel Espagnole Velouté Tomate (similar, but not to be confused with Italian tomato-based sauces) Hollandaise

Any chef should know these.

These form the basis of many other French sauces.

Some of the more well known include Béarnaise, Mayonnaise, Mornay, and Tartar.

From there you can really expand almost endlessly.

Some of the most well known Italian sauces such as Puttanesca, Bolognese, Pesto, Marinara, and Vodka sauce should be required knowledge as well.

I suggest reading up on sauces on Wikipedia , there are lots of examples there.

There are 5 French "mother sauces": Bechamel - milk, thickened with a roux Veloute - light stock, thickened with a light roux Tomato Espagnole - brown stock, thickened with a brown roux Hollandaise - an emulsification of eggs and butter

They're called "mother sauces" because most (all?)

other sauces in French cooking are derived from these basic sauces.

Learning the technique for a roux is a critical first step in making most sauces.

After the ones that Bob mentioned, other 'worth knowing how to make by memory' are basic proportions and techniques for for : pan sauces (ie, deglaze the pan, reduce, maybe add some butter) mayonaise pesto (and for the most part, 'brown gravy' is a veloute, 'white gravy' is a bechamel, although the fat used for the roux would change)

Question: I'd like to learn to make some sauces and I'm looking for the most common, "standard" sauces that professional cooks all learn how to make in culinary school.  What sauces form the basic "building blocks" of cooking and how are they prepared?

What are the fundamental sauces that every cook should know how to make?

You need to be able to understand how a sauce should taste, feel, look and smell, as well as the way that the ingredients combine to create the right texture using emulsification, starches/colloids and reduction of the liquid content.

The standard sauces include bechamel, velouté, tomato sauce, bolognese, pesto, marinara and puttanesca. To be able to create these, you can to master the skills of emulsification, thickening and reduction.

You need to be able to envision how you want a sauce to taste, feel, look and smell (not so worried about hearing) and then translate that into ingredients and execution.

(1) emulsification, such as happens in a vinaigrette, hollandaise, or mayonnaise, in which droplets of one liquid get surrounded by another that can't dissolve it.

(2) starches/colloids which interfere with the flow of liquid, such as cornstarch, flour, arrowroot, or all sorts of fun engineered starches

(3) reduction - simmering out some of the water so the solids are a higher percentage of the volume.

These are: Béchamel Espagnole Velouté Tomate (similar, but not to be confused with Italian tomato-based sauces) Hollandaise

Some of the most well known Italian sauces such as Puttanesca, Bolognese, Pesto, Marinara, and Vodka sauce should be required knowledge as well.

There are 5 French "mother sauces": Bechamel - milk, thickened with a roux Veloute - light stock, thickened with a light roux Tomato Espagnole - brown stock, thickened with a brown roux Hollandaise - an emulsification of eggs and butter

It is important to visualise how you want a sauce to taste and then translate that into ingredients.

The basic skills are emulsification, thickening and reduction.


The chemical responsible for "the burn" is Capsaicin.

The main reason you and everyone else has trouble with the lingering burning sensation is that it's not water soluble (which means it doesn't dissolve in water).

So, flooding your mouth with water-based liquids doesn't loosen up those Capsaicin molecules on your tongue and throat.

Like @Iuls says, the most common and effective relief comes from full-fat milk or cream.

That's because, while Capsaicin isn't able to be dissolved by water, it is fat soluble.

It's also why more than a few people have been upset that the "milk solution" didn't work, when they tried it with skim milk.

If you're looking for a more "fun" solution, it's worth noting that Capsaicin is also alcohol soluble, which might explain all of that tequila and beer they sell at Mexican restaurants.

Full fat milk soothes the burn.

Aside from Milk or fatty drinks as an option, there are two other good options: Hot tea or hot coffee.

(Hot water will modestly dissolve oils to an extent and it will also make any saturated fats holding the pepper oils more liquid again.)

Anything alcoholic.

The more potent, the better.

Alcohol is both attracted to water and oils, so it will dissolve the pepper oils and then mix with the water and wash it down your throat.

Beer works well, but wine or a mixed drink will do you better.

Plus you'll be happier after a few drinks.

Combining all 3 options, I think a hot coffee with Baileys would probably do you best .

(Hot, fatty, and alcoholic!)

Personally, I find that beer does the job (or maybe I just forget the heat).

Here's some culture-specific answers: If the hot and spicy foot you're eating is Turkish, take the dairy approach.

Nothing is better than ayran .

It's a traditional drink of yoghurt with water, sometimes a bit of salt too.

If you're in Turkey many cheap places even have specially priced offers of a spicy meal and a drink of ayran.

If it's spicy Korean food you're eating, dairy products are not traditional at all.

Instead my Korean friends suggest the alcohol approach.

The standard strong Korean alcohol, available at just about every restaurant, is soju (Korean 소주).

It's similar to vodka though not as strong and a little sweeter.

Mountain Dew.

most sodas don't work well, though some say sugar helps, but mountain dew specifically has brominated vegetable oil as a bridge molecule to dissolve the oil based food color that gives it that distinct yellow hue.

the same bridge molecule helps dissolve capsicum in water to wash it away. never found anything that works as well.

Dairy products like milk, cheese, yogurt are very good at relieving spiciness.

Bread also is very good.

Avoid watery items which don't actually help, and can often make it feel worse because it helps spread the spiciness around

Suck on a lemon(Or a Lime).

Just like the others say, water doesn't work.

Fatty or greasy things do help.

Also, for some reason very sour foods, such as pure lemon juice can provide some relief (Though you may prefer milk or beer).

In my opinion gargling warm water works better than milk.

Yes it would burn a bit more at first but you'll then realize it's literally almost instant relief.

I've tried all approach and gargle warm water and spitting it out works better.

