boiled potatoes in slow cooker?

Subject: boiled potatoes in slow cooker?
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking

From: Dan Goodman (dsgood at iphouse.com)
Date: 12 Sep 2007 00:49:44 GMT
--------
I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker. Googling for recipes turns up:

1) Recipes for stuff which can be served with boiled potatoes

2) Recipes for dishes which _include_ boiled potatoes -- and it seems at least half of them say to boil the potatoes and then add them.

From: cybercat (cyberpurrs at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:54:30 -0400
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
>I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker.

How would you bring anything in a slow cooker to a boil?

From: Julie Bove (juliebove at verizon.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:35:33 GMT
--------
cybercat wrote:
> How would you bring anything in a slow cooker to a boil?

I don't think you can.

From: Dee Dee (deedovey at shentel.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:38:12 -0400
--------
Julie Bove wrote:
> I don't think you can.

I've read in the reviews of the new slow cookers that they are all very hot. I bought a new one a year or so ago. It always boils on high. When I turn it to slow/low, it simmers. This is the oval shaped cooker. The old one was really in the shape of a cylinder. I used it a lot and still have it, but it is small in comparison.

The new one at the higher temperature does a boat-load of meat just as well and faster and just as tender.

From: George (george at nospam.invalid)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:05:21 -0400
--------
Dee Dee wrote:
> I've read in the reviews of the new slow cookers that they are all very hot.
> I bought a new one a year or so ago. It always boils on high. When I turn
> it to slow/low, it simmers. This is the oval shaped cooker. The old one
> was really in the shape of a cylinder. I used it a lot and still have it,
> but it is small in comparison.
>
> The new one at the higher temperature does a boat-load of meat just as well
> and faster and just as tender.

Thats the problem with the new ones. They break the the put stuff in before you leave for work and have it done when you come home method.

From: Julie Bove (juliebove at verizon.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:44:27 GMT
--------
Dee Dee wrote:
> I've read in the reviews of the new slow cookers that they are all very
> hot. I bought a new one a year or so ago. It always boils on high. When
> I turn it to slow/low, it simmers. This is the oval shaped cooker. The
> old one was really in the shape of a cylinder. I used it a lot and still
> have it, but it is small in comparison.
>
> The new one at the higher temperature does a boat-load of meat just as
> well and faster and just as tender.

Ah, that could be. My newest one is a few years old. I think the best it will do is simmer.

From: George (george at nospam.invalid)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:03:19 -0400
--------
Julie Bove wrote:
> I don't think you can.

I'll bet a 4 or 5 days on high might do it provided you didn't open the lid...

From: Charles Quinn (cmquinn at NEVERmindspring.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:03:29 -0000
--------
cybercat wrote:
> How would you bring anything in a slow cooker to a boil?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Focus_On_Slow_Cooker_Safety/index.asp

I notice that when my slow cooker is on HIGH, the liquid is bubbling.

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:02:56 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker. Googling for recipes turns
> up: 1) Recipes for stuff which can be served with boiled potatoes
> 2) Recipes for dishes which _include_ boiled potatoes -- and it seems
> at least half of them say to boil the potatoes and then add them.
> Dan Goodman

Why do you want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker? What is the source of this idea?

From: Dan Goodman (dsgood at iphouse.com)
Date: 12 Sep 2007 02:00:33 GMT
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> Why do you want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker? What is the source
> of this idea?

I really don't see why that matters.

From: Paco's Tacos (paco at taco.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:28:36 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I really don't see why that matters.

He can't properly psychoanalyze you if you won't answer the questions.

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:07:12 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I really don't see why that matters.

It matters because a slow cooker is harder to clean than a simple pot with a lid. Unless you do not have a stove on which you can heat a pot, there is no sane reason to use a slow cooker to boil potatoes.

From: Paco's Tacos (paco at taco.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:28:35 GMT
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> It matters because a slow cooker is harder to clean than a simple pot with
> a lid. Unless you do not have a stove on which you can heat a pot, there
> is no sane reason to use a slow cooker to boil potatoes.

Could it be possible that his slow cooker has an insert, Doctor?

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:36:25 GMT
--------
Paco's Tacos wrote:
> Could it be possible that his slow cooker has an insert, Doctor?

Could be. What's it made of?

From: Paco's Tacos (paco at taco.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:06:44 GMT
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> Could be. What's it made of?

Ah. I shouldn't have joined this "jumping to conclusions" game of yours. I'm not as well-versed in it as you are. But, I'll pick Door # 3 - a glazed pottery type crock. How did I do, Monte?

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:08:12 GMT
--------
Paco's Tacos wrote:
> Ah. I shouldn't have joined this "jumping to conclusions" game of yours.
> I'm not as well-versed in it as you are. But, I'll pick Door # 3 - a
> glazed pottery type crock. How did I do, Monte?

OK. For me (and only me), glazed pottery cookware has no place in the kitchen. If you love it, fine.

From: Paco's Tacos (paco at taco.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:19:36 GMT
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> OK. For me (and only me), glazed pottery cookware has no place in the
> kitchen. If you love it, fine.

Okay. And, the "If you love it, fine.", came from...?

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:39:34 GMT
--------
Paco's Tacos wrote:
> Okay. And, the "If you love it, fine.", came from...?

It was a generic "you". Substitute "one" if you prefer. "If one loves it..."

There have been issues in the past with strange substances in ceramic finishes from foreign countries, notably China. I believe lead and cadmium were the issue. That's one reason I won't go near such cookware. A second reason is that there is simply no functional reason to use such cookware. A third is durability. If I have to concern myself with chipping a ceramic coating during normal use, the item ceases to be useful.

From: Paco's Tacos (paco at taco.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:55:18 GMT
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> It was a generic "you". Substitute "one" if you prefer. "If one loves
> it..."
>
> There have been issues in the past with strange substances in ceramic
> finishes from foreign countries, notably China. I believe lead and cadmium
> were the issue. That's one reason I won't go near such cookware. A second
> reason is that there is simply no functional reason to use such cookware.
> A third is durability. If I have to concern myself with chipping a ceramic
> coating during normal use, the item ceases to be useful.

Understood. Regardless of the generic "you", etc. What if I chose Door #2 - A stainless steel insert?

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:58:48 GMT
--------
Paco's Tacos wrote:
> Understood. Regardless of the generic "you", etc. What if I chose Door
> #2 - A stainless steel insert?

That was the correct door, and you would go home with a one year supply of Mrs. Paul's fish sticks and freezer to keep them in. But wait...that's not all!

From: Gregory Morrow (gregorymorrow at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:36:48 -0700
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> It matters because a slow cooker is harder to clean than a simple pot with a
> lid.

Nonsense, my slow cooker is a snap to clean, I wish my other pots 'n pans were as easy to clean...

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:55:56 GMT
--------
Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Nonsense, my slow cooker is a snap to clean, I wish my other pots 'n
> pans were as easy to clean...

Does yours have an insert that can be removed for cleaning? If yes, what's the insert made of?

From: Charles Quinn (cmquinn at NEVERmindspring.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:06:45 -0000
--------
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> It matters because a slow cooker is harder to clean than a simple pot
> with a lid. Unless you do not have a stove on which you can heat a
> pot, there is no sane reason to use a slow cooker to boil potatoes.

Other than using it with a timer so you come home to boiled potatoes (or nearly boiled potatoes).

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:33:29 GMT
--------
Charles Quinn wrote:
> Other than using it with a timer so you come home to boiled potatoes (or
> nearly boiled potatoes).

Give me a break...
What about the rest of the dinner?

From: Christine (christine at nf.sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:22:24 -0230
--------
Slow Cooker Garlic Mashed Potatoes

2 pounds red potatoes, diced with peel
1/4 cup water
1/4 cup butter
1 1/4 teaspoons salt
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/2 cup milk, or as needed

Place the potatoes, water, and butter into a slow cooker. Season with salt, garlic powder, and pepper. Cover, and cook on Low for 7 hours, or High for 4 hours.

Mash potatoes with a masher or electric beater, adding the desired amount of milk to achieve a creamy consistency. Keep warm on low until serving.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/73269/slow-cooker-garlic-mashed-potatoes/

From: Jill McQuown
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:35:11 -0500
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker.

