Yet Another Cycling Forum

Off Topic => The Pub => Food & Drink => Topic started by: Jurek on 03 December, 2016, 06:16:58 pm

Title: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jurek on 03 December, 2016, 06:16:58 pm
Following some prodding from Pippa OTP, I'm considering investing in one of these (mainly on the basis that using an oven in a single occupancy household isn't exactly what one might call economical).
Slow cooking is something entirely new to me.
Scanning John Lewis' website tells me I can buy one for £20.00 or another for £200.00 or thereabouts, with quite a few in between.
What's the one to go for?
Bells, whistles and the capacity to accommodate a bison?
Or something a little more sedate?
The panel's much sought after opinions are, as always, most welcome, although I'm not sure if I have the vim, zest and brio to stomach a *real world* trip to John Lewis in the 3 weeks coming up to Christmas to acquire one.

Ta people.

JB
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Ashaman42 on 03 December, 2016, 06:25:15 pm
We got a £12 one from Tesco three years ago. It's been great. No timer or bells and whistles but as I just load it up in the morning and dish up when I get home again it doesn't really need them.

A cracking buy.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: spesh on 03 December, 2016, 06:27:24 pm
Price wise, you don't need to go overboard. The key thing IMHO is the size - i.e. do you just want a small slow cooker that can do 2 servings, or a family-sized one that can do 4-6 servings, bearing in mind the amount of room it will take up when not in use.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jakob W on 03 December, 2016, 06:35:26 pm
Capacity obviously dependent on how much you want to cook at a time; we've got a 4.5l one (I think), which provides 6-10 portions of stew, so for us generally leftovers + some for the freezer. It's a basic Lakeland one, which I picked up cheap on sale, but it does have an 'auto' setting, which is good if you want to have it cook all day; it runs on high for two hours, then switches to low. More expensive models I've seen will also cut out entirely after a certain period, but I can't see the need in actual use. With my schedules I've never really done the 'get it started before work and come home to cooked dinner' thing, but it works well for days when I'm working from home, and/or have a late morning/early lunch prep window.

(ETA - given how simple they are, there doesn't seem to be much value in getting a more expensive one; I like having an auto setting, but that seems to be available on ones from £25 or so up.)
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jurek on 03 December, 2016, 06:40:32 pm
Size is one consideration that I think I am on top of.
Current routine/lifestyle is, and has for a long time been, to prep a number (as many as 10) meals and freeze them for subsequent re-heating. It is the value of the other 'toys / features' that I'm curious about.
I should add that I enjoy cooking, albeit not as much as I enjoy eating.
Eating good food that hasn't been unduly taxing on effort to make it, is the winner for me.
I'm also quite anti-gadget (in the kitchen at least- I'm yet to be convinced as to why I should have a microwave - it doesn't go with the way I do food) - until a short while ago, I had just the one do-it-all knife, and I am a believer that more bells & whistles have the capacity for more things to go wrong - perhaps (bizarrely) I see cars in the same way - basic models offer the best VFM (and, I believe that the late LJK Setright would back me up on this, were he still alive) - tarted up ones, you are best buying secondhand with the expectation that the toys will (at some point, inevitably) fail.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 03 December, 2016, 06:52:33 pm
A cheap red one called Morphy Richards. Has four settings - off/low/med/high and that's it and frankly all you need. I think about £20. It's the medium sized one, I guess big enough a small family or, in our case, two very hungry people. It's my favourite kitchen gadget ever and gets used a couple of times a week. I even cook the Christmas turkey in it (it just fits without too much squeezing).

I can and do cook just about any meal in it.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Ham on 04 December, 2016, 07:08:35 am
...
Current routine/lifestyle is, and has for a long time been, to prep a number (as many as 10) meals and freeze them for subsequent re-heating. .....a microwave - it doesn't go with the way I do food)

Each to their own obv, but those two go together rather well, heating from frozen is the key benefit of a microwave. Being able to do the former without the assistance of the latter shows an astonishing, impressive (if slightly unbelievable) degree of organisation.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Tigerrr on 04 December, 2016, 08:06:45 am
One thing you can do is bulk caramelisation of onions, which can then be frozen in 500g bags. Likewise stock - you can make up loads of really good stock. Smells lovely too. Then, you can buy poor cuts of meat and stew them all day - results are spectacularly good. Love ours.
Cake/Bread pud  wasn't a success though.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: rafletcher on 04 December, 2016, 11:04:15 am
To me, a slow cooker is for when you don't really enjoy the process of cooking so much, or where you are so time poor (for reasons of choice or circumstance) there is no opportunity to spend time in the kitchen. Otherwise a decent deep sauté pan (mines 20cm x 8cm I think) will do just as well, and be more flexible (IMO of course). I use a pressure cooker for stock (just for speed) and add use the lid of the sauté pan on it if I need a deeper pot.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Pippa on 04 December, 2016, 11:48:45 am
To me, a slow cooker is for when you don't really enjoy the process of cooking so much, or where you are so time poor (for reasons of choice or circumstance) there is no opportunity to spend time in the kitchen. Otherwise a decent deep sauté pan (mines 20cm x 8cm I think) will do just as well, and be more flexible (IMO of course). I use a pressure cooker for stock (just for speed) and add use the lid of the sauté pan on it if I need a deeper pot.