Though I use water that's a bit hotter than warm.

Question: Say, for example, I eat a very spicy jalapeno and I have a burning sensation in my mouth and throat.  Are there any foods or drinks to wash that away?

How can I wash down spicy food?

A common recommendation is full-fat milk, cream or other dairy products. Gargling with warm water or sucking on a lemon or lime can also help, although most soft drinks are not effective. Bread can absorb some of the spiciness, and alcohol dissolves capsaicin so beer and other drinks can also help.

The most common solution is a fatty dairy product or alcohol. In addition to this, you can also try bread, warm water or lemon juice.

The most common solution is full-fat milk, cream or yogurt.

Mountain dew soda contains a vegetable oil that works well.

The acid in citrus fruits is a good remedy.


To answer what I think is the question (you put all of the grease into a container and there's a residue at the top), bacon drippings are not 100% fat.

There are also solid pieces of bacon in there and other "impurities" from the curing process.

When rendering bacon fat, you should line the container with a paper towel first (or cheesecloth if you have it).

Pour the bacon drippings onto the paper towel and the fat will drain out the bottom; the solids will be left behind and you can dispose of them.

You'll be left with (mostly) pure fat.

The rendered fat will most definitely congeal; the vessel, once cooled, should contain only a solid, off-white substance.

In your grandmother's day, companies didn't adulterate bacon by injecting it with Lactose (Which causes the bacon to absorb water, so you end up buying the meat with sometimes up to 25% of the weight being water)

This is why when you fry bacon you often get a white slushy residue leaching from the rashers, and you end up with poached bacon, rather than fried.

Unless you buy your bacon from an independent producer (and pay the price premium)

I doubt if you will ever be successful in rendering the run-off.

My observation is that Hormel bacon is about half saturated fat and half liquid oil when cooled to room temperature.

The bacon I was buying at Aldi produced a completely solidified bacon grease like my grandmother used.

I think I'll be switching back to Aldi bacon.

Pure bacon fat is always solid at room temperature.

For a while, this was part of the nutritional justification for why all saturated animal fats were unhealthy, because they would be 'solid' inside your arteries as well.

That picture is much more complicated today, but suffice to say that the physical trait of solidness at room temperature hasn't changed.

Animal fats are solid at room temperature, period.

Vegetable fats are liquid at room temperature, period.

This is assuming no intervention with chemicals or whatnot.

Your issue is the bits of water and other random junk that accumulates when you render bacon out.

I found that when I buy bacon from pasture raised pigs, the drippings are solid at room temp, from regular store bought bacon it remains mostly liquid at room temp.

Now that is interesting

I'd just keep the solid part of any drippings, if there's too much liquid

I'd worry about what's in the bacon.

Question: My grandma told me its a good idea to save the bacon drippings in a sealable container to cook with later.  I remember when I used to watch her cook with it, it was always solid.  I have started saving the fat from my bacon, only the bottom of the can is the only part that ever congeals.  The top always seems sort of semi-liquid.  Is that ok?  When cooking with it, what part should I use and what is the difference between solid and merely viscous bacon fat?

Is bacon fat supposed to congeal at room temperature?

Bacon fat is solid at room temperature, but modern bacon is sold with other ingredients like lactose added, which causes the bacon to absorb water that will not solidify.

Bacon fat should not be liquid at room temperature. Any liquid that remains is the water that is added to modern bacon.

Pure bacon fat is always solid at room temperature.

To answer what I think is the question (you put all of the grease into a container and there's a residue at the top), bacon drippings are not 100% fat.

In your grandmother's day, companies didn't adulterate bacon by injecting it with Lactose (Which causes the bacon to absorb water, so you end up buying the meat with sometimes up to 25% of the weight being water)

Your issue is the bits of water and other random junk that accumulates when you render bacon out.

The liquid part is the water that is added to modern bacon.

Bacon fat should be solid at room termperature.


Here is how we made pomme puree at the restaurant I used to work at, for a very well known (in Canada anyway) French chef: Peel and boil as many potatoes as you need.

Cook until slightly underdone.

Run the potatoes through a ricer/food mill.

Then--this is key--scrape the result through a tami--a very fine mesh sieve.

Most often used for sifting flour.

Usually about 14-18" diameter, looks like a drum.

Return resulting potato to a pot, add melted butter, cream, salt, pepper, nutmeg to your desired consistency, stirring all the time.

If not serving immediately, chill as fast as possible, and reheat to order in a pan using a little more cream to loosen it up.

IMPORTANT: you must work as fast as possible; the potatoes need to stay hot the whole time or will become gluey.

Here's how I make mine, which I like and got my wife eating mashed potatoes for the first time since childhood.

I steam the potatoes rather than boil them, which results in something that tastes more like potatoes than the boiling version and avoids the waterlogged problem that mis-timing the boiling can bring.

Peeled and cut into chunks, I steam until tender.

I either just use a masher and enjoy the few leftover chunks or I use a ricer to mash them into the large bowl.

Then I add just a bit of butter, a few dollops of fat-free sour cream and then start adding milk.

I keep adding milk and mixing by hand until they're creamy, which, based on what I've seen in other recipes, etc.

is quite a bit more milk than is typical.

They even reheat fairly well.

Of course, I could just be deluding myself and mine

are among the worst, most gluey around.

Many chefs swear by using a potato ricer instead of a mixer; it is said to be less likely to rupture the cell walls and produce glueyness.

I just bought one, so I'll let you know how it works.

I find using Yukon gold potatoes work best, be sure to boil until tender all the way through.

Don't over beat with a mixer, use medium speed, and add softened butter.

