Boiled: Cooking Potatoes; Which is Better?

Subject: Cooking Potatoes; Which is Better?
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking,alt.cooking-chat
From: Wayne Boatwright (WayneBoatWright at SMN.worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:23:06 GMT
--------
When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know, many people boil them whole with the skins on), which is better...boiling in just enough water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)

...And why?

TIA
Wayne
From: Jack Schidt® (jack-schidt at snot.net)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:29:53 GMT
--------
It matters only that less water will boil and cook faster. Otherwise, it's the same deal; the potatoes need to cook through.

Jack 212°
From: penmart01 at aol.como (Sheldon)
Date: 24 Nov 2003 02:34:41 GMT
--------
Wayne Boatwright writes:
>which is better...boiling in just enough
>water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large
>volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)
>
>...And why?

There is no why, makes no difference how much water so long as there's enough to completely cover the potatoes during the entire cooking process... so you want to have enough to allow for evaporation... you don't want to need to add water during cooking or the cooking will stop which will necessitate bringing the pot back up to temperature, whereas a much greater risk of overcooking will ensue. So why do you ask.... doesn't take that much more time and energy to boil another inch.
From: Wayne Boatwright (WayneBoatWright at SMN.worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:38:42 GMT
--------
Sheldon wrote:
> There is no why, makes no difference how much water so long as there's
> enough to completely cover the potatoes during the entire cooking
> process... so you want to have enough to allow for evaporation... you
> don't want to need to add water during cooking or the cooking will
> stop which will necessitate bringing the pot back up to temperature,
> whereas a much greater risk of overcooking will ensue. So why do you
> ask.... doesn't take that much more time and energy to boil another
> inch.

I asked because it occurred to me that in larger quantites of water perhaps more of the potato starch would be lost. I wasn't sure if that was true, or good or bad.

I should have included that in the original question.
From: penmart01 at aol.como (Sheldon)
Date: 24 Nov 2003 02:57:02 GMT
--------
Wayne Boatwright writes:
>I asked because it occurred to me that in larger quantites of water
>perhaps more of the potato starch would be lost. I wasn't sure if that
>was true, or good or bad.

The quantity of starch dissolved is almost entirely a product of the size of the chunks and how long the potatoes cook... the more surface exposed and the longer the cooking the more stach that will dissolve. Anyway, if you intend to discard the cooking water why would that matter, except that would be bad. Me, I'd use that water, probably in the next thing I bake, certainly in the next soup/stew... that would be good.
From: Tim Challenger ("timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at")
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:13:45 GMT
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> I asked because it occurred to me that in larger quantites of water
> perhaps more of the potato starch would be lost. I wasn't sure if that
> was true, or good or bad.

I haven't been aware of potaotes dissolving yet. The amount of starch lost is minimal - it comes mostly from just the broken and damaged cells on the cut surfaces.
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:37:16 GMT
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know, many people boil
> them whole with the skins on), which is better...boiling in just enough
> water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large
> volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)

I can't see how it would make any difference at all.
From: Jack B (spam at jackatbohnhoffdotcom.spam)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:34:56 -0600
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know, many people boil
> them whole with the skins on), which is better...boiling in just enough
> water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large
> volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)

Well, I think you want the water at full boil, and the water should return to the boil as quickly as possible over high enough heat.

Because you want to cook the vegetable quickly. Because it retains more flavor and texture that way.

So, as with pasta (for which there are additional reasons to maintain a boil), you want to use plenty of water.

The mass of water, and it's mass of heat helps get you back up to temp more quickly after adding the product.
From: penmart01 at aol.como (Sheldon)
Date: 24 Nov 2003 04:01:37 GMT
--------
Jack B writes:
>Well, I think you want the water at full boil, and the water should
>return to the boil as quickly as possible over high enough heat.
>
>Because you want to cook the vegetable quickly. Because it retains more
>flavor and texture that way.

Guessing, eh... you have little practical experience cooking, if any.

For evenly boiled spuds they should be started in cold water... by dumping into already boiling water the exteriors will become mush before the interiors are fully cooked.
From: Jack B (spam at jackatbohnhoffdotcom.spam)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:13:23 -0600
--------
Sheldon wrote:
> Guessing, eh... you have little practical experience cooking, if any.

