liberatordeluxe
Well-known member
Never owned a slow cooker but wanted to know if they ever get to boiling point? Has anyone ever steamed a Christmas pudding in one as WELL?
Slow Cookers
- Thread starter liberatordeluxe
- Start date
Help Support :
The answer is yes! You'll need a big SC. You need to preheat the exterior for about 15 minutes without the crock. Fill the crock with water as hot as you can get it from the tap or use your tea kettle to preheat crock. Dump water. You need to find some sort of trivet to fit the crock that will elevate the pudding out of the water. I used a well washed tuna can. Place pudding container on can, fill with water to barely touching the pudding pan. the lid needs to fit well or if the pudding is alittle high, tent with foil. Hope this helps! G
michaelman2
Well-known member
Great suggestion/idea
Lux, this is a fantastic idea! So glad I read you ur reply to the post.
Lux, this is a fantastic idea! So glad I read you ur reply to the post.
great idea. I want to try making a pudding this year.
Some do, some don't
Depends on the model. I've seen very good steamed puddings come out of Rival Brand Vintage Crockpots (no automatic shift).
You'd definitely want to stay away from one which has the automatic shift function, unless you can manually select the highest temperature.
Depends on the model. I've seen very good steamed puddings come out of Rival Brand Vintage Crockpots (no automatic shift).
You'd definitely want to stay away from one which has the automatic shift function, unless you can manually select the highest temperature.
All I have are old round manual pots. One has a pot roast in it as we write!
Original "crock pots"
Came out of using the heating power pretty much equal to a light blub , so am gobsmacked some actually "boiled".
Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.
Came out of using the heating power pretty much equal to a light blub , so am gobsmacked some actually "boiled".
Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.
If you leave them on long enough they'll all boil on high.
My 1970's model when its full of a piece of Frozen Corned Beef and water will come to a fast simmer/low boil within 8-9 hours. From memory Its about 180watts
The Modern version with the same payload will come to a fast simmer/low boil in about 7.5/8.5 hours.
By boil I mean rolling bubbles around the edges and if you stir within a couple of minutes you'll have rolling bubbles around the edges again.
Is the pudding you're looking to put in there precooked and you want to steam it to reheat or is it raw and you want to cook it? If its just to reheat it'd be fine, if its to cook it definitely need a long time to ensure that its not doughy or floury.
My 1970's model when its full of a piece of Frozen Corned Beef and water will come to a fast simmer/low boil within 8-9 hours. From memory Its about 180watts
The Modern version with the same payload will come to a fast simmer/low boil in about 7.5/8.5 hours.
By boil I mean rolling bubbles around the edges and if you stir within a couple of minutes you'll have rolling bubbles around the edges again.
Is the pudding you're looking to put in there precooked and you want to steam it to reheat or is it raw and you want to cook it? If its just to reheat it'd be fine, if its to cook it definitely need a long time to ensure that its not doughy or floury.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
>Came out of using the heating power pretty much equal to a light blub , so am gobsmacked some actually "boiled".
>Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.
I've read warnings about older slow cookers potentially not running hot enough. I've even seen a recommendation that people test their old slow cooker. I can't remember the test suggested, but the one I saw basically involved heating water. After a certain length of time, the water should be at least a certain temperature.
Supposedly modern slow cookers run hotter than many vintage designs, and so there is the inevitable suggestion that one should just "upgrade" to something. This upgrade, of course, will also bring some other upgrades, such as environmental impact to make a new slow cooker, increase in the trade deficit since we no longer have the sophisticated technology required to make a Crock Pot, and possibly issues with bad wiring and poisonous glaze (probably more of an issue with the cheapest, no name slow cookers).
I can say from experience with vintage slow cookers that they seemed to have varied in heating power. I've got a couple of old ones from the 70s when the technology was, er, hot, and everyone was making a slow cooker. One definitely seems run hotter and heat faster.
>Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.
I've read warnings about older slow cookers potentially not running hot enough. I've even seen a recommendation that people test their old slow cooker. I can't remember the test suggested, but the one I saw basically involved heating water. After a certain length of time, the water should be at least a certain temperature.
Supposedly modern slow cookers run hotter than many vintage designs, and so there is the inevitable suggestion that one should just "upgrade" to something. This upgrade, of course, will also bring some other upgrades, such as environmental impact to make a new slow cooker, increase in the trade deficit since we no longer have the sophisticated technology required to make a Crock Pot, and possibly issues with bad wiring and poisonous glaze (probably more of an issue with the cheapest, no name slow cookers).
I can say from experience with vintage slow cookers that they seemed to have varied in heating power. I've got a couple of old ones from the 70s when the technology was, er, hot, and everyone was making a slow cooker. One definitely seems run hotter and heat faster.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Interesting point, but I think one could actually see the change of power of slow cookers in thrift shops, just by comparing the wattage of a vintage slow cooker to a modern slow cooker of the same brand/size. It's easiest to compare with Crock Pots, since the brand has always been there, and so many were made. Goodwill might easily have 1970s Crock Pot sitting right beside a 5 year old Crock Pot.