Milk, cream, or sour cream will also increase the creaminess without making mashed potatoes sticky.

here's what I do, and I make mine different than most people here: Boil skin on when slightly over done run under cold water and deskin pan fry

the existing pealed potatoes season with salt pepper, and

whatever else you like ( i like cayenne and usually infused the oil with garlic

then take it out) when the potatoes are hot mash slightly and add a bit of cream stir like crazy (off heat)

add a bit of olive oil put back on heat repeat process until you got it silky enough for your liking

The kosher version:I slice the potatoes as thinly as possible then add them to a pot with boiling water and a little salt.

When the water begins to boil, I cover the pot and lower the heat (to prevent the water from boiling over).

Then I slice, dice and fry an onion.

When the onion has reached a nice brown colour, I stop frying and put the onions (and any remaining oil) into a mixing dish.

I then take the potatoes off the heat and strain them, washing them to remove excess starch.

I add the potatoes to the mixing bowl, add two spoonfuls of mayonnaise (normally 5% fat) and about 1/4 cup olive oil.

Then I mash and mix.

On top of the potatoes I scatter paprika.

If it were up to me, I would also add some sliced parsley, but the family doesn't like that.

I prefer to put the mashed potatoes (uncovered) into the oven for about half an hour at 75 centigrade, which dries them out and then use the oven's grill for a further ten minutes.

I can't say this is the best way, but it is different...

I use a slow cooker to make supper, anyway, so I wrap some potatoes in aluminum foil and stick them on top of the chicken (or whatever)

that's in the stoneware.

When it's time to eat, I take the potatoes out, peel them, and mash with a fork into a bowl.

Then I stir in some hot water and a little salt, or some of the gravy from whatever was cooking in the crockpot.

It comes out really good, and it's very simple :)

I don't think it's gluey at all...

Question: What are the key factors in making silky smooth (non gluey) mashed potatoes.   What technique has the best results?

How can I make a silky smooth, rich mash?

Choose suitable potatoes like Yukon Gold and cook until slightly underdone, but not hard in the middle. Steaming can prevent the potatoes from becoming waterlogged, and using a ricer rather than mixer makes rupturing the cell walls less likely.

Boil or steam potatoes until slightly underdone. Run them through a ricer while they are still hot. Add milk or cream for extra creaminess.

Cook the potatoes either by boiling or steaming until slightly underdone. Yukon potatoes work well for mashing.

You must mash them while they are still hot to avoid them becoming gluey.

Milk or cream will improve the creaminess.


I'd recommend thinly sliced and seared shiitake mushrooms for an umami boost and appropriate texture.

Really get a nice brown crust on them.

well veggie/cheese wise, i would recommend either of:

Chickpeas drained in salt water and paprika and grilled in the oven for about 10 minutes Portobello mushrooms cut into large chunks fried halloumi large chunks of celery sauteed in salt pepper, and chili

I've not tried it, but to my mind sun-dried tomatoes, thinly sliced, should work.

How about bell pepper, grilled until the skin goes black to give a nice smoky flavour?

one vegan substitue would be some tempeh:

The texture of it can be augmented by frying it whole before slicing it to give you the chew, and the flavor can be made nice and smokey while doing so.

Now I am speaking less to the ribboned style of prosciutto and more to the wedged chunks of the meat.

But the delicate/toughness of the meat carries through nicely using tempeh in other foods like omelets as well.

I am not sure you would get the taste from fakin bacon; but the blocks of tempeh could be where its at.

If you're after emulating a carbonara

it's worth noting that it doesn't feature prosciutto anywhere between the ingredients, it uses bacon, and it's supposed to be soft (not crispy), fat and closer to small cubes (diced) than slices if you cut it yourself.

The closest thing in texture you will get are most likely mushrooms, salting them and working towards taking away any aftertaste is up to you.

I hate to answer my own question, but I just came across this "Vegetarian Bacon" idea.

Think it would work here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbrew/sets/72157624692331946/

After consultation with my mother, we agreed you could try with pine seeds.

I would suggest bell peppers.

Cut them in little cubes (about the same size of pancetta pieces), then saute' them in olive oil, after a couple of minutes add some wine, salt and if you believe some spices (maybe curry).

Let them cook for some 5 minutes, leave them a bit crunchy.

After that mix everything as usual :)

absolutely dried tomatoes (south italy ones if you can find them)

- they have flavour, texture and crunchiness (after stirred in your frypan with EVO, minced garlic and chili)

- you have to slightly burn them (as non-veg do with bacon) and, besides, a sauce of chopped tofu with soy milk, a dash of soy cream, and turmeric or saffron if you prefer.

join after the sun dried tomatoes and then stir spaghetti or penne into the sauce.

A good sprinkling of freshly ground pepper and ready!

The appearance will be the same as the carbonara "cruel" - and also the taste strikingly similar!

- Note:

Cut the tomatoes into strips or cubes as they do with the bacon!

:-)Annulla modifiche

You don't really need a 1-1 substitue for bacon, but you do want something that goes well with the rich egg yolk+cheese flavor.

Zucchini has worked well for me in the past.

Jamie Oliver has a Courgette carbonara recipe, just omit the meat.

Make sure you brown the zucchini.

(He tempers the flavor with a little cream, too.)

If you can find the video, it's worth watching for his zucchini cutting technique: he quarters them lengthwise, trims off the inside corner and the cuts on the bias to yield pieces the same size and shape as penne.

Peas would also work

- Mario Batali has a "Penne alla Papalina" recipe that is similar to a carbonara, but uses peas and prosciutto.

(I substitute yolks for his whole eggs.)

Shiitake or another bold mushroom would likely work well, too, but I haven't tried it myself.

Also - be generous with the black pepper, and, if you use short pasta like penne, cut the veggies to the size of the pasta.

There are a wide variety of vegetarian ham and bacon substitutes.

None of these are exactly the same as bacon or prosciutto, but any of them would work, though you may want to add some more oil/fat to the party, since they are generally going to be low-fat.

Here's a detailed thread on vegetarian/vegan bacon substitutes.

Bacon substitution To summarize, you can add smokey flavor to a variety of vegetarian proteins or vegetables with a chewy or crispy texture.

These include tempeh bacon, tofu bacon and coconut bacon, all of which are relatively simple to make at home.

Additionally there are commercially made substitutes including Lifelife's Smart Bacon, Morningstar farms veggie bacon, Lightlife tempeh bacon strips, smoked tofu as well as various brands of Baco's or Bacon Bits.

You generally add smokey flavor one of three ways -

liquid smoke (easy and potent), smoked paprika (more expensive, less potent), actually smoking the ingredient in a smoker.

I've also seen recipes where people smoke mushrooms and use as a smoked meat replacer.

There are also a lot of vegetarian ham substitutes including Lightlife Smart Deli, Yve's Deli Slices and meatless Canadian Bacon, and others you can find at some Asian markets.

If you want a less smokey flavor, but a similar texture you could use baked tofu (maybe flavored with miso, soy sauce and/or seaweed for umami flavor), or seitan.

Question: Instead of prosciutto, I used capers to try and maintain the salty aspect.  It worked ok, but something about the capers and cheese didn't seem right.  Any other suggestions?  Also, to round out the dish with a bit more substance, I also added some diced zucchini, sauteed with garlic and shallots.

What vegetarian substitute for prosciutto could I use in Carbonara?

Shiitake, Portobello and other bold mushrooms will most closely approximate the umami taste and texture of the meat, but you can also try chickpeas drained in salt water and paprika and grilled in the oven for about 10 minutes, fried halloumi or large chunks of celery sauteed in salt pepper and chili.

There are several options you could try: mushrooms, bell pepper, sun-dried tomatoes or a vegan bacon with tempeh or tofu.

You could try shiitake mushrooms to give a meaty texture. You could even salt them to racreate the bacon flavour.

Sun-dried tomatoes would give a similar salty flavour.

Grilled bell peppers would replace the smokiness of bacon.

You could try a vegan bacon with tempeh, tofu or coconut.


There's a difference between the title (is a sausiccon a type of salami), and the body (is there a difference).

The first is a question of classification, and no, a saucisson is type of cured sausage, but you'd want "saucisson sec" (dry sausage) for a dried, cured sausage with good storage characteristics like salami.

So the relation is the other way around -- a salami is a type of saucisson.

"Differences" when you're dealing with general classifications such as this tend to be a question of if there are items that might fit into one category, but not the other.

It's pretty obvious that salami is a narrower term than sausiccon, but I'm not sure if salami and sausiccon sec are just different names for the same concept, or if there might be items in one class that wouldn't fall into the other.

update : would sweet bologna be considered a saucisson sec ?

It's only semi-dried, so I wouldn't classify it as a salami due to storage characteristics.

Saucisson sec might be used to call all the dried sausages.

Salami is a dried sausage so it might be a saucisson sec.

However, it is generally used to designate different recipes.

The difference can come from the size of the grounded meat, the seasoning or even the casing.

As an example, Rhulman and Polcyn are providing a recipe for salami (heavily seasoned) and saucisson sec (lightly seasoned).

Also, salami or pepperoni are usually made of fine grounded meat which gives an homogeneous look to the stuffing while other dried sausages like rosette de Lyon or saucisson de ménage are more heterogenous looking.

Salami is generally associated with bigger casings than saucissons secs.

The size of the casing might not only affect the look but also the taste as a bigger casing necessitate longer drying.

Saucisse is any little sausage, fresh or dried.

Saucisse seche is the term used when it's dried.

Saucisson is any sausage that's air dried and cured -Salami is cured sausage, fermented and air-dried meat.

So is it a Salami, semantics probable because the French don't want to call it a Salami.

As saucisson is defined as "a large, cured French sausage of ground pork flavored with garlic", then a saucisson is not a salami; salami is not usually flavored with garlic, and it's not only made with ground pork.

I do not think Saucisson need necessarily be of pork.

I have eaten donkey and horse sausages which were refered to as "saucisson de cheval" (horse) and "saucisson de ane" (donkey).

Saucisson sec and salami are dry cured sausages.

Salamis tend to have gone through a incubation period which gives the sausage an acidic taste, which also protects the meat from spoiling.

Saucisson sec has no incubation period.

Both sausages should be further protected by Nitrates and Nitrites to inhibit Botulism.

Do not mislead.

Dried and cured are two different things.

Dried when you leave meat to dry naturally and meat losing water in time.

When you cure you involve smoke.

There are two different type of curing - cold and hot.

All three technology give different taste.

Salami is cured not dried, saucisson sec is dried.

Question: Is there difference between Saucisson Sec and Salami?

Is there a difference between 'Saucisson Sec' and 'Salami'?

All dried sausages could be called saucisson sec, although salami is usually not flavoured with garlic and there are some differences in the drying and curing process.

Saucisson sec is a general term, while salami is used for a specific product. The major difference is that salami are cured while saucisson sec are air-dried.

Saucisson sec is the general term. So a salami is a type of saucisson sec.

There is a difference as salami is cured whereas saucisson sec is normally air-dried and not cured.


One important thing to keep in mind is that the blade always stays against the knuckles of your opposite hand to control it.

That is true with all knives

but I find it is especially important with a cleaver.

(Well probably except when you are doing giant hacking moves, in which case your other hand should be nowhere in the vicinity).

I found an informative .pdf , image below.

Also, youtube has videos .

Click on the image for a slightly easier to read version, but the PDF version is much clearer.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457/Tobias Op Den Brouw

One difference in chopping is that you are doing less rocking on the tip than you would with a chef's knife.

The edge stays more parallel with the cutting board.