I dunno. I probably still spend the same amount of time in the kitchen using the slow cooker. We've just flipped the prep/eat process around, so we get home from work to a hot dinner that is ready to eat straightway (good for us - we're both pretty hungry when we get home from work around 7pm). After dinner we do any prep for the next day (veg chopping etc) and then just switch the slow cooker on the next morning. 
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 04 December, 2016, 12:01:50 pm
I still have to chop the veg etc. Occasionally, I confess, I'll occasionally throw in some pre-prepared casserole veg. But the benefit is that once you've prepared it can go in and you can forget about it. We eat at odd times (usually after 10pm) so it's perfect to have something that's ready when we are. It's also why I put the turkey in there, you can just leave it until everyone is ready and hungry and then throw the tatties in the oven etc. Generally the longer you leave stuff, the better it tastes.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Canardly on 04 December, 2016, 12:08:10 pm
Best thing for making a tasty casserole that will be ready when you need it. We have a low cost model that has been going some years now. Very similar to Tesco one referred to above.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: tiermat on 04 December, 2016, 12:34:43 pm
I have to concur with the last couple of posts. Slow cookers are not really about time saving, but more about having a meal that needs slow n low cooking ready for you when you get home from work, football, a nice country walk or whatever.

I have made soups, stews and a really nice slow cooked shoulder of pork in a Cider sauce, in ours.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Von Broad on 04 December, 2016, 12:50:45 pm
Watch your legumes though. Obviously dried beans will need soaking overnight whatever you do with them, but I was surprised how stubborn they were to break down [ compared to meat! ] in a slow cooker. You might imagine they'd turn to much in no time being cooked over a long period. No way. Interestingly, I noticed the other day when I was using some in the slow cooker that on the back of the packet contained the following advise:

"Never cook beans in a slow cooker unless presoaked for a minimum and 8 hours AND boiled for 10 mins".

Boil them for 20 mins and they're virtually done anyway!
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 04 December, 2016, 01:03:31 pm
Yes, do not ever put legumes directly in a slow cooker (unless they come out of a tin), they must be boiled first. Not unless you're keen on symptoms commonly labelled 'intestinal distress'.

For tinned beans, I just add them an hour before the end. I do a nice spanish chicken thing which is just chicken thighs, a head of garlic, chorizo, a splash of red wine, a tin of chopped tomatoes, sundry vegetables, very generous amounts of smoked paprika, and a dash of chili. Add a tin of butter beans near the end. After about eight hours cooking it's utterly lush.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jaded on 04 December, 2016, 01:43:46 pm
Size and the auto settings are the key questions I think.

We've got two slow cookers, a smaller one without an auto setting and a larger one with. The auto-timer setting (it cooks then settles down to a holding pattern) is great when you don't know when exactly you are going to eat. The original non-timer one can overlook in this situation.

Size is an interesting question. You are'nt supposed to fill them right to the brim, so if that's an occasional likelihood, then get a bigger one.

They are great for fire and forget meals, and if you have friends round give you more time for chatting, not cooking.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jurek on 04 December, 2016, 02:05:44 pm
...
Current routine/lifestyle is, and has for a long time been, to prep a number (as many as 10) meals and freeze them for subsequent re-heating. .....a microwave - it doesn't go with the way I do food)

Each to their own obv, but those two go together rather well, heating from frozen is the key benefit of a microwave. Being able to do the former without the assistance of the latter shows an astonishing, impressive (if slightly unbelievable) degree of organisation.

Its not really an astonishing or impressive degree of organisation, Ham.
It just means remembering to take stuff out of the freezer the night before - and always having an 'emergency meal' on standby as backup - I don't remember having to use the emergency meal other than on one occasion. ;D

Sunday afternoons at Jurek Towers usually draw on my ability to organise.
Typically, I'll be cooking a batch of 8 to 10 meals for freezing, something different to have for supper in the evening, and prepping 3 lunches to take to work. Two timers aren't enough - I think I need to get a third one....
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Kim on 04 December, 2016, 02:21:07 pm
FWIW, a friend of mine (who for various reasons could be described as allergic to high-effort cooking) has recently invested in (and been raving about) one of these:

http://www.instantpot.co.uk/

As far as I've been bothered to understand it's a self-heating pressure cooker with some clever control logic that means it can also work as a slow cooker, steamer, rice cooker, etc. Crucially for my friend - it seems to do the Right Thing when unattended and won't overcook your food, and is generally conducive to fill-and-forget cooking by numbers with minimal nasty washing-up.

