For a while, he had access to the Dharma stores of food.

The timeline on the show was slower than our real-life timeline, so it seemed like they were on the island for much longer than they actually were.

Also, he did lose weight:

"I'm down a notch in my belt.

I'm a big guy.

It's gonna be a while before you want to give me a piggy back ride".

(Episode "Confidence Man")

Out of Universe:

That's the part of Lost that raises the most questions for you? :)

@Johnny

Bones is totally correct and provides the correct in-universe answer.

I just wanted to add a rather boring out of universe answer to say that the obvious reason is that Jorge Garcia , the actor who played Hurley, simply didn't lose much weight.

So whilst we can search for plenty of realistic in-universe reasons to justify this, the fact is he's a big guy with a serious obesity problem .

There are plenty of claims online that he was asked not to lose weight by the producers, as his character was so popular "as is"

(and it gave joke-content on screen e.g. Sawyer mocking Hurley) -

but I can't find any evidence this was the case.

Note:

He does lose some weight after Season 1, just not much :

"I can afford to not live on rum and burritos and take better care of myself...

Besides, there were enough people who were waiting for my character to lose weight as a result of being stranded on a desert island."

Weight loss (or gain) is not always due to diet.

If it were, every diet would work.

Sometimes it's due to Hypothyroidism, which is an underactive thyroid gland.

If you have this, it's nearly impossible to combat weight gain without medical help.

Of course, Hugo wasn't jogging an hour a day, and there's no telling how many Dharma Cookies he was eating off-screen, so it's possible that once food stores were found he could actually gain weight if he had this condition.

I think any medical condition speculation is pointless to even mention.

While hypothyroidism may make it easier to gain weight, your body still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

Simply put, Hurley was not eating at a large enough deficit to show noticeable weight loss.

It's been years since I watched Lost, but I can't remember any of the characters showing noticeable changes in weight.

From that it's easy to conclude that there was sufficient food supply for all of the characters to roughly maintain their weight since the start of the show.

SPOILERS INTERLEAVED

There are a few scenes specifically in the show where we see Hugo overindulging on-island.

He was also in charge of food distribution whenever it came up in the show and from his flashbacks we know he has issues with food consumption.

From this we could deduce that he might get the bigger cut of food for distributing it to everyone or he might take a secret cut because he has the opportunity to (the latter which is brought up on the show with his food cache).

[ http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Hugo_%22Hurley%22_Reyes (CTRL+F food)]

The total amount of on-island time is very deceiving with the flashbacks and whatnot interleaved with the story.

The total amount of time spent on the island after the crash was only ~108 consecutive days.

3 months is not a lot of time for drastic weight change when you factor in Hurley's overindulging and food caches, plus he was already from a hot climate before crashing on the island

so sweating off the weight doesn't seem plausible.

[ http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline ] Finally there is the healing/spiritual aspect of the island.

It was never outright stated that healing means to return to the optimal human form.

But rather is feels more like physical healing combined with spiritual healing.

Part of Hurley's spirit was his overweight jolly lovable nature so the island wouldn't want to take that from him but rather embrace it.

Adding to that is how Hurley was a candidate for and later became Jacob's successor - food was a minor character flaw compared to the other obstacles he had to overcome to become this.

My favorite website: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/

The most obvious answer is that Hugo and the other LOST crash victims were dead the whole time, so naturally he wouldn't have lost any weight.

By the way, I have watched every episode of LOST.

Question: Has always wondered, in Lost series, the "big" guy by name Hugo did not seem to be losing any weight while on the island. This seems rather impossible considering the drastic change in the amount of labour, walking and his new nutrition plan. Just to remind, he used to be very passive back home and ate a lot of junk food.  So why did he end up not losing any weight (at least visually)?

How did Hugo not lose weight while on the island?

There are a few reasons to explain Hugo not losing weight on the island. There are a few scenes specifically in the show where we see Hugo overindulging on-island and he had access to the Dharma food stores for a while. However, in reality, the actor is a big man and apparently was told by the producers not to lose weight for the show as the public liked him as he was. In universe again, he was also in charge of food distribution whenever it came up in the show and from his flashbacks we know he has issues with food consumption.

Jorge Garcia, the Hurley actor, didn't shed a lot of weight. It is all to do with the fact that he has a significant weight problem, as we'll see. After the crash, total time on the Island was less than four months.

The total amount of time spent on the island after the crash was only ~108 consecutive days. 3 months is not a lot of time for drastic weight change when you factor in Hurley's overindulging and food caches, plus he was already from a hot climate before crashing on the island so sweating off the weight doesn't seem plausible.

For a while, he had access to the Dharma stores of food.

The timeline on the show was slower than our real-life timeline, so it seemed like they were on the island for much longer than they actually were.

I just wanted to add a rather boring out of universe answer to say that the obvious reason is that Jorge Garcia , the actor who played Hurley, simply didn't lose much weight.

So whilst we can search for plenty of realistic in-universe reasons to justify this, the fact is he's a big guy with a serious obesity problem .

There are plenty of claims online that he was asked not to lose weight by the producers, as his character was so popular "as is"

Weight loss (or gain) is not always due to diet.

Sometimes it's due to Hypothyroidism, which is an underactive thyroid gland.

Of course, Hugo wasn't jogging an hour a day, and there's no telling how many Dharma Cookies he was eating off-screen, so it's possible that once food stores were found he could actually gain weight if he had this condition.

I think any medical condition speculation is pointless to even mention.

While hypothyroidism may make it easier to gain weight, your body still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

From that it's easy to conclude that there was sufficient food supply for all of the characters to roughly maintain their weight since the start of the show.

There are a few scenes specifically in the show where we see Hugo overindulging on-island.

He was also in charge of food distribution whenever it came up in the show and from his flashbacks we know he has issues with food consumption.

From this we could deduce that he might get the bigger cut of food for distributing it to everyone or he might take a secret cut because he has the opportunity to (the latter which is brought up on the show with his food cache).

It was never outright stated that healing means to return to the optimal human form.

But rather is feels more like physical healing combined with spiritual healing.

Adding to that is how Hurley was a candidate for and later became Jacob's successor - food was a minor character flaw compared to the other obstacles he had to overcome to become this.

Jorge Garcia, the Hurley actor, didn't shed a lot of weight. It is all to do with the fact that he has a significant weight problem, as we'll see. But in my opinion, this is a mixture of physical and spiritual healing. After the crash, total time on the Island was less than four months. Food was insignificant compared to the obstacles Hurley had overcome to get to become Jacob's successor. It's conceivable that he could gain weight if he had this condition, but it's an exercise in futility to speculate on a medical conditions. He may or may well be doing so because he has the chance to keep it for himself.


No location is ever mentioned in the movie.

In fact, the sequel Babe: Pig In The City has Babe travelling to a city called “Metropolis.”

In that movie, you can see structures that resemble the Golden Gate Bridge, Sears Tower, World Trade Center, Sydney Opera House and Christ

The Redeemer, among others.

So, it’s safe to say that there was no intended country or location for the movies.

From IMDB

The location of the film is never mentioned, though scenery and architecture suggest somewhere in Great Britain.

However, except for two announcers only heard for a few seconds on the TV, everyone speaks with American accents.

Moreover, cars were driven on the right side of the road, while in Great Britain [and Australia] cars are driven on the left.

Suffice it to say, it's deliberately left to the imagination as to the location.

Based on some of the phrases used and minor pieces of evidence from the script, I would say the film is most likely to be set in Britain , probably northern England as in the source novel : National Grand Challenge Sheepdog Trials An event with this exact name doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the real world, but there are English National Sheepdog Trials , as well as Irish , Scottish , and Welsh National Sheepdog Trials.

National Sheepdog Association For some reason I couldn't find a website for this organisation, but searching for this phrase on Google and excluding results relating to this film seems to turn up only UK-based results.

I know I have to be at the National Conference.

I am the Assistant General Secretary of the Northeast Region after all.

I asked an American (the OP of this question, in fact) whether this sounds like the sort of title a person might have in the US, and got the answer

no.

Nor could it be Australian: the northeast region of Australia is pretty much unpopulated.

Coming today from the Kingsmith Showground in the heart of sheep country.

As far as I know, there is no "sheep country" in the US (again, I consulted some Americans, who confirmed my suspicion).

This term might be used in Australia (though it's not universally known there), and it's definitely a phrase one might hear in Britain.

(Incidentally "Kingsmith" is clearly a nod to Dick King-Smith, who wrote the source novel.)

The other answers are all helpful, and it seems the consensus is that it could be many countries, and is (possibly deliberately) vague.

However it is useful to know that the original tale was apparently set in the UK, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know).

If anyone has read it and can confirm then that would be useful.

The Sheep-Pig, or Babe, the Gallant Pig in the U.S., is a children's novel by Dick King-Smith, first published by Gollancz in 1983 with illustrations by Mary Rayner.

Set in rural England, where King-Smith spent twenty years as a farmer, it features a lone pig on a sheep farm.

The original question referenced the film, and so this is arguably not an entirely valid answer... and yet the actual question was 'What is the in-universe setting of Babe?'

and it seems that this is the closest we will come to an answer.

I'm pretty sure that the farmer's wife is a member of the Country Women's Association, an Australian association.

I'm not sure if this was a mistake or not.

However, I believe the filmmakers wanted to make it deliberately vague.

To me it is overtly Australian.

Question: The movie  Babe , featuring a pig that wants to be a sheepdog, was filmed in New South Wales, Australia.  However, my memory has failed me as to where it was supposed to be set in-universe.  The farmer appears to have some sort of Englishesque accent, the animals have varying accents, and I can't recall what the judges had.  What is the in-universe setting of  Babe ?

What country is the movie Babe set in, in-universe?