Guessing, eh?
From: Jack B (spam at jackatbohnhoffdotcom.spam)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:46:33 -0600
--------
Sheldon wrote:
> For evenly boiled spuds they should be started in cold water... by dumping into
> already boiling water the exteriors will become mush before the interiors are
> fully cooked.

Ok, maybe I should amend my potato cooking methods. Your advice sounds sound.

But what about the amount of water as Wayne asked?
From: penmart01 at aol.como (Sheldon)
Date: 24 Nov 2003 16:38:32 GMT
--------
Jack B writes:
>But what about the amount of water as Wayne asked?

Previously answered:
"There is no why, makes no difference how much water so long as there's enough to completely cover the potatoes during the entire cooking process... so you want to have enough to allow for evaporation... you don't want to need to add water during cooking or the cooking will stop which will necessitate bringing the pot back up to temperature, whereas a much greater risk of overcooking will ensue. So why do you ask.... doesn't take that much more time and energy to boil another inch."
From: Wayne Boatwright (WayneBoatWright at SMN.worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:02:35 GMT
--------
Thanks to ALL for your replies on this...
From: someones at thedoor.com (CJ)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:18:46 +0800
--------
Jack B wrote:
>Well, I think you want the water at full boil, and the water should
>return to the boil as quickly as possible over high enough heat.

This advice does not really apply to potatoes: the general rule is to place root vegetables into cold water and bring them to the boil; it's non-root vegetables which are placed into boiling water. So, the amount of water isn't a big issue, except that a larger volume will take more time and use more energy to come to a boil. For these reasons it's probably better to use enough water to cover the potatoes and a little more to account for any evaporation.
From: The Ranger (cuhulain__98 at yahoo.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:50:57 -0800
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know,
> many people boil them whole with the skins on), which
> is better...boiling in just enough water to cover adequately,
> or in a large volume of water? (By large volume, I mean
> several inches of water above the potatoes.)

It doesn't matter unless you're worried about evaporation.

I add enough water to cover (plus one inch) the potatoes. Boil 30 minutes and drain.

If you're going to use the water for something else immediately afterwards, pour it in another pan. Otherwise, dump it.
From: Dave Smith (adavid.smith at sympatico.ca)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:54:26 -0500
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know, many people boil
> them whole with the skins on), which is better...boiling in just enough
> water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large
> volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)

We don't eat a lot of potatoes in this household, and when we do boil potatoes it is usually for mashing. We usually only do that if we are having a roast and are planning on gravy. I tend to add a little extra water because I use the potato water for my gravy.
From: Jerry Avins (jya at ieee.org)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:48:47 -0500
--------
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> When boiling cut-up potatoes for mashing (yes, I know, many people boil
> them whole with the skins on), which is better...boiling in just enough
> water to cover adequately, or in a large volume of water? (By large
> volume, I mean several inches of water above the potatoes.)

It matters, but not much. Sometimes I save the potato water as a base for soup. In that case, I don't want more water than I will ultimately use. There's the question of how long the cooking takes. In general, the more water, the longer the time to boiling, but a wider pot can offset that somewhat. A larger-bottom pot captures more heat from a gas flame, but the same amount of water is shallower.

Some people start the potatoes in boiling water, then want the water to return to a boil as soon as possible after the potatoes go in. More water in the pot means more heat loss through the sides, hence longer to return to a boil. With more water, the temperature doesn't fall as much when the potato goes in, but the same amount of heat is absorbed, so the same amount has to be put back. That takes longer when the water stands higher in the pot. Between you and me, it doesn't matter.

Potatoes in the skin lose less starch to the water. That can be good or bad, depending on what you want.

Quickie Manhattan Clam Chowder Recipe:

1/2 cup of diced potato*
1 6-oz can of diced clams
3/4 to 1 cup of chunky tomato sauce (marinara)

Boil potatoes in just enough water to cover, allowing for a little loss in cooking. When tender (doesn't take long!), add the clams and clam juice to the potato/water. Stir to mix, then add the tomato sauce.

If your sauce is too uniform, add a little carrot and finely diced celery, along with lightly browned onions. If you cook the potatoes and the vegetables together, you might as well put the tomato sauce in after the cooking is under way, and add the clams with their juice near the end.

Makes two good portions or four skimpy ones. What the heck: you can always add a little more water.

* Half-inch cubes. For a double or triple recipe, I use my french-fry press. then cut with knife the other way.