Seems expensive for what it is, thobut.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: caerau on 04 December, 2016, 02:25:22 pm
This thread has made me want to get one just to make stocks :)
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 04 December, 2016, 04:08:34 pm
FWIW, a friend of mine (who for various reasons could be described as allergic to high-effort cooking) has recently invested in (and been raving about) one of these:

http://www.instantpot.co.uk/

As far as I've been bothered to understand it's a self-heating pressure cooker with some clever control logic that means it can also work as a slow cooker, steamer, rice cooker, etc. Crucially for my friend - it seems to do the Right Thing when unattended and won't overcook your food, and is generally conducive to fill-and-forget cooking by numbers with minimal nasty washing-up.

Seems expensive for what it is, thobut.

Hmm... that does look interesting. I have a handed down pressure cooker but it's mostly unused as I've never really learned to use it properly. (Yeah, I know, I'm a chemist, it's not rocket science).
The idea of the benefits of the slow cooking and the pressure cooking without all that noise and hissing and spitting appeals.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Kim on 04 December, 2016, 04:56:39 pm
Indeed.  I'd be tempted if we didn't already own a pressure cooker (which admittedly mostly gets used as a giant pan) and a slow cooker.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: L CC on 04 December, 2016, 08:50:58 pm
FWIW, a friend of mine (who for various reasons could be described as allergic to high-effort cooking) has recently invested in (and been raving about) one of these:

http://www.instantpot.co.uk/

As far as I've been bothered to understand it's a self-heating pressure cooker with some clever control logic that means it can also work as a slow cooker, steamer, rice cooker, etc. Crucially for my friend - it seems to do the Right Thing when unattended and won't overcook your food, and is generally conducive to fill-and-forget cooking by numbers with minimal nasty washing-up.

Seems expensive for what it is, thobut.

We have one. I wasn't willing to make stock before- I hate having my kitchen stinking of chicken carcass all day. No smell from the instant pot.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 04 December, 2016, 11:24:52 pm
FWIW, a friend of mine (who for various reasons could be described as allergic to high-effort cooking) has recently invested in (and been raving about) one of these:

http://www.instantpot.co.uk/

As far as I've been bothered to understand it's a self-heating pressure cooker with some clever control logic that means it can also work as a slow cooker, steamer, rice cooker, etc. Crucially for my friend - it seems to do the Right Thing when unattended and won't overcook your food, and is generally conducive to fill-and-forget cooking by numbers with minimal nasty washing-up.

Seems expensive for what it is, thobut.

We have one. I wasn't willing to make stock before- I hate having my kitchen stinking of chicken carcass all day. No smell from the instant pot.

What else do you use it for?
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: jsabine on 05 December, 2016, 01:37:07 am
I'm pretty good at making stock when we have a carcase to use; at doing big pots of $dinner to portion out; and at making a stew in the morning, then putting it in the oven, low'n'slow on a timer so it's ready in the evening.

Given we have limited counter space and already own big pots, should we get a slow/pressure/instant cooker? If so, which, and why?
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Mr Larrington on 05 December, 2016, 09:19:18 am
FWIW, a friend of mine (who for various reasons could be described as allergic to high-effort cooking) has recently invested in (and been raving about) one of these:

http://www.instantpot.co.uk/

As far as I've been bothered to understand it's a self-heating pressure cooker with some clever control logic that means it can also work as a slow cooker, steamer, rice cooker, etc. Crucially for my friend - it seems to do the Right Thing when unattended and won't overcook your food, and is generally conducive to fill-and-forget cooking by numbers with minimal nasty washing-up.

Seems expensive for what it is, thobut.

We have one. I wasn't willing to make stock before- I hate having my kitchen stinking of chicken carcass all day. No smell from the instant pot.

What else do you use it for?

Put it this way, if Dennis Nilsen had had one he'd never have been caught ;)
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: rafletcher on 19 December, 2016, 12:20:08 pm

We have one. I wasn't willing to make stock before- I hate having my kitchen stinking of chicken carcass all day. No smell from the instant pot.

I'd be interested in know which model, and what it's overall dimensions are. I have to operate a "one in, one out" policy for appliances, and the only space available for this device would be the one currently occupied by the pressure cooker.

Edit:  As you were, I found the manual on their website  ::-)
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 19 December, 2016, 12:31:27 pm
There was a BBC news spot on lazy Christmas day turkeys done in the slow cooker. I claim prior art. It's the best Christmas idea I've had and I can dedicate the oven to nuking tatties and yorkshire pud.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: rafletcher on 19 December, 2016, 06:29:42 pm
There was a BBC news spot on lazy Christmas day turkeys done in the slow cooker. I claim prior art. It's the best Christmas idea I've had and I can dedicate the oven to nuking tatties and yorkshire pud.

