"Discover Cooking, Discuss Life."

Go Back   Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums > Recipes & Ingredients > Soups, Stews & Casseroles > Slow Cookers
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2010, 07:18 AM   #1
Senior Cook
 
seans_potato_business's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 244
Potatoes in slow cooker - not dissolving

When I previously cooked stew in a pot on the stove, the finely-chopped potatoes dissolved and thickened the sauce. However, having spent 12 hours in a slow-cooker on 'low', the potatoes look completely unaffected! and the "sauce" isn't thick at all. When I came to it this morning, the liquid around the edges was bubbling so it must have been about 100 C.

I assume that the bubbling indicates that the liquid was boiling and therefore at 100 C (I live close enough to sea-level).

a) I don't know why the liquid was boiling since I don't think a slow-cooker is ever meant to boil. Is this true?

b) I don't know why the potatoes were undissolved, having spent X hours hot and X hours boiling. Does anyone know why?

c) Should the diced potatoes be pre-boiled before adding them to the slow-cooker to aid in their dissolution?

__________________

__________________
We don't inherit the Earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children.
seans_potato_business is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 08:21 AM   #2
Chef Extraordinaire
 
pacanis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NW PA
Posts: 18,751
I can only positively speak for the slow cooker. Mine has no problem bubbling along at any of the settings as long as the lid is left on. I don't know if it would boil water, I never tried, but it will simmer the gravy and food in it.
And I would bet that pre-cooking the potatoes will get them to dissolve like you wish.
__________________

__________________
Give us this day our daily bacon.
pacanis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 08:31 AM   #3
Chief Eating Officer
 
GB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA,Massachusetts
Posts: 25,509
Older Crock Pots cooked below boiling, but newer ones cook above boiling due to safety concerns.

What type of potatoes did you use? Russets will break down much more than something like a Yukon Gold for instance.

Take a fork and mash the potatoes now inside your stew. You will get the result you are looking for assuming you are using a starchy potato.
__________________
You know you can't resist clicking
this link. Your eyes will thank you. VISUAL BLISS
GB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 08:49 AM   #4
Senior Cook
 
Joshatdot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 369
Send a message via ICQ to Joshatdot Send a message via AIM to Joshatdot Send a message via MSN to Joshatdot Send a message via Yahoo to Joshatdot Send a message via Skype™ to Joshatdot
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB View Post
Older Crock Pots cooked below boiling, but newer ones cook above boiling due to safety concerns.

What type of potatoes did you use? Russets will break down much more than something like a Yukon Gold for instance.

Take a fork and mash the potatoes now inside your stew. You will get the result you are looking for assuming you are using a starchy potato.
True that older cookers had lower temps .. and AFAIK, all new ones have their Low setting to cook around 140*f, and the High around 212*f.

I have a newer Rival Crockpot, model 3150 I think, and it's low is at 140*f, and the high is at 212*f.

edit: I forgot to mention I also had an older Rival 3150, and its wattage was 120w & 210w .. my newer one has 135w & 210w.
__________________
Joshatdot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 03:16 PM   #5
Master Chef
 
CharlieD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA,Minnesota
Posts: 8,394
Not sure about details, but i think the new ones have higher high temps and lower low temps. So no wonder it did not melt your potato on the low setting. And I agree just mash that potato.
__________________
You are what you eat.
CharlieD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 02:55 PM   #6
Assistant Cook
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
The old pots cook on low at a solid simmer just under 200 degrees (F). Hi would be maybe 240-ish. If you've got an old pot (especially with a glass lid), you've got gold!
The new ones on low are significantly above boiling, around 220-230 or so, ostensibly for safety reasons. But anything above 140 (maybe its 165) for more than a few minutes (especially crockpot-length times) is safe, according to what I've seen and read. I've heard about new ones that aren't so hot, but haven't seen one in action.

(call me an olde Crockpot Grognard.)
__________________
Monarch1st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 03:36 PM   #7
Chef Extraordinaire
 
Zhizara's Avatar
Site Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 12,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch1st View Post

(call me an olde Crockpot Grognard.)
Ok, what's a Grognard? Is it like a geezer?

Welcome to DC!
__________________

If you can't see the bright side of life, polish the dull side.
Zhizara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 03:52 PM   #8
Assistant Cook
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
Since the crockpot is my primary method of cooking, pretty much since college, and a grognard <pronounced gron-yard> is an old campaigner (Napoleon called the soldiers who came back from Russia with him grognards), I call myself a crockpot grognard.

Not a geezer, not even middle-aged yet! (middle-age begins at 50 now, right?)

Thanks for the welcome, looking forward to it!
__________________
Monarch1st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 06:19 PM   #9
Chef Extraordinaire
 
Zhizara's Avatar
Site Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 12,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch1st View Post
Since the crockpot is my primary method of cooking, pretty much since college, and a grognard <pronounced gron-yard> is an old campaigner (Napoleon called the soldiers who came back from Russia with him grognards), I call myself a crockpot grognard.

Not a geezer, not even middle-aged yet! (middle-age begins at 50 now, right?)

Thanks for the welcome, looking forward to it!
I guess I started think of myself as middle aged around 40. Close to middle aged at least. By 50, definitely.
__________________

If you can't see the bright side of life, polish the dull side.
Zhizara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 12:21 AM   #10
Ogress Supreme
 
PrincessFiona60's Avatar
Site Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 36,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhizara View Post
I guess I started think of myself as middle aged around 40. Close to middle aged at least. By 50, definitely.
So, I'm past middle age?
__________________

__________________
PrincessFiona60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Discuss Cooking on Facebook

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.