The location of the film is never mentioned, though scenery and architecture suggest somewhere in Great Britain.  However, except for two announcers only heard for a few seconds on the TV, everyone speaks with  American  accents. Moreover, cars were driven on the right side of the road, while in Great Britain [and Australia] cars are driven on the left.  Suffice it to say, it's deliberately left to the imagination as to the location. However, based on some of the phrases used and minor pieces of evidence from the script, the film is most likely to be set in  Britain , probably northern England as in the  source novel :    National Grand Challenge Sheepdog Trials   An event with this  exact  name doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the real world, but there are  English National Sheepdog Trials , as well as  Irish ,  Scottish , and  Welsh  National Sheepdog Trials.

Scenery and architecture suggest somewhere in Great Britain.

Location of the film is never mentioned, though scenery and architecture suggest somewhere in Great Britain, except for two announcers only heard for a few seconds on the TV, everyone speaks with  American  accents. Cars were driven on the right side of the road, while in Britain [and Australia] cars are driving on the left. Based on some of the phrases used and minor pieces of evidence from the script, I would say the film most likely to be set in Britain.


If TV Tropes terminology is acceptable then I'd suggest "Once per episode" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OncePerEpisode covers what you're asking about, with the sub-trope of "Every Episode Ending" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryEpisodeEnding applying to your Bones example.

The closest word I can find would be "staple".

One of the definitions of staple is "A main or important element of something", according to the Oxford English Dictionary .

As in, "The Captain's Log is a staple of Star Trek episodes".

I would call this a "Recurring Plot Device ".

A plot device (or plot mechanism) is any technique in a narrative used to move the plot forward.

A contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse the reader, causing a loss of the suspension of disbelief.

However a well-crafted plot device, or one that emerges naturally from the setting or characters of the story, may be entirely accepted, or may even be unnoticed by the audience.

Every story should have 3 elements: Introduction (of place, characters, context) Conflict (show the problem, challenge)

Resolution

But when you're writing a series you have an established context, characters and place (in ST it's always USS Enterprise even when they go to different planets).

So you need to use thing called " hook ".

A thing that is more "exactly the same" than the characters.

The main difference between ST and Dangerous Minds for example are times they we're made.

In the ST:OS times it was though it would be good to put the hook at the beginning (A-team show same approach).

But, as some researchers propose, as the commercial brakes went longer it was though it would be better to place the hook at the end of the show so the viewer will have the feeling of watching homogenous thing.

A motif .

Any recurring element that has symbolic significance in a story.

Through its repetition, a motif can help produce other narrative (or literary) aspects such as theme or mood.

For Star Trek

specifically, I always saw the Captain's Log as a motif toward the final frontier and continuous mission of space exploration.

Question: Each episode of  Star Trek  includes the captain's log.Each episode of  Bones  ends with a sweet moment between Booth and Brennan.Most episodes of  Criminal Minds  are bookended with quotes that are relevant to that episode.  Some TV series are written by a writing team, and others accept script submissions. As far as I know, all shows have a "bible." Is there a specific term for those elements that  must  be in a TV episode? If there is, what is it?

What do you call the required parts of a TV episode?

These sections could be called "staples". One of the definitions of staple is "A main or important element of something", according to the  Oxford English Dictionary . As in, "The Captain's Log is a staple of Star Trek episodes".

The most suitable word is staple: one of the definitions of staple is "A main or important element of something", according to the  Oxford English Dictionary .


There are a couple of ways to interpret the series of events and how each mutant has lost their powers.

They're both getting old.

At the time of Logan, Xavier is about 97 years old.

Logan's physical body is reaching about 150 years old (although depending on the timeline shenanigans he could mentally be a lot older).

Logan hasn't been kind to his body, relying on it's healing ability heavily throughout his life.

We don't know the science, but it could easily be that since he's gotten older his powers have weakened, either due to old age or the extensive use of his power.

Add on top of that the adamantium in his body poisoning him, and you've got a Wolverine that can't heal as well.

Charles, at his age, is suffering from seizures, and seems to be suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia as well.

At the time of the movie the mix of old age and mutant powers is unknown, but with Charles having a psychic ability it wouldn't be surprising if the two are hand in hand, IE his ability causing his illness 2.

They're slowly being killed by the chemicals in the food Both Charles and Logan, along with their friend, are relatively alone in the world.

It has been years since a new mutant has born, and previous events have killed off most other mutants though either mutant hunting or mass die-off events, such as Charles' seizure accident.

It was stated later in the movie that naturally born mutants stopped because of a chemical introduced into the food supply.

Since this chemical somehow suppresses the mutant gene, it wouldn't be surprising for it to have an adverse, if not long term, effect on those still living.

We don't know the chemical or how it works, or what it's long term effect is on those that are mutants that are living.

The reasons behind the loss of powers of Logan and Xavier are somwhat different: Its unsaid, but it appears clear that we are meant to assume that Xavier is beginning to suffer from some form of dementia.

The story is exploring what would happen to someone with such overwhelmingly strong powers, but who like many people start to see their mind degrade with old age.

Logan on the other hand is being poisoned by the Adamantium that was added to his skeleton.

Adamantium is a metal and although it is strong and relatively unreactive, it is slowly poisoning him - notably interfering with his healing factor.

From wikipedia: His healing factor has faltered and, as a result, his body has aged, he can no longer heal at an accelerated rate and his adamantium skeleton is slowly poisoning him .

Logan lives with mutant tracker Caliban in an abandoned smelting plant in Northern Mexico, where they care for former Professor Charles Xavier, who is suffering from an unknown brain disease which causes him to lose control of his telepathic abilities to destructive effect via seizures.

Original Answer 1 One of the provided answers neglects to mention that Logan is deteriorating from the metal that was injected into his bones and both answers neglected to state that Xavior's "dementia" is a product of the drugs he takes to prevent the seizures.

When he is off the drugs he does not suffer dementia.

I've seen the movie a few times though

and I do not recall any explanation given for why he has the seizures in the first place.

I like the other answer's food theory.

In response to the comment: He definitely doesn't like the effect that the drugs have on him - but do we really see proof or dialog that indicates that the drugs are what is actually causing his dementia / other symptoms?

The symptoms of dementia come and go - people have more lucid days than others.

The only real time we see symptoms of dementia in Professor X is at the beginning when he is frantically rolling around his... water tank.. thing, reciting Taco Bell commercials.

Other than that he is frail, but completely lucid throughout the movie.

Later on, in a scene where Logan is driving X and the kid away from the hotel after X intentionally 2 had a seizure, Logan was chastising X for not taking his meds.

X made it clear that he did not like the meds, saying something very close to

"I guess you prefer me mentally castrated and rambling like a lunatic."

That is literally the only reference made to the dementia in the entire movie and it was clearly blaming the drugs for the dementia symptoms.

Early on he also implied that meds put him to sleep 3 .

In the comics, X never had this condition, so there is nothing to reference as "proof.

" The only answer there is is speculation and inference.

It's not a math problem.

1. Answer or Comment 2.

X implied it was intentional, but Logan said he "just freaked out and had a seizure." 3.

He calls Logan "the man who puts me to sleep" during the one and only dementia episode he has, which is at the beginning of the movie.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/53757/I wrestled a bear once.

He wasn't.

At least not specifically his powers.

He was having seizures and losing control period .

Just like if you had a seizure and your legs lashed out.

Question: Throughout  Logan  we see that Charles does not have the same control of his powers as he did in previous movies.  He has these seizures that keeps everyone paralyzed and harms people. He talks to himself (people that don't exist?!).  We also see that Wolverine does not have the same healing efficiency, his claws do not work as well as before.  Is this because of his aging? Does every mutant that ages start losing control of his/her powers?

Why was Xavier losing control of his powers?

Its unsaid, but it appears clear that we are meant to assume that Xavier is beginning to suffer from some form of dementia.  The story is exploring what would happen to someone with such overwhelmingly strong powers, but who like many people start to see their mind degrade with old age.

Xavier is shown to be suffering from some form of dementia. Logan on the other hand is being poisoned by the Adamantium that was added to his skeleton. Although it is strong and relatively unreactive, it is slowly poisoning him - notably interfering with his healing factor.


It was always unclear why Captain America couldn't lift Mjolnir in Age of Ultron .

Was he not worthy at all?

Unlikely; it's Captain America after all, worthiness goes with the character, his MCU version at least.

Plus, Mjolnir did move.

(Note that in the comics, Cap has wielded Mjolnir) Was he not completely worthy yet?

Possibly.

After all, there is still room for the Avengers to improve.

Was he actually refraining?

By Endgame , this is the most likely.

There's been talk about Captain America realising he could

lift Mjolnir, but wouldn't, not to create an awkward situation for Thor.

Thor was baffled at the sight of Mjolnir moving...

And by Endgame , when Steve calls upon Mjolnir, he says: I knew it!

Meaning he had more than suspicions about

Captain America being worthy.

This has also been confirmed by the various officials.

Quotes borrowed from this SFF answer : GeneralBenKenobi:

Could Cap always wield Mjolnir (meaning he could have picked it up in Age of Ultron and decided not to), or did he progressively get more worthy over time?

Anthony:

He always could.

Our interpretation of the famous scene in Ultron was that when he realized he could pick up Mjolnir he quickly chose not to, because he didn't want to embarrass Thor.

reddit, r/marvelstudios

, We’re Joe and Anthony Russo, directors of Marvel Studios’ Avengers: Endgame.

AMA! ... KrazzyDJ:

Cap lifting Mjolnir was one of the strongest (crowd-cheering) moments in Endgame.

Does he become worthy in that moment or has he been worthy for a while since, say,

Avengers: Age of Ultron?

KevFeige:

We think he was always worthy and was being polite in Age of Ultron.

reddit, r/marvelstudios,

Hi reddit, I'm Kevin Feige.

AMAA

Because he was willing to sacrifice himself to protect others.

The reason why Cap managed to do so is already explained in Thor Trilogy.

Thor was unproved of worthy in Thor when he committed a war which could lead to deaths of many.

However, when he was willing to sacrifice himself for those who he loved by the end of the film, he proved himself worthy.

Even Jane was able to lift it since he was going to sacrifice herself for Asgardians, who hated her at that time.