I remember the rep from Rival talking to us in a housewares staff seminar about the people who made the crockery liners. They had been making the things for decades as flower pots etc., along with that brown drip primitive dinnerware and could not understand the need for them to be really round to fit into the metal jackets of the cookers. He said they had huge piles of rejects out of every shipment but the crap was so cheap, it was not worth fighting about or sending back as rejects. Apparently the ones with removable liners did not have the same radiant heat exposure on the outside of the crock as the ones with non-removable liners and the originals with non-removable liners tended to brown things better, or so I was told by customers, not that anybody liked washing the damn things.
Outside of one quart Corning Ware saucepans, Crock Pots were just about the cheapest wedding presents, when they went on sale, that could be bought at department stores. It was sorta sad to see young couples enter the department with two armloads of cheap crap to return. It was a testament to their having invited a lot of people who really did not care.
Outside of one quart Corning Ware saucepans, Crock Pots were just about the cheapest wedding presents, when they went on sale, that could be bought at department stores. It was sorta sad to see young couples enter the department with two armloads of cheap crap to return. It was a testament to their having invited a lot of people who really did not care.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
>Apparently the ones with removable liners did not have the same radiant heat exposure on the outside of the crock as the ones with non-removable liners and the originals with non-removable liners tended to brown things better, or so I was told by customers, not that anybody liked washing the damn things.
I had one Crock Pot that I dumped partly because washing it promised to be a pain to wash. That wasn't the only factor--it also needed a lid, and I frankly got tired of trying to find a lid would fit, and so in a moment of "let's get rid of some clutter!" that Crock Pot went bye bye to Goodwill. Maybe someone at Goodwill lucked out, finding a match for the lid left over from a Crock Pot that went to the big Kitchen Counter in the Sky.
Right now, I have no dishwasher, so it's all hand wash. But thinking long term, I want stuff that can go into a dishwasher. If it can't go into a dishwasher, I want some compelling value in the product to justify the pain of hand washing. Past that, even with hand washing in mind, removable inserts may be easier to deal with.
I had one Crock Pot that I dumped partly because washing it promised to be a pain to wash. That wasn't the only factor--it also needed a lid, and I frankly got tired of trying to find a lid would fit, and so in a moment of "let's get rid of some clutter!" that Crock Pot went bye bye to Goodwill. Maybe someone at Goodwill lucked out, finding a match for the lid left over from a Crock Pot that went to the big Kitchen Counter in the Sky.
Right now, I have no dishwasher, so it's all hand wash. But thinking long term, I want stuff that can go into a dishwasher. If it can't go into a dishwasher, I want some compelling value in the product to justify the pain of hand washing. Past that, even with hand washing in mind, removable inserts may be easier to deal with.
Hi Tom,
I agree with that. Mum has a plastic lime green exterior crock pot that they got as a wedding present from 1974.
The Element is glued to the outside of the crock and then there is a layer of Fibreglass insulation between the crock and the plastic exterior. The outside of it gets barely warm after 8 hours. Its not hard to wash, you just have to be careful, you fill it full of water when you finish cooking and let it soak on the sink, then you can usually just wipe it out. I find it brings things up to temp at about the same speed as the higher wattage new version compared to its removable crocked cousin from the 1970's.
I've got a Burnt Orange metal model with a removable crock and there is no insulation at all. The outside of it gets too hot to touch. The modern Sunbeam one is the same, there's no insulation between the Metal layers.
Friends of ours have a modern rectangular Breville crock pot. The crock is metal and lined with Teflon, the idea is that you can brown meat in the crock on the stove and then put it directly into the crockpot to finish cooking.
She loves it, but because I already have three, I cant justify yet another slowcooker
I agree with that. Mum has a plastic lime green exterior crock pot that they got as a wedding present from 1974.
The Element is glued to the outside of the crock and then there is a layer of Fibreglass insulation between the crock and the plastic exterior. The outside of it gets barely warm after 8 hours. Its not hard to wash, you just have to be careful, you fill it full of water when you finish cooking and let it soak on the sink, then you can usually just wipe it out. I find it brings things up to temp at about the same speed as the higher wattage new version compared to its removable crocked cousin from the 1970's.
I've got a Burnt Orange metal model with a removable crock and there is no insulation at all. The outside of it gets too hot to touch. The modern Sunbeam one is the same, there's no insulation between the Metal layers.
Friends of ours have a modern rectangular Breville crock pot. The crock is metal and lined with Teflon, the idea is that you can brown meat in the crock on the stove and then put it directly into the crockpot to finish cooking.