You must have a substantial slow cooker to fit a turkey in.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 19 December, 2016, 07:15:31 pm
There was a BBC news spot on lazy Christmas day turkeys done in the slow cooker. I claim prior art. It's the best Christmas idea I've had and I can dedicate the oven to nuking tatties and yorkshire pud.

You must have a substantial slow cooker to fit a turkey in.

Family sized slow cooker (whatever passes for medium). I don't get a giant turkey though (and just the crown), I'm only cooking for four adults and two greedy cats. That said, I have to cram the bugger in (the turkey, not the cats, no matter how much they deserve it).

There's probably one year I'm going to be running around the shops on Christmas Eve looker for a bigger cooker though.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jurek on 23 December, 2016, 01:39:49 pm
First use was yesterday.
Made a chilli con quorn consignment, all of which went (portioned) into the freezer - so I cannot comment on the quality of the cooking. Yet.
On that note, I will report back.

This morning, I noted with interest, that there was still a strong smell of cooked chilli in the kitchen.
Closer inspection of the slow cooker's stoneware showed that it had burnt some of the contents, leaving some charred carbon where the wall of the vessel meets the base.
That's not supposed to happen, is it?
It is currently being soaked.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 23 December, 2016, 03:32:05 pm
Mind doesn't but it's a cheap non-stick thing.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 24 December, 2016, 03:23:51 pm
So, yeah, someone is off to buy a new and bigger slow cooker. That's one bigun turkey.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 26 December, 2016, 06:34:32 pm
I've been umming and arring about the electric pressure-slow cooker things (gadget lust!) but have decided I should dig out the old pressure cooker and do something with it instead. Cue the starting or resurrection of a PC cooking recipe thread.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: ian on 26 December, 2016, 06:43:14 pm
The turkey came out great. Slow cooked all day with celery and carrot in a glass of white wine, a head of garlic, beaucoup de rosemary, sage, thyme, a lemon and a bayleaf. Literally slid off the bone and left us a pot of soup/stock (once we'd picked out the bones) – it's amazing how much liquid comes out, we started with a small glass of wine and now there's a good litre of liquid in the fridge. No faffing around carving. Bloomin' huge turkey though, I don't think we got through a third of it, so if tonight doesn't make significant gains on the remainder we're going to have two very happy and very fat cats. Butcher evidently overestimated our appetite when we ordered for four. Traditionally sized them by eye in the supermarket, this is the first year we've ordered 'blind' at a local butcher.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: Jakob on 03 January, 2017, 07:48:39 am
Mine doesn't get a lot of use, but it's usually always good. Mostly use it for pulled pork and keep meaning to attempt making a chilli in it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Great for chicken.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: mllePB on 07 January, 2017, 07:52:28 pm
Mine doesn't get a lot of use, but it's usually always good. Mostly use it for pulled pork and keep meaning to attempt making a chilli in it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Great for chicken.
Yes it's great for ready-to-pull pork.  We've used it several times for this - also taken the opportunity to use up some funny cider at the same time.

Best use is to leave on when heading out for a winter's day bike ride - short of leaving someone at home to cook - it's the best way to ensure a joy to open the front door to a welcome home from a house filled with the aroma of a good casserole ready to eat.
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: trekker12 on 16 January, 2017, 11:36:18 am
Ours is on almost every day. Commuting by bike and adding a few miles on at least three days a week means not getting in the front door until after 8:00 some nights and being bothered to start cooking then is never going to happen so to walk in and have a hot meal ready to go straight away is just brilliant.

Chillis, curries, stews, soup, goulash, There is a Thai pumpkin stew in there right now.

Don't know how we survived without one!
Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: tonycollinet on 23 April, 2017, 06:28:19 pm
Not quite thread necromancy - possibly just a bit of resussitation.

We wanted a large cooker, so got one of these 6.5l versions:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Andrew-James-Premium-Cooker-Removable/dp/B00C7SDJTM/ref=sr_1_4?s=kitchen-appliances&ie=UTF8&qid=1492968269&sr=1-4&keywords=slow+cooker

Fantasic - works very well, and if you bought the ceramic pot and lid on it's own in John Lewis it'd cost more than the £30 this cooker takes.

Does fantastic pulled pork, - in fact everything we've done it it has been superb. Probably used twice a week on average.

Title: Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
Post by: mllePB on 04 November, 2017, 08:02:03 pm
Whilst deliberating on 'is it time to start the heating yet',  I decided to retrieve our slow cooker from its summer hibernation.  The house is now filled with the aroma of half a dozen very slowly sweating onions ;D