For the same reason, Captain America was also worthy to lift the hammer.

However, the main question is why he couldn't do this in Age Of Ultron.

The reason behind this is that he could lift Mjolnir at that time and even it moves a little, but he saw the look at Thor's face and decided not to make him feel devastated by the fact that a mortal can lift Mjolnir.

However, the move of Mjolnir did make Thor suspicious which he became sure when he saw Cap lifting it in Endgame and

that's why he says "I knew it".

In Endgame, Cap didn't have any choice but

to use Mjolnir when he saw Thor being defeated by Thanos.

“How is Steve Rogers not worthy?”

a fan asked.

“Is he not?

Are we sure?”

Whedon responded, a hint of teasing in his voice.

“Did he fail?

Or did he stop?”

For those who don't know: Joss Whedon is the director for Age of Ultron.

He stated that in 2015.

Like others have already said, Cap has been worthy.

Also, I've seen people ask how he was able to use lightning too.

Remember, before Ragnorok Thor needed the hammer to use lightning.

And in Thor 1, Odin took everything back from Thor because Thor was unworthy.

Odin cast him out and enchanted the hammer with these words:

"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.”

To give Thor a chance to earn the power back.

Which he did.

The enchantment stayed too.

I believe he couldn't in Ultron because he had Bucky's secret that he killed Tony's parents.

After the events in Civil War he had no secrets and became worthy.

In the comics Thor said the enchantment that Odin put on Mjölnir allows "very few worthies" to lift it in "desperate hours".

Given that Thanos was about to kill Thor and would have killed everyone and everything, I'm guessing that qualifies.

If you watch the scene, Captain America doesn't appear to be holding back and as Vision put it, it's very well balanced.

If Captain America was worthy of lifting it in Age of Ultron , even the slightest pull would've lifted it.

Why he couldn't lift it in Age of Ultron is most likely because it just isn't the time.

The fact that he could shift Mjölnir, was likely just showing he is one of the very few worthies, but there was no dire threat, so Mjölnir refused him.

Question: In  Avengers: Endgame , how does Captain America lift Thor's hammer?  In  Avengers: Age of Ultron , he is not worthy, but how is he now in this film?

How did Captain America manage to do this?

In Avengers: Endgame Captain America is able to lift Thor's hammer because he proved himself worhty. Thor was unproved of worthy in  Thor   when he committed a war which could lead to deaths of many. However, when he was willing to sacrifice himself for those who he loved by the end of the film, he proved himself worthy. Even Jane was able to lift it since he was going to sacrifice herself for Asgardians, who hated her at that time. For the same reason, Captain America was also worthy to lift the hammer.

Thor was unproved of worthy in Thor when he committed a war which could lead to deaths of many. However, when he was willing to sacrifice himself for those who he loved by the end of the film, he proved himself worthy. For the same reason, Captain America was also worthy to lift the hammer.


I lean towards Leven's theory, but as an alternative I propose: Drogon knew there was something wrong with Dany and that it was best that she die.

So he grieves for the loss of his rider and "mother", but does not punish the man who did what needed to be done.

He may have even melted the throne specifically as his last act to help "break the wheel", communicating the idea that heritage and birthright to the throne are now lost; that Jon in particular is not automatically the rightful ruler, and something new must be built.

Dragons clearly have an unspoken connection to the Targaryens.

Jon is a true Targaryen by birth.

Jon and Dany are the only people we've seen ride dragons, and history tells us that only Targaryens can ride dragons.

Drogon recognizes Jon as a Targaryen, so he allows him to enter the remains of the Red Keep.

He probably didn't know what Jon would do, but as a Targaryen, Drogon couldn't stand in his way.

When Drogon realized that Dany was dead, he was obviously furious.

He may have even wanted to kill Jon.

But in the end, he realized that Jon was the only living Targaryen, and couldn't kill him.

Apparently a great-uncle was better than nothing.

In-universe it's unclear if we can attest Drogon either a full consciousness of the events or just a magical intuition for what's right.

It doesn't exactly matter if his intelligence is more of a conscious, universal or emotional nature.

But ultimately what matters is that he realized what was really going on and that the "wheel" is ultimately at fault and needs to be broken .

So yes, he doesn't particularly like that his mother is dead, but neither

does Jon afterall.

But they both realize that it needed to be done.

And I think you can go even further than this.

The dragon as this enigmatic and majestic creature is actually necessary for exerting this ultimate act of reason on the world and doing what Dany as a mere mortal is unable to do, not just physically but generally.

While the story is primarily a political drama, it was always expected that the more otherwordly factors of Game of Thrones are what ultimately has to call the humans to reason in their useless struggle for power.

And in fact, the only major thing I was really disappointed about this last season was the way in which they shoved the White Walker threat out of the way seemingly prematurely, because of the above expectations that they were necessary for "breaking the wheel".

So it was somewhat of a relief to see, if not the Ice, then at least the Fire to rise above the human characters and stand in for what is the only right thing to do , no matter if it did so conciously or merely out of an intuitive feel for universal justice as part of its magical nature.

And in the same way it's notable that this is a level of elevation noone really gave these creatures credit for, not Dany for whom they were her children but also largely weapons, nor Jon who expected Drogon to kill him as much as us viewers, until we all realized that they are ultimately above us and quite simply out of this world .

He did not know whether it was Jon or not.

He just saw her lying there and Jon mourning her death.

He might have just thought that someone else did it.

We do not know how intelligent the dragons are and whether they can deduct beyond the pure visible.

Agree somewhat with Kami Kaze.

My theory, which does not entail much calculating consciousness: He didn't see her get murdered, so the familiar Targaryen in the room was merely a neutral, protected presence.

However, he was sad and angry, and so vented on the nearest available big thing.

Question: In extension to this  question  about  Game of Thrones  S08E06, why did Drogon leave Jon after the death of Drogon's mother? Drogon had consciousness to destroy the Iron Throne.   We all know that Drogon allowed Jon to pet. Does Drogon have the consciousness to forgive as well or doesn't Drogon know who killed the Mother of Dragons?

Why didn't Drogon attack this character?

It is possible that Drogon knew there was something wrong with Dany and that it was best that she die.  He may have even melted the throne specifically as his last act to help "break the wheel", communicating the idea that heritage and birthright to the throne are now lost; that Jon in particular is not automatically the rightful ruler, and something new must be built.

Drogon understood there was something wrong with Dany and so it was best if she was to die. He may have possibly even immolated the Iron Throne as his final act to convey the idea that his heritage and bloodright has been rendered meaningless.

In contrast, I favor Leven's hypothesis, but as a possibility I present: Drogon understood there was something wrong with Dany and so it was best if she was to perish. He may have possibly even immolated the Iron Throne as his final act to convey the idea that his heritage and bloodright has been rendered meaningless. For all he knew, she was still alive when he left the room. It was unknown if it was his name was Jon, or if not.


That's the whole point: no one knows!

That's what gives meaning to Arya as an adventurer and her new journey to the west.

Although it's unclear what happens if nothing's in the west of Westeros and what's gonna happen to her and the ship crew.

She even once had this conversation in Season 6 Episode 8:

Arya:

Essos is east and Westeros is west.

But what's west of Westeros?

Lady Crane: I don't know.

Arya: Nobody does.

It's where all the maps stop.

Lady Crane: The edge of the world, maybe.

Arya: I'd like to see that.

EDIT:

it also can be a metaphor for freedom .

Arya always was willing to be free of titles and she finally found her redemption.

If you look at a map of the Game of Thrones world, there's a distinct parallel to Medieval Europe.

Westeros is Great Britain, and Essos is a combination of Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa.

So it would be reasonable to assume that when Arya goes West of Westeros, she will eventually find the GOT equivalent of the North American continent - The New World.

We do know that aside from the Sunset Sea, there are 3 islands - Ageon, Rhaenys and Visenya - that were discovered by Elissa of House Farman 56 years after Aegon's conquest.

Beyond that is speculation, however her ship was discovered later in Asshai, (from the Targaryen history "Fire and Blood")

so there is some evidence that there IS a water-borne path between Westeros and Essos (and showing the world to be round, not just by folklore but via scientific proof).

The sunset sea.

In this image, the red mass of land is Westeros.

Grandmaesters and archmaesters have speculated over what lies west of the Sunset Sea, but there is no concrete proof of anything.

You can read about this here

Presumably, some analog of North America: Westeros is an analog of the British Isles, and Essos is an analog of Eurasia, including the steppes (the Grass Sea)

Arya is channeling her inner Nymeria , who sailed West from Essos to escape oppression and founded Dorne.

Question: In  Game of Thrones  S08E06 Arya is going west of Westeros. But do we ever have any hints what is lying there to the west of Westeros?  Did it ever get mentioned before in the show or books or any other extended material?  Is there any hints or rumor about the place beyond Westeros?

What is to the west of Westeros?

That's the whole point:  no one knows!  If you look at a map of the Game of Thrones world, there's a distinct parallel to Medieval Europe. Westeros is Great Britain, and Essos is a combination of Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa.

no one knows! If you look at a map of the Game of Thrones world, there's a distinct parallel to Medieval Europe. Westeros is Great Britain, and Essos is a combination of Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Westeros is Great Britain, and Essos is a combination of Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa.

Medieval Europe also appears in the map as a distinct similarity. Westeros is made up of Great Britain, Europe, and the Middle East, and Northern Africa.


More fat!

Your recipe has two dairy components (half and half and whipping cream).

The half and half is half cream, half milk.

To increase the fat, experiment with using more cream and less half and half.

Try churning longer, making sure that your churn container is thoroughly frozen.

Eggs!

Try a recipe with eggs

(especially freshly plucked from the chickens you have living in your back yard as we do).

My wife and I discovered this butter pecan recipe a few months ago and were quite pleased.

We subsequently tried a chocolate recipe with eggs (as well as melted chocolate instead of powdered ) and were quite pleased with that as well.

Better than previous batches made sans egg.