She loves it, but because I already have three, I cant justify yet another slowcooker
Power ratings! I've just trolled Ebay and found that even older models were anywhere between 150 watts and 200! Some larger ones were 150 on low and 200 on high.
The one I'm using today is 180 watts on high.
I've been learning a lot about SC and Miele today!
The one I'm using today is 180 watts on high.
I've been learning a lot about SC and Miele today!
A 6-quart Nesco "Full Range" cooker can be used as a slow cooker, and the enameled insert is light as a feather compared to the ceramic Crock Pot types.
IIRC the warnings about tempearture and bacteria
Comes from recipes and or persons that leave things in slow cookers for hours upon hours such as overnight or while away all day. Theory seems to be that temperature will never rise enough to keep the nasty things from growing and or kill them off. That and the low temperature/moist environment might just encourage things to grow.
Our mother never was sized by the whole "slow cooker craze" so never saw such things growing up outside of advertisements. In fact none of one's female relatives did either. By the time one moved out into one's own digs didn't see the purpose.
Interestingly some microwaves of the 1980's or so had "simi-cook" feature. That is the microwave would "simmer cook" a meal which was supposed to be same as slow cooking. This usually involved inserting a thermometer probe into the food being cooked, then pushing a few buttons. The oven took care of things from there.
All these things and features started popping up in the 1970's and 1980's as more and more women began entering the workforce. Women's magazines, appliance adverts, etc.. were all full of ideas, recipes, gadgets, appliances and so forth that were supposed to allow a working wife and mother to still get a hot meal on table. This was probably particularly true of men like "Mr. Red Foreman" that didn't want their wives working (I wear the pants in this house was the line one heard being shouted about often enough), but gave in long as things didn't slip on the home front. [this post was last edited: 12/4/2016-20:47]
Comes from recipes and or persons that leave things in slow cookers for hours upon hours such as overnight or while away all day. Theory seems to be that temperature will never rise enough to keep the nasty things from growing and or kill them off. That and the low temperature/moist environment might just encourage things to grow.
Our mother never was sized by the whole "slow cooker craze" so never saw such things growing up outside of advertisements. In fact none of one's female relatives did either. By the time one moved out into one's own digs didn't see the purpose.
Interestingly some microwaves of the 1980's or so had "simi-cook" feature. That is the microwave would "simmer cook" a meal which was supposed to be same as slow cooking. This usually involved inserting a thermometer probe into the food being cooked, then pushing a few buttons. The oven took care of things from there.
All these things and features started popping up in the 1970's and 1980's as more and more women began entering the workforce. Women's magazines, appliance adverts, etc.. were all full of ideas, recipes, gadgets, appliances and so forth that were supposed to allow a working wife and mother to still get a hot meal on table. This was probably particularly true of men like "Mr. Red Foreman" that didn't want their wives working (I wear the pants in this house was the line one heard being shouted about often enough), but gave in long as things didn't slip on the home front. [this post was last edited: 12/4/2016-20:47]
lordkenmore
Well-known member
My mother never really got into slow cookers, either. She had one--a West Bend Lazy Day (one of those with a brownish enamel steel pot). She used it for making vegetable soup, and I cannot remember her doing anything else with it. She didn't even make the soup stock used in the vegetable soup in the slow cooker, preferring to use the stove. Simmering time for the soup was only a few hours as I recall--not all day. The soup did turn out nicely (again, as I recall). I recall my mother making soup at least once in my grandmother's kitchen, using the stove, and it wasn't as good as what she could do in our kitchen with the slow cooker.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
I've wondered if energy costs didn't help fuel slow cooker sales in the 70s. (Imagined sales pitch: "this slow cooker cooks dinner, using only as much power as a light bulb!") I also recall having heard that there was a sort of return to basics mentality, at least in some circles, and a technology that did long, slow simmering might have been appealing.
I know I've seen Sunbeam electric skillets that had a removable ceramic insert. I've wondered if those weren't influenced by the slow cooker craze. In a way, that skillet idea seems like it would appeal to many buyers in that one base appliance can be used for a wide range of cooking activiities from frying to gently simmering soup. The thermostatic control is also nice in that it guarantees a more reliable temperature than a slow cooker that has a weak heater that heats constantly when powered.
I know I've seen Sunbeam electric skillets that had a removable ceramic insert. I've wondered if those weren't influenced by the slow cooker craze. In a way, that skillet idea seems like it would appeal to many buyers in that one base appliance can be used for a wide range of cooking activiities from frying to gently simmering soup. The thermostatic control is also nice in that it guarantees a more reliable temperature than a slow cooker that has a weak heater that heats constantly when powered.
norgeway
Well-known member
Re West Bend Lazy Day
We had one too, but Mother and Grandmother used the Mirro Matic Pressure cooker much more often.
We had one too, but Mother and Grandmother used the Mirro Matic Pressure cooker much more often.