I've never heard of it but I don't see why it couldn't be done. Would take a terribly long time, though, even with the slow cooker set to High. Probably more efficient to just boil them in a pan on the stove. Definitely faster!

From: Julie Bove (juliebove at verizon.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:37:24 GMT
--------
Jill McQuown wrote:
> I've never heard of it but I don't see why it couldn't be done. Would take
> a terribly long time, though, even with the slow cooker set to High.
> Probably more efficient to just boil them in a pan on the stove. Definitely
> faster!

I've done potatoes in the slow cooker, but they weren't boiled. More like steamed. Simply put them in, cut into chunks if not baby potatoes. Add a small amount of broth or water, some butter or olive oil, salt, pepper and a bit of parsley. They come out very nice.

From: Dan Goodman (dsgood at iphouse.com)
Date: 12 Sep 2007 04:21:21 GMT
--------
Jill wrote:
> I've never heard of it but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
> Would take a terribly long time, though, even with the slow cooker
> set to High. Probably more efficient to just boil them in a pan on
> the stove. Definitely faster!

However, a slow cooker is safer to leave unwatched.

From: Jill McQuown
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:21:37 -0500
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> However, a slow cooker is safer to leave unwatched.

Good point :) I don't think your original post mentioned you wanted to cook them "unattended". In that case, try Julie's suggestion!

From: Sheldon (PENMART01 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:41:01 -0700
--------
Jill McQuown wrote:
> Good point :) I don't think your original post mentioned you wanted to cook
> them "unattended". In that case, try Julie's suggestion!

That's not true for potatoes no matter how they're cooked, unattended they're very likely to become mush, actually they'll probably disintergrate and all you'll end up with is thin library paste. No, you won't burn your house down so it will be safe, but all you'll accomplish is having a bigger clean up, a waste of electricity, and need to eat at the fast food dive down the road.

From: Julie Bove (juliebove at verizon.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:46:34 GMT
--------
Sheldon wrote:
> That's not true for potatoes no matter how they're cooked, unattended
> they're very likely to become mush, actually they'll probably
> disintergrate and all you'll end up with is thin library paste. No,
> you won't burn your house down so it will be safe, but all you'll
> accomplish is having a bigger clean up, a waste of electricity, and
> need to eat at the fast food dive down the road.

I've done them in the slow cooker many times. In this house when I make a pot roast, so much meat gets eaten, I need a separate pot to do the potatoes in. I do them on high for an hour or two and then turn it down to low. I start them around breakfast time. They are done by dinner time. Not mushy. Works best with whole potatoes I think. Small ones.

From: spope33 at speedymail.org (Steve Pope)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
--------
Julie Bove wrote:
>I've done them in the slow cooker many times. In this house when I make a
>pot roast, so much meat gets eaten, I need a separate pot to do the potatoes
>in. I do them on high for an hour or two and then turn it down to low. I
>start them around breakfast time. They are done by dinner time. Not mushy.
>Works best with whole potatoes I think. Small ones.

Interesting. If I boil potatoes, I cook them for seven minutes (after cutting them into about one-inch chunks), and they are always done. But if I'm baking a potato, I find it difficult to overcook them -- they can go for an hour or more, and at nearly any temperature.

From: Dee Dee (deedovey at shentel.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:07:39 -0400
--------
Steve Pope wrote:
> Interesting. If I boil potatoes, I cook them for seven minutes
> (after cutting them into about one-inch chunks), and they are
> always done. But if I'm baking a potato, I find it difficult
> to overcook them -- they can go for an hour or more, and at
> nearly any temperature.

My addage: A boiled potato takes 20 minutes. No more, no less.
I don't play favorites. :-)
A baked potato: 1 hr. 15 minutes.

From: Sheldon (PENMART01 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:09:49 -0700
--------
Dee Dee wrote:
> My addage: A boiled potato takes 20 minutes. No more, no less.
> I don't play favorites. :-)
> A baked potato: 1 hr. 15 minutes.