If you've got a frozen bowl type ice cream churn (like a Kitchen Aid) then the unwritten rule is to nearly freeze your batter before churning.

I like to keep the batter in the freezer until crystals form on top.

Then I'll take it out, and give it a good stir to raise the temperature just a wee bit to break up those crystals.

Then, and only then do I take the churning bowl out of the freezer.

There is enough "cold" in the bowl to absorb the latent heat of fusion, but not if you have to drop the temperature 5-10 degrees before it freezes.

Check to make sure that your running it long enough, and also that your container is cold enough at the start.

If it's too thin, likely you're not getting the ice cream cold enough while churning.

Make sure you put the container in the back of your freezer (often a little colder back there).

If it's still getting firmer, let it keep churning, you might just not be there yet.

Lower the temperature in the freezer (or use a deep freeze if you have one), to better chill the container.

Remove the container from the freezer at the last possible second.

I'm not sure what you're finished ice cream product looks like, so this answer is based on conjecture, but I do have a few recommendations.

I think the main issue here is that the recipe calls for too much sugar.

If I were you I would reduce the sugar to about 3/4 cup.

Large amounts of sugar drastically lower the freezing point by interfering with recrystallization during freezing.

This would explain why you are unable to get the soft serve consistency that you are looking for.

It also explains the lack of creaminess because the ice cream is not able to freeze around the air, which is where the volume and creamy feel come from.

If that doesn't work, then I second the notion to try an egg custard base or to add more cream, but honestly it looks like the recipe already has plenty of fat.

Altering the fat content could be more damaging to the recipe because the proteins in dairy are essential to stabilizing air bubble formation in ice cream.

Add 1 ounce of alcohol or extract containing alcohol.

This makes it creamier.

Question: My ice cream doesn't feel creamy enough. I got the recipe from Good Eats, and I can't tell if it's just the recipe or that I'm just not getting my "batter" cold enough before I try to make it. I let it chill overnight in the refrigerator, but it doesn't always come out of the machine looking like "soft serve" as he said on the show - it's usually a little thinner.  Recipe:  http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/serious-vanilla-ice-cream-recipe/index.html

How can I make my Ice Cream "creamier"?

Add more fat (e.g. increase cream and reduce half and half), use eggs or add an ounce of alcohol or an exctract containing alcohol. Try churning the batter for longer and make sure the batter is almost frozen before churning. To cool the batter faster, reduce the freezer temperature.

First of all, the container should be thoroughly frozen before churning. Try increasing the fat content, adding eggs or a small amount of alcohol.

Increase the quantity of fat in the mixture.

Make sure the container is thoroughly frozen and that it is churning for long enough.


Placing fruit in a bag will help hasten the ripening for only a few fruits.

Most fruits will not ripen (ever) once they have been picked.

The only fruits that ripen once they're picked are bananas, avocados, pears, mango, and kiwifruit.

Ripeness in fruits is based on sugar content, not color, thus most tomatoes in grocery stores

have no flavor because they were picked green and exposed to ethylene gas to induce color change.

Tomatoes are what are known as a "climacteric fruit" which means they'll change appearance based on climactic conditions but they don't ripen.

Yes, they continue to soften

but that's simply the process of cell deterioration know as decomposition.

Some fruits such as peaches, plums, etc.

will seem to develop more sweetness as they sit on the counter

but that's because they're also losing moisture and the residual sugars are concentrating in the cell walls.

Placing fruit in a paper bag helps to concentrate the levels of ethylene gas which is what helps induce the ripening of the above mentioned fruits (bananas/avocados, etc.).

In fact, avocados and pears must be picked in order to ripen.

Pears that are left on the tree will simply rot.

As mentioned previously... brown paper bags used to be something everyone had around their house

so it was a commmon item before the switch to plastic bags.

Have you ever noticed some people like red bell peppers and not green ones?

The reason is due to ripeness .

The ripening itself is caused by ethylene gas released by the food, which is trapped by any kind of bag.

As far as I know, there's nothing inherently special about a brown paper bag, other than the fact that it's porous and thus still allows some air to get in and out.

Plastic ziplock bags have no ventilation, so they don't work nearly as well.

The secret is that the fruit produces ethylene (a hormone found in plants), and ethylene promotes ripening.

By placing fruit in a paper bag the ethylene collects (rather than dispersing in the room), increasing the concentration around the fruit and speeding ripening.

About.com has an interesting article on ethylene and fruit ripening called Fruit Ripening and Ethylene Experiment .

More importantly, brown paper bags allow moisture to pass through, so you don't get condensation that will accerate mold growth.

Just leave produce on your counter in a plastic bag and witness the flexible petri dish!

White would probably work if it is porous enough.

Some types of fruit ripen with increased ethylene production and a rise in cellular respiration (the ripening fruit draws in oxygen and gives off ethylene).

This happens in "climacteric fruit": Apples, bananas, melons, apricots, and tomatoes, among others (citrus, grapes, and strawberries

are non-climacteric--you can do a search for "climacteric fruit" to see which are and which aren't).

The ethylene produced during respiration enhances the ripening process so when we put climacteric fruit in a paper (or plastic) bag, "none" of the ethylene can escape, thereby exposing the fruit to more and more ethylene as it continues to ripen.

Paper bags only restrict oxygen flowing in/out of the bag while plastic prevents essentially all oxygen flow.

Since climacteric fruit need oxygen for respiration, closed plastic bags will limit the amount of respiration to that allowed by the oxygen trapped in the closed plastic bag.

Opening a plastic bag will allow some oxygen in (while letting some ethylene out)...in that case fruit will ripen faster with an open plastic bag than fruit just sitting on the counter but will ripen slower than in a paper bag because the paper keeps more ethylene in while still allowing oxygen in.

The short answer is that paper bags keep the ethylene trapped in the bag which enhances the ripening process while at the same time permitting some oxygen to enter the bag, allowing the fruit cells to respirate and produce more ethylene.

Assuming brown paper bags are the same as other paper bags, then this should be true for brown paper bags as well.

Question: I often see this technique suggested as a way to speed ripening. Why does it?  Also, is there any data available on how fast it ripens comparatively?

Why does a brown paper bag speed ripening?

Brown paper bags help to trap and concentrate the levels of ethylene gas in fruit that produces it, while allowing moisture to pass through without causing mould growth.

Placing fruit in a bag concentrates the ethylene gas which causes fruit to ripen. The paper bag allows air to pass and stops condensation.

This will only work for certain types of fruit.

Placing fruit in a bag helps to concentrate the ethylene gas which causes them to ripen.

Placing the fruit in a paper bag allows air to get in and prevent condensation.


Pardon my rampant vegerianism, but the trick is not to substitue meat at all.

I generally get my nutrition from other sources, without using meat substitutes at all.

Unless I really feel like a certain recipe that I used to like back in my meat-eating days.

Use beans, lentils and whole grains for protein.

Use nuts, seeds and avocadoes (or any other fatty fruits and vegetables) for B-vitamins.

Use beans (again) and leafy greens for iron and calcium.

So, it turns out my answer is a bit Zen.

Sorry.

For many dishes mushrooms are a great meat replacement.

Garbanzo beans (chickpeas) make for a delicious veggie burger.

Grilled eggplant is also quite lovely.

Quorn based products are quite good meat substitutes.

As a hardcore carnivore with a vegetarian partner I was pleasantly surprised at how edible her dishes such as stir fry and bolognese sauce are.

The texture isn't at all strange, sludgy or bouncy

and it's the closest thing to a meat texture (probably chicken more like)

I've ever had

that wasn't actually meat.

Quorn is also high in protein and not much else

so if you're after your balance of carbs and fats you need to make sure your other ingredients are supplying them.

Also quorn on its own doesn't have much of a taste so you need to season your dish accordingly.

Generic replacements: Seitan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food )

Tofu Tempeh Commercial fake meats: Tofurkey (Roasts, Sausages, Deli Slices) Lightlife

If you go to an Indian store you can find 'Nutrela.'

It is dried soy protein.

Very popular in India.

They have chunks and mince.

They are both nice, but I have only tried them Indian style.

Baking shiitake mushrooms lightly tossed in olive oil and salt for an hour on a baking sheet at 350F leads to a quite decent flavor and texture substitute for crispy bacon.

I've never had meat

so I don't know on a taste basis how they compare

but I like the Morningstar foods.

I also grew up eating Worthington and Loma Linda brands of fake meat but they are hard to find in most areas.

Due to cost and a desire to eat healthier, I don't eat fake meat that much anymore

but I still sometimes indulge in Fri-Chik or Morningstar veggie-burgers.

These don't really taste like meat, but burgers made from marinated tofu are nice.

If you freeze the tofu first it gets a chewier texture.

Also, fresh paneer (indian cheese) is a nice addition to vegtable dishes, or can be fried on its own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneer

I'm partial to Boca fake chicken.

They also have spicy chicken patties that are great (although hard to find in our area).

Fake chicken nuggets are great with hummus and a glass of milk.

Gardein makes absolutely delicious vegan meat substitutes!

I generally agree with the top-voted answer that fake meats should just be avoided by and large (I feel like much of the perceived ickiness factor that omnis have of veg foods comes from these (often poorly-done) substitutions), but, for personal consumption, when you've got a hankering and anything that even asymptotically approaches the real thing, I suppose they do.

That said, I like using TVP (textured vegetable protein) to make quick taco filling and in spagehtti sauce, chili etc.

I get it super-cheap from the bulk section of a local natural food store, and it makes for really quick recipes.

e.g. dump a cup of TVP in a tupperware container with some taco seasoning; pour a cup of boiling water over top; mix, put lid on tupperware; wait 5-10 mins.

You've got taco filling.

Similarly, one can reconstitute TVP and then mix into spaghetti sauce for a faux bolognease.

These tend to be things I eat a lot of when I'm cooking just for myself and am on a budget (I can get a pound of (dried) TVP for ~$2, which, since TVP is super light, makes a ton!)

Yves has a good line of meat alternative products, including the best vegan hot dogs I've seen anywhere.

(I'm not 100% sure that all of their products are vegan

, so be sure to check before you buy.)

If you're in the southeast United States, Publix carries vegan tofu crumbles under their Greenwise brand name in the freezer section near the Boca products.

I've used them on several occasions to make chili.

My favorite meat replacement product out is Neat.

It is 100% vegetarian, soy free, guilt free, and gluten free.

Most other replacements I did like the taste or texture, but Neat was different..because I really like it.

I have friends who are not vegetarians and love Neat because of how healthy it is and how it tastes just like meat.

Check it out!

Easy to make and

all you need is an egg, water and the mix they provide in there package.

Healthy and fast food!

The Beyond Meat burgers that are coming out are pretty close to meat-tasting.

If you weren't paying attention, you might miss the difference.

Not sure how many stores carry them, but the A&W fast food chain carries them in Canada as Impossible Burgers.

(note: my comment about sodium content probably still stands with these

so I would not make a frequent treat out of them).

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096/Italian Philosophers 4 Monica

Simple Truth has some very good frozen meatless options.

They are a natural food brand, not a vegetarian/vegan brand, so a lot of their products are not vegan friendly but their meatless options are good enough

I have had to reassert to my relatives (and prove with packaging) that I do not eat meat.

Question: Let's compile a list of vegetarian/vegan meat replacements.  Generic replacements:   Seitan  Tofu  Tempeh  Quorn  Quorn Vegan Alternatives  Paneer  TVP   Commercial fake meats:   Tofurky  (Roasts, Sausages, Deli Slices)  Lightlife  Morningstar  Worthington Foods  Boca    Simple Truth  (not exclusively vegetarian/vegan brand)   Similar products (nutrition):   Beans  Mushrooms (Portobello, oyster, trumpet, so many more…)

Best meat replacements for a vegetarian/vegan?

While it may be better not to make meals that need a meat substitute, mushrooms, marinated tofu and chickpeas can be a good replacement in burgers and other products. Quorn, Nutrela, Boca and Gardein products are also recommended.

While some vegans prefer to avoid anything resembling meat, there are other foods that can easily replace it: mushrooms, tofu, beans, and many pre-prepared dishes.

Other foods can replace meat such as mushrooms, marinated tofu and garbanzon beans.

Meat replacement products like quorn, nutrela, Boca chicken and Gardein are all good options.


Yes, you can detect the difference.

How much of a difference will depend on the quality of both the imitation and of the real thing.

That said, it's difficult if not impossible for me to pick out the differences in baked goods.

So I keep both around, and use the (much cheaper) imitation stuff for baking, and the real stuff for sauces, icing, custards, milkshakes, etc.

Incidentally...

In a pinch, bourbon makes a half-decent substitute for vanilla.

There's one more reason to sometimes use fake extract -- you can get it in clear.

The real stuff is always a shade of brown.

Not being brown is important for when you're trying to get really vibrant colors on a cake.

(you also have to switch to shortening as butter tints things yellow).

ps.

For some reason, people don't like it when I respond to 'this icing is really good' with 'that's because it's whipped Crisco'.

As mentioned in a previous response, Cooks Illustrated did a test some years ago (2003, I think), where they concluded that the preferred vanilla in a taste test was some cheap artificial vanilla from a local drugstore's generic section or something.

They have since done further tests (such as this one in 2009 ), and real vanilla sometimes edges out the cheap artificial competition (which here came in a close second), particularly for situations where the vanilla is uncooked and generally added in at the end (e.g., custards).

Somebody over at Chowhound tried a similar experiment and agreed that artificial vanilla clearly won in baked goods.

I don't have access to the full Cooks Illustrated article, but over here

is another interesting claim -- that is, if you want to beat out all of the commercial extracts (both real and "fake"), just make you own at home.

Anyhow, there have been other similar tests over the years, but I find Kenji Lopez-Alt's test over at Serious Eats to be the most interesting.

He tried blind tasting of vanilla sugar cookies, cooked vanilla ice cream, and simply stirred vanilla into a eggnog recipe.

Like Cooks Illustrated , he found that in the cooked/baked applications, tasters couldn't tell the difference.

It was only in the (uncooked) eggnog application that the "real stuff" edged out the competition, but here Kenji went one step further and asked about the reason -- and it was just the "booziness" of the real stuff that people liked.

By spiking the eggnog with a small amount of vodka to make up for the missing alcohol in the artificial vanilla, the "fake" stuff actually performed about as well as the real stuff.

(Incidentally, the use of real vanilla beans actually suffered a similar problem and was declared as inferior to extract in some taste applications, since it didn't have the "booziness" element of extract.)

In a recent Cook's Illustrated blind taste test (not sure if it was double blind), testers unanimously preferred the flavor of imitation vanilla to some rather fancy 'real' vanilla extracts.

You might try a blind or double blind test yourself and see what you think.

Also, consider using real beans for things like custards and ice cream.

You end up with little black flecks (vanilla seeds)

but I find these add character and authenticity to the dish.

My rules: Cold and/ or Creamy: Vanilla BeanBaking:

Pure vanilla Extract.

However, I don't do all that much dessert cooking, so I can afford the real extract.

I suppose if I was baking daily, I would reconsider the use of artificial extracts.

Smell both, you'll note the difference.

If you want less "boozy" extract use alcohol free vanilla but due to not being extracted by alcohol

it cannot be classed as an extract but a flavor.

Alcohol free vanilla is mainly use for icing n cake decorating.

I keep imitation on hand just in case I run out of extract or powder but for baking its not bad...

I use Vanillin sugar too Both can be used in baking

but some people may have allergies to vanillin if ya like it use it xD

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31269/Mon The House Cook

Question: When baking or using vanilla, most recipes call for vanilla extract. In the supermarket you can find imitation vanilla flavoring for less money. Obviously the imitation is meant to be as close to the real thing as possible, but:   Is there a detectable difference between imitation vanilla and vanilla extract?  Do any issues arise in baking/cooking resulting from using one or the other?

What is the functional difference between imitation vanilla and true vanilla extract?

There is a noticeable difference in taste and smell, but the preferred brand in a Cook's Illustrated study was actually the cheaper kind. Imitation extract can also be colourless.

There is a big difference in taste between real and fake vanilla. The fake extract is clear whereas the real extract is brown.

There is a big difference, in taste and smell, between the two.

The fake extract is clear whereas the real vanilla extract is brown.

A taste test once concluded that people preferred the fake extract.


When I make French Onion soup

I slice my onions very thin.

It also helps to use a small onion so the pieces aren't so wide.

For the cheese I use gruyere cheese.

It should be grated.

In order for the cheese to cook properly you need to have some stale french bread.

It should be toasted lightly on both sides and then sliced fairly thin.

Then you place the bread on top of the soup and then the grated cheese on top of that.

Next put the soup in the broiler so that it melts the cheese.

In the classic recipe the onions are chopped, personally, I like mine very thinly sliced.

The cheese typically used is the French Comté but a good substitute is Swiss gruyère or even Swiss Emmenthal.

I prefer chopped onions, so you know you're eating onions.

The onions, if cooked long enough will be quite tender.

A smaller cut, say diced, won't hold up well once the stock is added; you'll get a pulpy soup rather than onions in stock.

For the cheese, any melting cheese works.

I prefer a medium cheddar, grated over the top and melted under the broiler.

I sometimes chop my onions, and sometimes slice.

If I slice them, I slice them in thin wedges, pole to pole.

As for cheese, I use a good Gruyere.

I've had a very good response to a "french onion" style soup where I've used a combination of leeks (yes, leeks!), red onions, white onions and shallots, all chopped to about 1-2mm in thickness.

Question: What is your preferred type of cut for the onion in onion soup?  And how do you put the cheese? A deep chunk submerged in each plate, on top? What kind of cheese do you like?

Onion soup: How to chop the onion and what kind of cheese to put in it?

The onions are traditionally chopped, but sliced is also popular. Any melting cheese is good, but the traditional French Comté or a good substitute like Swiss Gruyère or Emmenthal are preferred.

The onions should be thinly sliced and use a good melting cheese like a gruyère.

The cheese should be a melting type, the classic ones are comté and gruyère.


When I want to freeze portions of almost anything liquid (including stocks and sauces), I use a covered ice cube tray like OXO Good Grips .

Just spoon it into the tray and throw it in the freezer.

Easy!

Keeps very well, and makes it very easy to portion out later.

The OXO product is my favourite, but it's not too hard to find generic substitutes at any superstore.

Try to find one with a soft bottom so you don't struggle for 5 minutes trying to get the cubes out and then scraping the sides for all the bits you left behind.

I don't like ice cube trays as the only freezing method, simply because of portioning --

I typically make large batches of stock, and I only have so many ice cube trays.

So I make a few different sizes, which are mostly just based on things I have, and so I have a variety of sizes when I need it: Gallon zip-top bags :

fill about half way, close all but a corner, remove all of the air you can, seal, lay on sheet pans so they don't freeze in strange shapes.

Small bread pans (I think they were sold as 'mini loaf' pans

, they're about 1/4 to 1/3 the volume of a 'standard' loaf pan, maybe 2-3 cups each Freeze, release, store in zip-top bags with as much air removed as possible.

Ice cube trays (for when you only need a Tb for a sauce, or when you just need to cool down a bowl of soup quickly without diluting it).

I've also been known to use muffin tins for freezing things that I'll be using about 3/4c.

at a time.

(eg, pesto)

Oh -- and of course, for the plastic bags, you'll want to cool the stock down first.

I don't tend to refrigerate it first, as I use enough bones that it'll go gelatinous on me if I do.

I cool it down to near room temperature through use of a cold water bath (I put my stock pot in the sink, then fill the sink with cold water and ice, and stir every few minutes)

I've never checked the freezing time of stock from hot / cold (Mpemba effect), but I'd be reluctant to put large volumes of hot items in my freezer ..

so maybe ice cube trays, but the rest I cool before freezing.

