Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Serious Eats makes a pretty convincing argument for pressure cookers or Dutch ovens instead of using a slow cooker.
About 2 years ago I thought about getting a slow cooker. I looked at one with a browning element. Eventually I got an electric pressure cooker with slow button. Seemed more practical and useful. I have only used pressure and simmer so far.
The difference between the stock made in a Dutch oven or pressure cooker and the stock made in a slow cooker was like night and day. This experiment was a good start, but I decided that to really get to the bottom of this, a lot more serious testing was in order.
Slow cookers, pressure cookers, and Dutch ovens are all used for moist-heat cooking techniques—braising, simmering, and stewing. But there are fundamental differences in the way that they heat, which can affect the outcome. To test out exactly what these differences are and how they impact flavor, I made batches of my All-American Beef Stew, my Slow-Cooked Red Sauce, my Split Pea and Ham Soup, and Daniel's Basic Chicken Stock, and compared the results directly, side by side.
I skimmed the referenced article, &, for me a crockpot was a miracle device. I was a working parent & didn't have the luxury of cooking something in a Dutch oven all day long, with a burner on underneath it, or the oven on at a low temp, no one was home! And I've never owned a pressure cooker...when I was growing up, people had those things blow up in their faces...I know they are different now, but never found the need for one.
I can honestly say that I have never had any under- or over-cooked food from my slow cooker/ crockpot. Meat has always been tender, never stringy, vegetables tender, never overcooked to the point of being soggy with that faded-out color.
But, I'm not trying to cook gourmet meals, I stuck/stick with crockpot basics...but they always taste great. I will add that all the dishes you referenced above were some of my crockpot staples.
I prefer using my cast iron Dutch oven. The slow cooker for me is all about convenience.
Set it to low and leave the apartment for 8 hours and not worry about the place burning to the ground.
I'm lazy. The slow cooker is convenient and I really like the texture of some of the foods that I prepare with it.
My current favorite is to cook 6lbs of boneless skinless chicken breast with a large jar of hot, chunky salsa. We use the chicken for tacos, enchiladas and empanadas.
For me, my favorite things I might make in a slow cooker, really needed browning first to develop more flavor. And that would have meant too many pots. Oh and getting all of that done before work sounds aggressive.
Serious Eats makes a pretty convincing argument for pressure cookers or Dutch ovens instead of using a slow cooker.
About 2 years ago I thought about getting a slow cooker. I looked at one with a browning element. Eventually I got an electric pressure cooker with slow button. Seemed more practical and useful. I have only used pressure and simmer so far.
I completely disagree. The only reason I ever use a slow cooker is to cook a meal/dish while I am out for the day (be it at work or whatever). If I am going to be at home, then I would definitely use a dutch oven.
When starting with dried, raw peanuts, nothing cooks a batch of boiled peanuts like a slow cooker. Remember, these aren't the fresh, green peanuts I'm talking about.
Well, one thing that I don't like about this "study" is that he tested three pressure cookers, one slow cooker and one Dutch oven. Different slow cookers cook VERY differently. I've had and have a few. Some cook much hotter than others, among other things. It's clear that the writer/"tester" is biased toward pressure cookers.
I do, though, agree that "anything slow cookers can do, other things can do better."
That doesn't mean a slow cooker isn't a valuable kitchen appliance.
One thing that I make often is "country-style steak." I get the best results from the oven, the second best results from simmering on the stove top, and the "worst" results from the slow cooker. That's not to say that the slow cooker version is bad, because it's not...at all. It is a good option if we're going to be gone all day and busy. The cube steaks still turn out spoon-tender, and the food is still good. The texture is totally different, though, and the gravy "loosens" up..you can definitely tell the difference, although it is still a great meal.
I can make a hell of a roast in the slow cooker, but I can make a slightly better one in the oven...etc. The examples go on. I don't disagree that the turn-out is slightly different.
That said, I think the Crock Pot/slow cooker is a genius invention. It's very helpful for those who are away from home all day, those who don't want to or can't really cook, etc. They're also great for keeping foods warm. I'm glad I have mine and won't be trading them in anytime soon. However, there do seem to be some people who think they are the end all and be all of cooking, and I think they are missing out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