You still want to maintain the forward sliding motion while the blade moves down.

I like using a light cleaver for veggies, and find that it works better than a chef's knife with a small cutting board.

I applaud you for going over the "dark side" of knives.

I find many people are afraid of using the Chinese cleaver due to it's size, weight and shape.

But if you just look at most Chinese trained cooks/chefs, they basically use this one knife to do most of their cutting/slicing/dicing/mincing/smashing and food transferring.

It is really something to watch a very well trained Chinese chef use one of those cleavers.

In short check out Youtube.com, and just type "chinese knife skills".

First hit should be "discovering Chinese cuisine part 2-Culinary knife skills".

Or type in "eat drink man woman opening scene".

Either one of these are going to be an eye opening and very educational clips.

I would say that the difference and how it's used is dependent on knife shape.

Most Chinese cleavers are going to be a basic rectangle with very little belly (knife's business/cutting edge).

But some cleavers have quite a rounded belly, these are more suited to a western trained chef.

One can still utilize the rocking motion.

The more straight edged cleavers are more suited to the simultaneous chop-push method.

Chop-push is raising the cleaver up and slightly back towards yourself.

Then the opposite when cutting, which is down and slightly away from you.

This gives you that melodic thudding sound when cutting.

This method is used for most cutting, as it is a quick and efficient stroke.

If you have a very sharp and heavy cleaver, you might be able to get away with just straight up and down cutting motion.

Another method is the pull back or as I call it the dragging method of cutting.

This is used for cutting very tall/high/long things (large daikon radish or long pieces of meat).

Have the tip of the cleaver on the cutting board and raise the cleaver's handle so that back or the middle portion of the blade is higher than what you are cutting.

Then simply drag the cleaver backwards through the food until it cuts it.

The weight of the cleaver is usually enough to cut the food, if it's sharp.

This method also keeps the food shape with minimal deformation.

But good luck with your chinese cleaver.

Have fun and don't cut yourself too much.

Practice!

In addition to watching videos, reading textbooks, etc... I would just recommend to use it often.

Make sure you have a nice, heavy cutting board, too.

Question: So I have recently been moving into the world of Asian cuisine, and I recently learned that the Chinese use a cleaver as though it is a chef's knife.  Apparently, it is a great multitasker but requires a completely different technique set to use properly. Where do I go to find out about this?    Update  I should mention that I am already highly proffiecent with a chef's knife. I was mainly looking for what I need to learn from scratch and what will carry over.

How do you develop the knife skills to properly use a Chinese cleaver?

A cleaver with a heavy chopping board is good for vegetables and other foods, but you should keep the forward sliding motion without as much rocking as with a chef's knife.

A cleaver should be used on a heavy chopping board. There will be less of a rocking motion but the forward sliding motion is still the same.

You do less rocking on the tip than with a chef's knife. You should still retain the forward sliding motion.

A light cleaver is useful for shopping vegetables.


I'm a recent convert to the type where you load the fruit between two halves of a metal mold and squeeze.

I find that it extracts a very high percentage of the juice with minimal effort and does a good job of separating away the seeds.

I find it a lot less messy than the reamer or other type I've owned in the past.

I use one of two things: my hands or a lemon reamer .

The lemon reamer is great if you really need to get all of the juice out of the lemon.

It takes much less effort to use compared to your hands alone.

This makes a difference if you are needing to juice several lemons; your hands might get tired.

In practice, I think I use my hands 80-90% of the time.

It's not common that I'm juicing several lemons all at once.

I don't have any experience with the more complex (expensive) tools, but I don't think there's much justification in purchasing anything fancier than a reamer.

I don't see a benefit to having a bulkier, more expensive unitasker in my kitchen.

You should only start using one if you have a pressing need .

That is tongue-in-cheek, but unless your have a need, there is no 'should use'.

One such need may be hygiene (or saving effort, or lack of strength in the hands), but only you can determine whether that's true.

UPDATE:

original post was modified (and better for it)

As in the earlier answer, benefits may be: Hygiene Economics (more juice from your lemon, if normal squeezing isn't enough for you) Speed / efficiency Catches the seeds for you

A possibly disadvantage may be that it mangles your lemon skin (depending on type), which you might still want to use.

On the other hand, models may also exist that allow you to squeeze efficiently after you've scraped some of the skin (if you needed to), which can be a hassle if done by hand.

As to specific models: I don't use any.

(probably just use the orange juicer if I had a bunch.

Like hobodave - don't need another singletask device that sees uncommon use).

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457/Tobias Op Den Brouw

My lemon squeezer has a lid with the squeezer and a container underneath.

On the pro side, it holds enough liquid to make a couple of glasses of orange juice; it will separate the juice from pips and most of the flesh.

On the down side, it has two components which means more to clean, more things to search for while your cooking; this particular model has a lid that fastens too tightly.

It's easy to get covered in juice as you try and pull it off.

I'm a huge fan of the vintage glass bowl/reamer combination.

They're large and have a built-in bowl for catching juice, very easy to use, and extremely easy to clean.

I get great leverage standing partially over them

(I'm also 6'2" so that might factor in)

and I've never had any other tool get so much juice out, though I've never tried the type of simple hand reamer hobodave mentions in his post.

As a bonus, if you have a china cabinet or anything similar, they're pretty attractive and can be displayed if you so desire :)

My model is two pieces, there is a glass reamer that sits inside a glass bowl, I find this catches pulp way better than the single-piece models.

The top piece looks exactly like this , and the bottom (bowl) is very similar to this , except no reamer attached of course.

edit: It looks like what I have is very similar to what Chris has, except glass.

His bullets apply to mine as well, except the last con - this doesn't have any seal whatsoever, which I thought was going to make it dangerous to use, because I expected the top piece to slide as I moved back and forth.

However, between the small "point" on the bottom of the top piece, and the downward pressure

I exert keeps it from moving at all.

If you have relatively strong hands, I don't think it's very useful.

Just roll the lemon (or lime) on the counter, pressing down on it to break down the fruit a bit, then slice in half and squeeze each half.

A little fine-mesh sieve with a handle is great for catching the seeds, or your fingers will work in a pinch.

Quick and one less item to store and wash!

On the other hand, larger citrus can't really be juiced that way, and not everyone has a handshake of steel, so some people might well want a gadget.

One benefit could be saving your hands and skin from citrus infection.

I never let lemon juice or any other strong acid get on my hands, it messes with the skin and can cause citrus infections (which is a common problem for bartenders cutting and squeezing limes and lemons by hand).

Question: There are  lots of products  on the market to ease lemon squeezing. I've never used any of them.   Are there any benefits to using one? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the different types?

Are there benefits to using a lemon squeezer?

A traditional lemon reamer with a glass bowl is good for getting all of the juice out of the lemon, but other options include squeezing between two halves of a metal mould or squeezers with a container underneath.

Many basic systems exist from a lemon reamer to a squeezer with a built-in container to catch the juice.

Squeezing the fruit in a metal mold is a good system.

A lemon squeezer with a lid and a container underneath is a good option.


Actually I've found that constant stirring has little to no affect on the final product.

You can simply stir rigorously at the last minute and achieve similar results.

Don't believe me?

Try it for yourself and you'll see.

Another trick is pre-cooking your rice.

Just follow a standard risotto recipe but stop cooking the rice about half way through the process (about 10 minutes in or just before aldente).

Strain the stock from the rice and pour it out onto a baking sheet to cool quickly.

You can refrigerate it for up to a day.

To finish it, just pick up where you left off and - presto - you've just cut out half the cooking time. Cheers!

Looks like the closest you can get is to add lots of cheese and butter (for the cream) and stir less often.

This recipe follows that trick, using the lid of your pot unlike a traditional risotto.

If you have a pressure cooker, you can also coopt it to do some of the work for you, as seen in this recipe .

The trick there as suggested by many similar pressure cooker risotto recipes appears to be to start with high pressure and quickly release steam.

Mark Bittman thinks it can be done more easily, see here .

It comes with a video.

If you Google for "risotto oven baked" you can get a lot of recipes and comments.

The general consensus is that it's not quite as creamy as the constantly stirred stove top version, but that most people would never know it wasn't made on the stove top if you don't tell them.

Although this isn't exactly a "cheat," it can help expedite the making of the risotto.

You par-boil the rice, so it is partially ready when it is time to actually cook it.

Ever wonder how they get the risotto to cook so fast on shows like "Hell's Kitchen?"

Par- boiling.

Here's a link to how it's done: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/601758

There is one recipe for risotto that doesn't require that much attention: "Risotto alla pilota".

Basically you boil the rice in salted water and then stir-fry

it with a particular shredded Italian sausage meat (called "pesto",

but it's not that pesto).

You then add Grana or Parmigiano.

If cheating like this were really possible, people'd be doing it that way.

That said: I've tried to shortcut risotto myself.

It's possible: make the batches of liquid larger and you'll still get a tasty rice dish.

It just won't be as good as it would have been otherwise.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457/Tobias Op Den Brouw

You don't have to stir "almost constantly" and you can add the liquid in larger amounts, I guess, for a less perfect risotto, for less effort.

But I still think you should add liquid evenly throughout the process.

And lots of butter stirred in at the end, once it's off the heat, is the quick and easy way to a creamy finish.

If you add the right amount of liquid after the sauteeing, you can leave it alone until it has mostly cooked down.

At that point, make sure it hasn't stuck.

Question: Cooking a risotto takes a fair amount of attention and work, adding stock a ladle at a time with almost constant stirring. The  chemical process  behind this makes sense to me. Are there any ways to short cut this process though? I'd like to be able to make a risotto with a little less attention. I'm wondering if some hybrid technique of early attention and later just adding liquid and letting it boil (or maybe the reverse) might provide a similar result with less work.

Are there any techniques to "cheat" at cooking a risotto?

If you add the right amount of liquid, constant stirring is not as important. Alternatively, adding more liquid at a time will be easier but make a less perfect risotto. Risotto can also be made in the oven.

To avoid constant stirring, add all the liquid at the beginning and leave it to boil down. You can also cook risotto in the oven.

Constant stirring doesn't necessarily make that much difference. You can add the liquid all at the beginning and then leave it to boil down.

Try making risotto in the oven for a much easier method.


You can buy wheat bran at health stores.

Before adding to bread, soak for a while to rehydrate.

It will change the character of the bread somewhat, but the recipe should still work with something like 1/3 cup.

The bag I bought was fairly coarse, so I put it in the blender and pulsed to powder it.

You can also buy soluble fiber (i.e. benefiber in the USA), although some of what is sold might be a scam.

I imagine something around 1/4 cup added wouldn't mess up the recipe.

King Arthur (and perhaps others) make a white wheat flour, made from an albino wheat with husk that is ground very finely, and can generally be subbed in for white flour yielding higher fiber product.

You might want to start half and half white wheat and white.

You can add a handful of pumpkin seeds or sunflower seeds.

You don't need to adjust any of the other ingredients.

Sunflower seeds contain a ton of good stuff, including fibre, according to Wikipedia : "

In addition to linoleic acid (an essential fatty acid), sunflower seeds are also an excellent source of dietary fiber, some amino acids (especially tryptophan), Vitamin E, B Vitamins (especially vitamin B1 or thiamine, vitamin B5 or pantothenic acid and folate), and minerals such as copper, manganese, potassium, magnesium, iron, phosphorus, selenium, calcium and zinc.[5]

Additionally, they are rich in cholesterol-lowering phytosterols."

And of course you can simply substitute a percentage of good old whole wheat flour.

Start with one of the three cups and see how you like it.

The bread will be slightly brown, but Im assuming that isn't a drastic problem for you.

You might also like to give it a slightly longer final rise to ensure it isn't dense.

Oatmeal is a high fiber ingredient.

It is considered one of the best carbohydrate heavy foods out there because of this.

Unfortunately, making oatmeal bread does require changing your recipe a bit.

Sub out one cup of AP flour for old-fashioned oats, the highest fiber oats.

While preparing your dry ingredients, soak the oatmeal in your milk.

At least, this is how the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook converts their basic white bread into oatmeal white bread.

For really upping your fiber content, also consider using 1/3 whole wheat flour to make a light wheat bread.

This may require slightly more liquid, which you can always add while kneading until you get a good sense of the proportion for next time.

substitute X grams / ounces of white flower with one or a combination of the following: Wheat germ Puinoa multi-grain flower Almond / nut

powder Or Sprinkle

the top with some form of a grain mix

As a suggestion do not substitute more than 1/2 a cup.

Note that your first modified batch will be crap at best

This is a super easy recipe I have used successfully in my breadmaker.

3 cups plain flour or bakers flour

2 tsp bread improver 2 tsp yeast 1.5 cups steel cut oats (or fast cooking oats)

pinch of salt 3-4 tsp brown sugar 1/2 cup linseed, or oat bran, or chia bran (

optional) 1/4 cup olive oil

Warm water to combine (about 1.5 to 2 cups) Dissolve the sugar in 1 cup of the water.

Add to all the other ingredients in the bread maker.

Turn on.

Watch the kneading process for a few minutes, adding enough water slowly (literally in small drips) to allow the dough to form a ball.

The ball should be slightly sticky and wet as the oat and bran will soak up some water over time.

Let the cycle finish.

Enjoy!

The oat actually ends up "dissolving" into the bread from the kneading process, which I like.

If you prefer a more grainy texture, you can add the oat just before the proofing cycle after the kneading is complete.

Question: These are my ingredients for a one-loaf white bread recipe:  3 cups all-purpose flour 1 cup milk 4 Tbsp butter 2 Tbsp sugar 1 1/4 tsp salt 1 packet active dry yeast  I'd like to add an ingredient that will increase the loaf's fiber content without having to adjust or alter the other ingredients, but I don't know a) what to add, and b) how much of it to add.

What additions can I make to my basic white bread recipe to increase its fiber content?

You can add wheat bran, oatmeal, pumpkin seeds or sunflower seeds, or just substitute some of the white flour with wholewheat.

You can try subsitituting some of the flour with wheat flour or wheat bran, or oatmeal, or you can add some pumpkin and sunflower seeds.

You can add seeds like pumpkin or sunflower.

Try replacing some of the flour with wheat flour.


In my experience, they're best at concentrating mold spores, and hiding away unsightly loaves.

While chic, and quite popular in the days before plastic bags, they're not much use now.

Pretty much the same as the " pie safe "

A bread box is intended to keep bread fresh.

The materials don't matter that much.

A bread box keeps bread fresh by trapping moisture to prevent the bread from drying out.

The tighter the seal on the bread box, the better it performs this function.

Additional Reading: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-bread-box.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breadbox

The wikipedia article about breadboxes states: They were a more common household kitchen item until bread started being made commercially with food preservatives and wrapped in plastic.

Breadboxes are still used by many people to store commercially purchased bread, but are used more especially by people who bake bread at home.

And that they also protect their contents from mice and other pests.

They're intended to provide a cool, controlled place to keep the bread away from direct sunlight and most pests, to reduce the rate of moisture loss, and reduce the likelihood of the bread getting moldy.

I'd personally avoid metal in areas with high temperature swings (daily, not yearly) because I'd be concerned with changes in temperature outside causing condensation inside the box.

If you have air conditioning and don't have it cycle on/off during the day, this likely isn't an issue.

Some people don't actually like the wooden bread boxes, because the smell of the wood used can transfer to the bread.

It's possible that the nature of the wood, if it were unsealed, might help to regulate the humidity of the box (absorb a little if it's too high, give a little back if it's too low), but from what I recall (and it's been more than 15 years since I've used one), all of the ones we had were vented, so I don't know how much this is actually an issue.

(it's possible that not all are vented -- in looking online, some of the metal ones claim to be air-tight ...

I'm not sure how I feel about that).

Don't keep your bread in the fridge, for goodness' sake.

You lose a lot of flavor and freshness by doing that.

It speeds decomposition of certain aspects of the bread even if it does make it last longer.

A bread box is meant to be used to keep bread fresh and great tasting for 3-6 days, which is about the longest you can expect fresh bread to last.

There is a balance of powers happening within that box and the balance is not to be messed with.

There is ventilation and moisture retention.

The ventilation comes from the small intentional gaps in the bread box.

The moisture comes from the bread.

That moist environment is fine because you want to have moist bread.

Too much moisture isn't good either—which is why if you live in a moist climate you should get a large bread box and don't overstuff it.

The more bread in the box, the more moisture in the box.

If you live in a dry climate you could probably get away with a loaf, several bagels, and a few buns and not have any trouble but in a moist environment, that's asking for trouble.

If you have trouble with humidity then a breadbox is probably not that helpful - you'll probably want to keep your bread in the fridge.

But the fridge actually makes bread go stale faster, so if you're in a fairly dry area a bread box can be very useful for keeping bread fresh.

I think it's more effective than just tightly sealing the plastic bags, but I haven't done any studies.

Also I personally like it for corralling my bread products (loafs of bread, buns, bagels, etc.)

so they're not just strewn about the kitchen.