I use quart ziplock bags.

I fill them fully, and freeze them on their side on a flat surface.

I also often use 1 pint plastic takeout containers.

I have found that those two sizes nearly always are the right amounts for me.

I store my stock in 250ml one-use rectangular dozes with a cap.

I find the 250ml ideal portion for myusual needs.

One-use dozes are very cheap and Idon't have to care about cleaningthem.

They are also much thinner

andthat saves a lot of space in thefreezer.

Rectangular shape also saves space.

The stock doesn't really need to becovered with a cap.

As soon as itfreezes, it doesn't matter.

Buthaving a cap allows me to pile themup.

Again, this saves space in thefreezer.

My friend - a professional chef - has another method.

But it requires some equipment:

He puts the stock into a plastic bag.

Then he uses a machine that sucks all the air from it and seals it.

He freezes each flat bag individualy.

Once they are frozen, he stacks them.

This allows optimum use of freezer space.

When he needs to use the stock, he just cuts the bag open and break the frozen stock into pieces.

It's easy, because the slices of frozen stock are very thin.

I usually put 500 ml portions in a quart zip-lock bag and put the bags in a bread pan to help retain their shape while I freeze them.

But I recently bought some "tovolo king" silicone ice cube trays for freezing portions of baby food (about 100 mL per cube) and found that they're also good for freezing small portions of stock or broth.

Since they're silicone, it's easy to peel the mold off of the cube after freezing.

(I freeze them and then bag the cubes.)

The 500 mL bags are nice when I need a few cups of broth and

the 100 mL cubes are nice when I need smaller portions.

They also make a smaller tray of 1 oz cubes, which are useful when you need a small amount of stock to finish a sauce.

(I also use them for leftover coconut milk.)

Plastic quart and pint containers....

the kind frequently used for Chinese take-out in the US.

Inexpensive.

Reusable.

Microwave safe.

Dishwasher Safe.

Can write on with Sharpie...

Sharpie wipes off for new label.

Question: What is the best way to store stock in the freezer?   I can think of ice cubes and plastic bags, but am looking for other ideas.  Also, what would be the optimal portion size?

What is the best way to store stock in the freezer?

Loaf tins, muffin tins or plastic containers can be used, as well as ziplock bags that can be placed in a tin to help retain their shape. The optimal portion size depends on your needs and could be 250ml, 500ml/1 pint or 1 litre/1 quart.

You can use baking tins, old plastic containers, sealable plastic bags or plastic bottles.

Store in 250ml doses in plastic bottles.


Hey guys, since the question was posted they opened up Modernist Pantry , which specifically caters to this need .

They supply chemicals for molecular gastronomy in consumer-sized portions. For $10 or less apiece, you can order small amounts of emulsifiers, gelling agents, foaming agents, etc.

They also have spherification kits, the Texturas products, and Molecule-R's lineup.

I'm not sure how helpful I can be

but, at least coming from a chemistry lab background, I can say you might run into issues trying to buy food additives in such amount.

Things like potassium chloride are easy to get because they have many uses outside of food and aren't really harmful unless you swallow the whole bottle.

Many compounds are either obscure, hard to make, or toxic in larger amounts.

You can find that many additives are used in very small amounts and if you try and buy them from ie.

a chemical supplier they get rather expensive.

For example the compound you link to as sold by sigma aldrich (one such supplier)

I found here at $32.40 for a lousy 5 grams, and they do not sell to individuals as most chemical suppliers don't.

You will naturally have better luck the more common a given compound is.

With that said you might have success on eBay (though naturally be skeptical of anything you buy, especially stuff you're ingesting!).

I know I have seen quite a few things on there including food-related such as benzoate salts (preservative), saccharin sodium (artifical sweetener), or food dyes.

Don't forget to make sure anything you buy is USP grade (meaning it is certified specifically for food), as I believe that this imposes certain restrictions such as heavy metal content that might not be as restrictive even in "pure" amounts if it's meant for lab use as opposed to general consumption.

Also, you might have success looking up the uses for the additive in question and looking for stores that cater to them.

As a rushed example, I found sodium EDTA available from a photography supplier , which I have seen the mixed sodium/calcium salt listed as an ingredient in some items.

This really depends on how useful the additive is of course!

Maybe someone else can help you from a different perspective.

See @Kryptic's answer as well.

Just to supplement, if you are going to buy stuff from chemical suppliers, you want food grade chemicals.

Pharmacopaedic grades (i.e. BP, USP, etc.) are also okay. and a bit of background information.

you can get chemicals in different grades from manufacturers, e.g. analytical grade, reagent grade, etc.

these are for lab works and they specify for purity and cross reaction.

the constituency and purity is of utmost importance (e.g. 99.5% - 100% pure).

food (and pharmacopedic, to certain extent) grade specify for (the lack of) harmful chemicals that is active biologically (e.g. heavy metals) and is a little bit lax (e.g. 98%-100%) on actual purity.

Khymos has a list of suppliers on his web site organized by region.

Most of those are more geared toward the molecular gastronomy additives (namely E400-E499 ), but some of them may sell other additives as well.

Additionally, if the product you're looking for happens to be in the Texturas collection , you can have a look at Adria's list of distributors .

Since MSG was explicitly asked about too: Many asian grocers do carry the original Ajinomoto brand MSG, usually comes in transparent plastic bags with red printing on it.

Also look there for food-grade lye (used for making ramen and other alkaline noodles), food colorings, and sometimes flavorings.

Odd gums and fillers (xanthan, inulin) can be found wherever gluten-free baking is catered to.

Check hardware stores that carry canning supplies when it is canning season

- I have seen some unusual additives (preservatives and pH regulators) on offer there which grocers usually do not carry.

A few old-school food chemicals (eg hartshorn, potash) will be offered by stores catering to german style christmas bakery when it is in season.

Have you looked at your local bulk stores?

A new one that doesn't cater to the organic-natural-whatever clientele opened up here.

One of the bins in their spice area? MSG.

Also, in this context, bulk means "Take however much you need out of the bin", not "Buy by the kilogram".

Question: I occasionally want a pure food additive for various reasons (pure potassium chloride for sports drinks, pure MSG for everything), but I can't find any decent places to get them except amazon.com. Now I'm looking for  disodium inosinate , and even Amazon doesn't have that. I expect I'll be looking for weird things like this in the future, so I'm wondering where people buy food additives (besides bulk suppliers).

Where do I buy food additives (not in bulk)?

MSG is used in Asian food, some chemicals like hartshorn or potash are used in traditional German baking and some gums and fillers like xanthan and inulin are used in gluten-free cooking. Suppliers serving those markets may stock the products you are looking for. The Modernist Pantry also caters to this need. When sourcing chemicals, ensure that the products are food-grade.

There are shops specialising in individual cultural products where you could find certain chemicals (MSG for example). Make sure you are always getting food grade products.

The Modernist Pantry specialises in this type of product.

Try specialist shops such as Asian supermarkets for MSG, anywhere stocking German baking ingredients or gluten-free suppliers.

Make sure you are getting food grade chemicals.


I've never adjusted the length of time based on number of eggs.

As long as the water is boiling I don't think it would take any longer to cook a dozen than to cook one (it might take the water longer to come up to boiling, I guess).

For hard boiled I normally bring them up to the boil and then turn the heat off, and leave them for 15 minutes.

If you like them less well-cooked, you could reduce this to 12 minutes.

Then empty the pan and re-fill it cold water a couple of times to cool them down quickly.

Leave rest of them sitting in the cold water while you prepare each one.

There is a whole science on that.

Simply saying: source: blog.khymos.org

Where: t - time T - temperature M - mass in grams

While this is for soft-boiling eggs, I believe you can easily adjust it for hard-boiling.

Even an application, that cosiders all the variables, exists: Kunsten å koke

et egg - Google translated

While for me this is far more complicated, if you're interested you can read all the details in the post " Towards the perfect soft boiled egg ".

I don't boil eggs enough to keep a feel for the timing...

So a few years back, I picked up a handful of these .

They're sold under a few different names, but the idea is the same: sturdy plastic that changes color as it heats.

Drop it in with the eggs, and pull & chill them all when the color band hits the spot you're looking for.

I'm not sure there is a definitive way to cook hard boiled eggs, but the guidelines I tend to follow are: Don't cook eggs straight from the fridge, let them adjust to room temperature.

Don't use fast boiling water, a gentle roll is enough For soft boiled eggs, place them in boiling water (enough to cover the egg by about 2cm) for one minute.

Remove from the heat and cover.

Leave them for approximately 6 minutes.

For hard boiled eggs place them in boiling water and simmer for about 6 minutes.

Once done cool them as quickly as possible, by running them under cold water.

Timings may have to be adjusted slightly, depending upon the freshness of the eggs and also personal preference.

My mother taught me this way:

eggs not straight from the fridge

but don’t have to be room temperature.

Use a small saucepan with a lid.

(However many eggs, use a saucepan big enough so the eggs don’t touch each other or the side of the pan.)

Cover the eggs with fresh water & heat to boiling.

When they get to a rolling boil, turn off the burner & cover the pan.

Let them sit on the burner for 20 minutes.

I get perfect hard-boiled eggs with this method with either electric or gas range.

Running cold water over them in the pan both makes them easier to peel and stops the cooking.

Put them in the oven .

If you've got a sous vide setup you can set it for about 166ºF-ish for an hour and ensure they're cooked to perfection.

However, you need to make sure that you've got it exactly that temperature as if you're too low the egg will come out runny.

It's still safe, and arguably tastes better, but it's not hard boiled.

In fact, this method doesn't boil the eggs at all, so I guess they're "hard cooked".

For a visual representation how minute changes in temperature changes the compositions of an egg see Figure 4.1 of Douglas Baldwin's "A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking" .

Question: I find I always have trouble scaling the amount of time the eggs should be boiled, cooled, etc. for different-sized batches of hard-boiled eggs.  I've heard a variety of "folk lore"-type rules for how it should be done, but what's really the right way?