Gee, a statistician... how many hours for sex? hehe

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:10:45 GMT
--------
Dee Dee wrote:
> My addage: A boiled potato takes 20 minutes. No more, no less.
> I don't play favorites. :-)

All size of potato take 20 minutes to boil? That's amazing.

From: Julie Bove (juliebove at verizon.net)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:06:48 GMT
--------
Steve Pope wrote:
> Interesting. If I boil potatoes, I cook them for seven minutes
> (after cutting them into about one-inch chunks), and they are
> always done. But if I'm baking a potato, I find it difficult
> to overcook them -- they can go for an hour or more, and at
> nearly any temperature.

I once managed to overcook baked potatoes. I put them in the oven and forgot about them. I think they were in there for close to 2 hours. They tasted okay but the skin was a tad tough.

From: Becca (becca at hal-pc.org)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:53:16 -0500
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> However, a slow cooker is safer to leave unwatched.

Slow cookers can come in handy. When I am in the mood for grits, I will cook them overnight in a slow cooker. I have never cooked potatoes, though.

From: JoeSpareBedroom (dishborealis at yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:57:14 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> However, a slow cooker is safer to leave unwatched.

Never use an appliance to compensate for carelessness.

From: hahabogus (invalid at null.null)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:14:55 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker.

Then do so.
Is it required that you are informed to: put the potatoes in the slow cooker, add water then turn it on?

From: Dan Goodman (dsgood at iphouse.com)
Date: 12 Sep 2007 04:23:26 GMT
--------
hahabogus wrote:
> Then do so.
> Is it required that you are informed to:
> put the potatoes in the slow cooker,
> add water then turn it on?

And how long does it need to be cooked?

From: hahabogus (invalid at null.null)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:54:42 GMT
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> And how long does it need to be cooked?

until the potatoes are done....depending on size the potatoes are cut into and heat setting anywhere between 4 and 7 hours.

From: Sheldon (PENMART01 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:30:00 -0700
--------
Dan Goodman wrote:
> I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker. Googling for recipes turns
> up: 1) Recipes for stuff which can be served with boiled potatoes
> 2) Recipes for dishes which _include_ boiled potatoes -- and it seems
> at least half of them say to boil the potatoes and then add them.

Any slow cooker recipe for stew that contains potatoes will work, just omit all the other ingredients.

http://crockpot.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/439/NewEnglandBoiledDinner65557.shtml [dead link, excluded from archive.org]

But if all you want is boiled spuds it seems rather dimwitted to use a slow cooker when it takes only 10 minutes to bring a big potful of water containing five pounds of potatoes to the boil and 15 minutes more simmering time for cooking. Always start root vegetable in cold water so they cook evenly, otherwise if dumped into boiling water the exteriors will become way past done into falling apart before the middles are cooked.

I strongly suspect that unless you're right there over a period of several hours to constantly check doneness cooking plain potatoes in a slow cooker will result in raw or sludge.... even by conventional stove top cooking the window from not quite done to mush is small.

How much potatoes are you wanting to cook and for what purpose? I don't think it's possible to prepare potatoes in a slow cooker to a proper degree of doneness for any other purpose but stews/soups.

I've tried various dishes in my slow cooker, especially stews/soups and pot roasts... the only thing it can prepare satisfactorilly is steel cut oats... and that is all I use mine for now... and even so the slow cooker doesn't do nearly as good a job as by the stove top method where I'd need to constantly stir for better than an hour. Since the slow cooker goes all night for steel cut oats with no stirring it really does not produce a proper consistancy, but it's a good trade off in effort and having it ready first thing in the morning for passibly satisfactorilly... even after a lot of experimenting with cooking time and ratio of water to oats at best the consistancy produced is more of a gruel with a 1/4" of rhino skin adhering to the insert surface. Five minutes stirring briskly with a wooden spoon and I can incorporate the skin with the gruel but it's still more watery than I'd prefer. Using less water results in thicker tougher skin, and that cannot be incorporated by stirring. Oatmeal really needs to be stired, steel cut oats especially. I think a properly designed slow cooker must have a stirring mechanism built in, otherwise regardless what dish is cooked the results will be rather shabby... but those with TIAD probably aren't concerned nor do they even notice.