It also contains crumbs, and I find it easier to clean than a pantry shelf, since you can just hold the box over a trash and shake.

They're also useful for any snacks you like to keep easily accessible, since those can be make an otherwise clean kitchen look messy.

Were I live.

A bread box is used to put a slice of bread in.

In less than 15 minutes this will draw ants.

Once the bread is covered in ants.

You spray inside the box to keep there numbers down.

Even putting bread in sealed plastic ones the ants will find a way in.

This is tropical use of them..

Way up north.

When women baked bread once a week.

It was put in a bread box to keep moist for the week.

It slowed bread from drying out.

In today's world the plastic bag it comes in does a better job of keeping bread fresh.

So they are more just for looks.

In the old days some use to add a slice of apple or such to the bread box to keep bread moist.

So they were the bread wrapper before bread wrappers came about.

In the tropics ants just eat a hole threw the wrapper.

Why we have a small bakery in each neighborhood.

Ants don't attack hot ovens.

Question: For some reason I always thought bread boxes were supposed to be wood, and that some property of wood helped keep bread fresh.  Like a cigar box, perhaps.  But after looking for a bread box, I see that many are plastic and metal.  Before I buy a bread box, I should probably understand what exactly I'm purchasing.  What is a bread box for, and do all types of bread boxes accomplish the intended purpose?

What's the purpose of a bread box?

The bread box retains some moisture and provides a cool, ventilated place away from direct sunlight and most pests. Wood is probably not necessary, but metal might be more sensitive to temperature changes in the room.

A bread box helps to keep bread fresher for longer by stopping it from drying out. The material is not very important, but it should be ventilated.

A bread box helps the bread to retain moisture and keeps it fresher for longer.

A bread box keeps pests away from the bread.

Metal is not a good idea if there are temperature changes in the room as this might encourage condensation to form. A wooden one might help to regulate the moisture level and keep the bread slightly fresher.


I have worked in two professsional kitchens.

The main kitchen itself (all the work tables, stoves, floors, refrigerator fronts and so on) is cleaned after each service, and very thoroughly each night with hot soapy water and sometime sterilizing solution.

The insides of refrigerators and other storage areas don't need to be cleaned that often because everything in them is in sealed containers.

They should normally be emptied and wiped out at least once a week, and of course immediately if there is any kind of spill.

It totally depends on who's leading the kitchen.

I've worked in a restaurant where we cleaned the fridges, floors, everything twice a day.

A quickish clean after lunch service, and a full clean at night.

In most other places I've worked, the fridges were done once a day, and the whole kitchen after each service.

Regardless, you'll do what's called a 'deep clean' once a week which would include extraction, chillers, dry store, moving everything out of the kitchen etc.

I once worked in a place where the fridge doors were taken off so you could clean beneath the screws.. taking it a bt far I think, but puts things in perspective in the next job!

In my Navy service, where the galley tends to roll with the waves, we did a lot of cleaning.

A quick clean after breakfast, wipe surfaces and the insides of the line fridges.

A deeper clean after lunch, including scrubbing the surfaces, emptying and cleaning the line fridges properly, scrubbing the stove top (electric), and sorting out the deep-fryer.

After all that we'd do the floors properly.

After supper we'd basically reset the whole kitchen, including cleaning the dry storage and walk-in fridge.

After late night snacks we'd really just tidy up, and wipe any surfaces, but not properly clean the galley.

Once a week though, everything gets taken apart and scrubbed, and also sterilized where appropriate, including the walk-in freezer and fridge.

There's also the once yearly passover cleaning, where compressed air is brought in to make sure all the dirt is kicked out of everywhere.

After that we used a pressure-washer, and then a blow-torch to make sure everything is clean and/or dead.

It helps that all the equipment is stainless steel in this case.

Different restaurants have different standards.

The first restaurant I worked in, we would tear down everything after lunch service when the night crew & chef arrived.

That meant everything currently dirty through the dishwasher, everything that was stainless steel getting scrubbed & sterilized, floors swept and mopped, floormats hosed down and sterilized.

Then we'd do that again at 4, and again at 6:15 right before dinner service.

The walk-in fridge was completely emptied and scrubbed every week, freezers once a month, dry stores moved and shelves/floor cleaned and swept every two weeks.

You could eat off the floor in that place.

Personally, I think that should be the standard everywhere.

More normal is line fridges once a week, walkin fridges once a month or so (this means deep cleaning on top of the usual sweeping/mopping and a quick wipedown of the shelves).

All stainless steel, stovetops, etc gets scrubbed down every night, floors swept and mopped.

Then we do a full-on deep clean from the back door to the dining room doors quarterly--everything pulled out, scrubbed, line pulled out and powerwashed behind, etc.

The secret really is to start with a sparkling kitchen and maintain it.

24 hour restaurants rely on their downtime (often but not always 3-6AM) for their cleaning hours.

A good restaurant will have a thorough clean after each service.

Of course, not every restaurant is a good one...

Question: Today I saw Gordon Ramsay Kitchen Nightmares. Regardless of the alleged nature of "reality", he said that fridges at his London restaurant are cleaned twice a day. Is that excessive or in line with standard hygiene guidelines ? What about the kitchen and storage rooms ?

how often is cleaning done in a professional kitchen?

Thorough cleaning of the fridges, floors and other areas twice a day is done in some restaurants, but in others cleaning was done less frequently, including emptying and deep cleaning of walk-in fridges once a month or so as everything in them would be in sealed containers. In any case, the area should be cleaned immediately after a spill.

Fridges should be cleaned at least once a week. Some restaurants do it every day and others after every service.

Fridges should be cleaned once a week. Any more than this is excessive as everything in them is in sealed containers.

Some restaurants clean fridges every day, others do it after every service.