What's the right way to hard boil eggs?

Bring eggs to the boil and leave to simmer for about six minutes, or turn off the heat and leave to sit for 15 minutes. As long as the water is boiling, the number of eggs shouldn't affect the time needed to cook them. Use eggs at room temperature rather than straight from the fridge.

You can cook for the same amount of time for any amount of eggs.

You don't need to adjust the time when cooking more eggs. Leave them at room temperature before cooking. Place them in boiling water for 6 minutes for hard boiled eggs.

You can either place them in boiling water and cook for 6 minutes, or bring them up the boil in the water then turn off and leave to cool for 15 mins.

Don't cook eggs straight from the fridge.


I used the method here before with good success: http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/how_to_make_perfect_hard_boiled_eggs/

Basically you start with the eggs in the pan with cold water and bring the water to temperature, right when it reaches boiling

you pull the heat back and let the eggs cook for 10 minutes.

You don't need a full on boil to hard boil the eggs.

Before you submerge the egg, prick the large end of the shell with a (clean!)

thumb tack or safety pin.

This will allow the trapped air bubbles - which are normally responsible for cracking - to escape during the boiling process.

Also take care to avoid any impacts:

Don't overcrowd the pot - the eggs should form a single sparse layer; Use a tongs or spoon to lower the eggs into the boiling water - or start with cold water with the eggs already in the pot.

Make sure you use enough water - cover the eggs by at least an inch.

P.S.

Even though the above should always prevent cracking, if you're still having problems, you can add some vinegar to the water.

This will not help with cracking but it will make the eggs set quicker if they do crack and mitigate the nasty mess.

I don't do this anymore, but something to remember if you're desperate (i.e. if the eggs are very old).

As eggs develop more air as they get older (which is why bad eggs float, fresh eggs sink,and old eggs stand up in water)

you are more likely to get cracked eggs with older eggs, and if you plunge them in to hot water.

If you are doing it for hard boiling then you might be better using a technique like ManiacZX describes where you bring the eggs to the boil in cold water, then turn the heat off and leave them with a lid on for 10-12 mins.

I am going to add a caution for simple over-cooking.

I'm a soft-boiled fan, myself, but generally I think the risk of cracking is greater the more the eggs rattle around in boiling water with their liquid steaming inside.

Low and slow makes great eggs.

For the first time I used a special rack to suspend the egg in the water without it resting on the bottom of the saucepan and for the first time ever it didn't crack.

Any other time I have tried all the above and it didn't help.

I'm now sure it's because of the contact with the hot surface of the pan before the water has a chance to disperse the heat so that it doesn't rise dramatically above 100 deg c

You'll want to fill the pot that you are boiling your egg with to at least an inch higher than the egg layer.

This will prevent the egg from bouncing around too much.

I've been using the stuffs written here in boiling eggs: http://knowhowtoboileggs.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-to-hard-boil-eggs.html

There is an air bubble at the base of the egg as shown below.

As you cook the egg the air bubble expands and cracks the shell.

To prevent the shell from cracking, gently pierce the air bubble with a sharp, pointy knife.

It allows the expanding air to escape.

I trained as a chef; the way to do this is as follows.

The egg cracks for a number of reasons which are mainly due to a change of pressure within the egg itself.

You never want to put a hole in the shell, add salt to the water or frankly any of the other suggestions on this page above, and it's not due to eggs banging about in the pan (that one did make me laugh).

All you do is put the egg or eggs

(I used to do this at work in a big pan 30 eggs in it).

Pour boiling water half way up the egg.

You will hear a hissing sound as the pressure in the egg changes.

When it stops (after about 15 to 30 seconds) put the pan on heat and cook as normal.

Occasionally an egg will crack anyway due to having an uneven thickness of shell but there isn't much you can do about it.

It's best to take the eggs out of the fridge (if that’s where you keep them, but that’s about all you can do).

I disagree with comments from Jefromi, for one.

Everything should have a logical explanation and root causes.

The procedure for boiling up to 30 eggs looks interesting.

Similar is the process by Jeff Bullas...

My assessment - It is the pressure buildup inside the shell that causes cracks.

If I boil eggs slowly I can see tiny bubbles coming out from the shell at several places, this is the process of relieving the pressure naturally.

My own experience: If I boil cold eggs straight from the frig and raise the temperature of water on high flame very quickly it almost always cracks.

If I boil slow after warming up the eggs at 40 deg C, results are much better.

Pin hole at the bubble end also helps but may be termed un-hygienic?

Now-a-days

I warm up the egg to ~40 deg C in warmed water, then put eggs in another pan, pour boiling water halfway, wait 30 sec, pour in more of the same water till submerged, cook for 3 minutes on low flame, switch off, and eggs are ready in another 12 minutes (may be lower time is possible, not checked.

Results are quite good, almost no cracks over many attempts.

Pre warm chilled eggs in a bowl of hot tap water for 5 mins and put them straight into boiling water.

Never crack!

Most of the time it's the result of extreme temperature changes ie fridge to boiling water or worse boiling water + salt (higher temperature).

Take eggs from fridge and warm them under hot tap.

Submerge eggs at least 1 inch below in non salted boiling water.

Viola no cracks.

I agree with the pricking eggs at the rounded end, and also leave the top of the pot off.

I never have cracked eggs.

Question: Sometimes when I cook hard boiled eggs they will crack in the saucepan, and some of the egg will seep out into the water.  Am I boiling the water too vigorously, or can I add something to the water to prevent it?

How do I prevent an egg cracking while hard boiling it?

Don't overcrowd the pot and fill the pot to an inch above the eggs. Place the eggs into the pot with tongs or pour cold water over the eggs. Fresh eggs at room temperature are more resistant to cracking than older eggs from the fridge. If the eggs are still cracking, try placing them on a rack in the pot and adding vinegar to the water.

You should always let eggs warm up to room temperature before boiling. You can try adding some vinegar to the water or piercing the shell with a needle. They are more likely to crack if they are older.

This is more likely to happen with older eggs.

Make sure the water is at least an inch higher than the eg.


Well, it makes the eggs go further for one...

But it also produces softer, creamier results.

You're moving toward something like a custard or quiche.

If you like your eggs very stiff, this is probably a bad idea.

If you've never made scrambled eggs

the Gordon Ramsey way you're really missing out.

He calls for fresh cream, but I use sour cream and find it works just as well and gives a nice tangy flavor.

Great video where he demonstrates the technique: http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs

According to him, one of the reasons to add milk or cream is to cool the eggs down so they don't keep cooking after you remove them from the heat.

It's worth learning to cook excellent scrambled eggs without the milk and cream, in my opinion.

Traditionally, (well, at say Cordon Bleu in the 1950s), cream would be added to stop the eggs from overcooking once they were properly done.

And, like people mentioned, they get creamier as well, but the cream would be cold and added at the end; its primary purpose was stopping the overcooking.

If you heat slowly, shake gently, and treat them kindly, scrambled eggs can be totally freaking fantastic without any additives.

Start there.

According to Cook's Illustrated , the fat in milk or cream will actually separate the protein strands from the eggs, resulting in fluffier eggs.

And fats give a smooth taste to food that you can feel on your tongue.

Scrambled eggs without dairy fat in them are very, very easy to overcook.

Using milk in scrambled eggs results in eggs that are moist and, er, creamy.

Texture-wise, they come out softer (some might say "gloppier") than eggs without.

Flavor-wise, they're a bit more mellow and richer.

The downside is that they don't come out as fluffy (unless you're just using a small amount).

I've known people who think milk in scrambled eggs is the devil's additive.

I really like the softer texture and the difference in flavor, though.

Try them yourself, and you may!

Try them and you may, I say!

There are two philosophies on cooking scrambled eggs: some prefer them cooked slowly over low heat, while others swear by a very hot pan.

If you cook them slowly, milk or cream is primarily there to make them tender, and perhaps to prevent overcooking.

However, none of the other answers have mentioned fast cooking.

If you pour raw scrambled eggs into a very hot pan, they will begin to cook almost instantly.

In that case, any added liquid (even water) will add to the boiling effect near the pan surface, producing steam that will separate the protein bits with air pockets and fluff the eggs.

I have never noticed a significant effect on fluffiness by adding liquid in slow-cooked eggs.

But for the fluffiest scrambled eggs possible, cook on high heat with a bit of liquid added.

Just be very careful to keep the eggs moving and remove immediately while they are still slightly undercooked, or they will dry out.

(The eggs will continue to cook even out of the pan.)

On the other hand, make sure they are cooked enough, or they will "weep" liquid.

It takes a little practice -- with a very hot pan, even 5 seconds can make a significant difference, so have your plate ready.

The fast scrambled eggs technique is more difficult, but it's time-efficient, and the extra liquid added can produce very fluffy eggs.

(For the record, the same technique can be used for extra-fluffy omelets -- very hot pot, a little liquid, keep things moving and remove promptly.)

My guess it makes it softer and more moist.

I usually don't put milk in it but a good piece of butter and sour cream which gives it a great creamy texture.

The addition of milk is to make it fluffier and lighter.

In my opinion (emphasis on "my"), it is like cooking with training wheels.

I have never liked the watered down flavor of eggs

done this way

and I much prefer the denser flavor of eggs sans milk.

You do have to be more attentive and make sure the eggs are not overcooked.

It's a bit tricky

and you have to remove them just before they look quite ready, and they will become perfect by the time they cool a bit.

Question: I've seen many recipes for scrambled eggs  with  and without milk / cream /  half and half  So what does the milk do?  The only difference I can see is color - without the milk the eggs are a brighter yellow.  What am I missing?

Why use milk in scrambled eggs?

Cream or milk can help the eggs to go further, but they also make the eggs more moist, fluffy and creamy while preventing them from overcooking. Butter and sour cream can also be used to improve the texture and flavour.

Using no milk or cream in scrambled eggs is certainly possible and some people prefer it that way. However, a dairy product is said to improve the texture and stops them from becoming overcooked too quickly.

Milk or cream are added to stop the eggs from overcooking, but you can certainly cook them without.

The dairy product will improve the texture and make the eggs creamier and lighter.

Try just adding some butter or sour cream.


Well, if the aroma is truly in the food then there's not much you can do.

However, you can take steps to make sure that the aroma is subdued as much as possible.

It's quite possible that a large portion of the burnt aroma is merely in the air.

Turn exhaust fans on to get the aroma out of your kitchen asap Submerge the burnt surface in water as soon as possible to prevent the aroma from spreading

Be very careful "separating" the unburnt from the burnt Inhale something very strongly scented.

Why?

It's quite likely that a significant portion of the burnt smell is merely stuck in your nose.

If you can somehow nullify that source of the burning aroma, you can perhaps more accurately gauge if the food itself actually has it.

Possibly you could overpower it by adding something very fragrant to your dish that fits.

If your dish would work with lemon or lime this could help.

If it's a desert maybe cinnamon or cloves might be useful.

The best thing though is prevention.

Use lower heat when possible if you find yourself being regularly careless.

Using a better pot/pan may help also depending on what you are currently using.

Also, don't turn down help if your guests offer.

Make them stir!

:D

P.S. Don't inhale something dangerous like bleach or ammonia.

It really depends on what you're cooking.

Something firm, like meat or bread, you can probably just cut off the burned part.

Anything with a liquid component, the burnt flavor is probably infused throughout.

Others may have better suggestions on how to mask the flavor, but again this will depend on exactly what it is.

If the bottom of the soup or sauce starts to burn: Move pan away from heat.

Try to quickly move the upper parts into another pan by gently ladling off the top.

Don't stir and don't scrape the bottom.

This will minimize the burnt flavor in the food (which is what matters most).

If this happens regularly, try cooking with lower heat, and setting a timer to remind yourself to stir.

Some home remedies: Apparently, for burnt rice, you can take the (papery) peels of onions to absorb burn aroma.

Some people use peanut butter in burnt (wettish) dishes.

Coffee flavor (if appropriate to the dish) can mask flavor

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

If you burn rice while steaming it - a slice of soft white bread placed on top in the pan really helps.

For sauces, if you know you burned it before stirring it, carefully spoon the top layer into a new pan.

At least that way you won't be mixing in burnt chunks throughout the dish.

One more thing, try using heavier bottom pans as they will tend not to burn as much.

You might also try a heat spreader which is a little thing you can buy that sits between your burner and the base of the pan.

These work great for anything that is supposed to cook slowly for a long time.

Question: I sometimes burn the bottom of the pan due to carelessness or not stirring enough. The burnt smell tends to persist even after I seperate out the un-burnt bits. Is there any way to fix this?

How do I get the burnt aroma off burnt food?

You may be able to cut off the burnt part with firmer foods like meat or bread, but with liquids the taste may have spread throughout the dish. Some strong flavours can mask this or foods like bread or onion peel can absorb some of the taste. Don't stir or scrape the bottom, and try to get the smell out of the kitchen with an extractor fan.

There is not much you can do to remove a burnt taste once it has permeated the food. If you see that it has burnt onto the bottom of the pan, don't scrape to avoid the burnt bits mixing with the rest.

There is not much you can do if the burnt aroma has infused into the food. It might just be the smell that is making you think it tastes burnt.

With meat products, you can just cut the burnt bit off. With anything else, try adding spices to mask the burnt taste. Try peanut butter in wet dishes, onion peels or white bread for rice.

If you see the pan has burnt, don't stir or scrape so the burnt bits don't mix into your food.


I think it would depend on the cheese.

For a reasonably hard cheese, like cheddar, I have done it, and never gotten sick (your results may vary).

If it's pre-grated, then I would not touch it anymore.

For a softer cheese, like a brie, I would not risk it.

As Nick said, I wouldn't recommend it for soft cheese...

the process of cutting off the mold can push some nasty bacteria into the inside.

I've also never got sick from doing this.

Now if you're talking about some piece of cheese that has questionable provenance (been in your student accommodation fridge for 6 months)...

well that may be different :)

Solid blocks of cheese, such as cheddar, will only have the mold on the exterior so cutting it off should be fine.

For soft cheeses such as Brie all you need to do is cut far enough back that you're not cutting through the mold itself.

Brie is more likely to develop an ammoniated smell before the mold gets too extreme and if this is the case cutting the mold isn't going to help, the cheese has continued to deteriorate on the inside already, simply throw it out.

Hard cheese, yes, I'm still here.

Soft cheese, no, it travels through the interior of the cheese too quickly.

Also, if it smells odd after cutting the mould off, I'll throw the whole lot away.

I don't like to be in doubt about whether my food's going to make me sick or not.

Harold McGee (yes I know,

I quote him a lot)

suggests that molds can penetrate into cheese far more than just the surface contamination.

As has been mentioned some types of cheese are deliberately infected with mold as part of the maturation process (for example Blue Stilton) and are perfectly safe to eat.

Eating other types of cheese which have had mold growing on it is a bad idea.

This type of mold produces toxins which spread throughout the cheese.

Cutting off the mold will make no difference.

I was told this by a food scientist.

Question: Whenever my cheese gets too old and has a bit of blue/white mold on the side, I'm not sure whether I should throw it completely out or not. Is it safe to eat if I cut off the edge? Should I cut a bit off of all the sides just to be safe?  I'm particularly interested in the answer for cheddar cheese, but answers about other cheese are welcome.

Is it safe to eat moldy cheese if you slice off the edges?

Solid cheeses like cheddar can have external mould that does not spread inside and can be safely cut away. Softer cheeses like Brie are more risky.

For hard cheese, you should be fine to cut off the moldy part and eat the rest.


We have been eating turkey burgers for years.

The super secret is to not let them dry out while cooling.

I take a pound of ground turkey, mixed 2 tablespoons of Worcestershire sauce, 1/2 teaspoon salt, 2 shakes garlic powder and 1/2 teaspoon of water.

Then mix thoroughly by hand.

After patty-ing them to 1/4 inch thick patties, I grill for about 5-6 minutes per side, turning a quarter turn at 2-3 minutes.

After removing from grill, I wrap in foil and let sit for 5-10 minutes.

Voila!

I found this article really interesting.

It covers a chef's attempts to make a turkey burger taste good.

The recommendation is to puree some eggplant with it (to improve the moisture level), and add soy sauce, marmite and anchovies to make it taste good.

I really like adding lime to turkey burgers, usually with salt and pepper.

It helps keep them moist and adds a nice, fresh flavor.

One of my favorite turkey burgers is Rachel Ray's Turkey Loco Burgers -- http://www.rachaelray.com/recipe.php?recipe_id=1315

Also, her spanakopita burgers with spinach and feta are great.

(I can't post the link, but switch the recipe_id to 155 on the above link).

We have found adding a little ricotta cheese and oil to the mixture helps to keep is moist and soft.

Then add other seasonings per your tastes (garlic powder, salt, pepper, etc.)

It makes it a little harder for grilling since it is even softer than normal, just used a cross hatch grill thing (same for fish) and it will be fine.

my recipe: Ground turkey Porccini mushrooms salt + pepper cayenne a dash of Worcestershire sauce a bit of grated Gouda juice of two tomatoes a splash of lime juice Method:

Mix them up really well

( I usually mix them in a dough mixer for 10 to 20 minutes)

If i'm grilling them

I usually put a stalk of rosemary on top of the burger.

If i'm eating them at home, I usually pan fry them in garlic infused oil

My recipe comes a little from my middle eastern background, but I always get compliments:(Based on 2 pounds of ground turkey, no measurements, do it to taste)

Fresh minced parsley Salt White pepper Finely minced garlic Grated onion (usually half or more) 1 egg (start with one at least, add another if it still feels too 'dry' with the bread crumbs)

Bread crumbs (I usually use ProgressoPlain, but Italian works fine too) Worcestershire

A note: I use this same recipe for beef burgers too

but I put a lot MORE spices and bread crumbs in the in the turkey burger recipe.

My Mom makes the most fantastic turkey burgers.

Her secret is Lipton Onion Soup Mix .

The only other added ingredient was cayenne pepper.

She wouldn't add salt because the soup mix has plenty.

Once the burger is cooked (she pan fries them), she deglazes the pan with a bit of water and then "bastes" the burgers with the pan drippings.

Then she melts a slice of provolone cheese on top and serves the burger on a buttered, toasted Kaiser roll with thinly-sliced onion, lettuce, and honey-dijon mustard.

If you don't like the ingredients in the soup mix (it has MSG and a couple of disodiums), try this: http://www.food.com/recipe/copycat-liptons-onion-soup-mix-24952

I rather suspect it's the MSG and disodiums (all of which are recognized as safe for consumption, but demonized by foodies everywhere)

that make them taste so great.

Add umami!

Soy Sauce, miso, and finely chopped mushrooms add a lot of meaty flavor.

I'm fond of chopping the green of a green onion into 1/2" lengths and adding that in.

Gives it a really great flavour that matches well with cumin, if that's your thing!

Question: Since turkey burgers don't have a lot of fat, you lose a lot of the flavor that you get with beef.  Also, you have to make sure you cook them through (170 degrees), so they tend to dry out.  What are your pro tips for cooking great turkey burgers?   Preparation  Seasoning  Grilling techniques  (high heat? tin foil?)

How do I make a really flavorful turkey burger?

Turkey can dry out easily, so add pureed eggplant or ricotta cheese and oil to the mixture to increase moisture. Soy sauce, marmite, anchovies, miso add umami and finely chopped mushrooms can add a meaty flavour. Lime or the tops of green onions can also improve the taste.

You can add other ingredients like eggplant to the mix and season with lime juice and soy sauce before cooking. Wrap the burgers after cooking to retain moisture.

Wrap the burgers after cooking to keep them moist.

You can add eggplant or ricotta to mixture or season with lime juice or soy sauce to keep the burgers moist.