Author Topic: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?  (Read 8248 times)

Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« 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

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #1 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.
Miles cycled 2014 = 3551.5 (Target 7300 :()
Miles cycled 2013 = 6141.4
Miles cycled 2012 = 4038.1

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #2 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.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #3 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.)

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #4 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.

ian

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #5 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.

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #6 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.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #7 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.
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #8 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.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Pippa

  • Busy being fabulous
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #9 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. 

ian

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #10 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.

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #11 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.
Get a bicycle. You will never regret it, if you live- Mark Twain

tiermat

  • According to Jane, I'm a Unisex SpaceAdmin
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #12 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.
I feel like Captain Kirk, on a brand new planet every day, a little like King Kong on top of the Empire State

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #13 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!
Garry Broad

ian

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #14 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.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #15 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.
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #16 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....

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #17 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.

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #18 on: 04 December, 2016, 02:25:22 pm »
This thread has made me want to get one just to make stocks :)
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

Mrs Pingu

  • Who ate all the pies? Me
    • Twitter
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #19 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.
Do not clench. It only makes it worse.

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #20 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.

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #21 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.

Mrs Pingu

  • Who ate all the pies? Me
    • Twitter
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #22 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?
Do not clench. It only makes it worse.

Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #23 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?

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Slow cookers - what's good? what's bad?
« Reply #24 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 ;)
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime