Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > As previously mentioned, pressure cooking is a "crap shoot"... put
> > everything in a pot, seal it and hope for the best... without ever
> > even once lifting the lid to make any adjustments or to check if
> > whether it's done cooking or not before undoing the contraption.
So if
> > one is lucky enough to have low culinary expectations then I
suppose
> > the time saved is important. But I honestly see no time saved
> > regardless, especially not where cooking beans is concerned... I
mean
> > like who stands around for hours *constantly* staring at a pot of
beans
> > cooking.
>
>
> I've been cooking beans for years now and have never had to cook them
for
> over an hour or two (at most)...I don't even bother to soak them
> "overnight", the method I generally use is to put the beans in the
pot,
> bring the water to a roiling boil, turn the heat off, let 'em sit for
an
> hour or so until they plump up, and then put the pot on
"simmer"...perfect
> every time. Garbanzos (when I choose to cook them, canned is often
cheaper)
> and lentils take even less time, practically speaking practically no
time at
> all...lentils in most cases practically take no longer to cook than
white
> rice...
>
> Some of these folx soaking beans for *days* and then cooking them by
> pressure or on the stove top for hours and hours on end must be using
some
> pretty OLD beenz - like from the Triassic Era or some such...they
should add
> some trilobite fossils to their beans so as to have a "Bean and
Seafood
> Delite" I guess ;-)
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

If I had a penny for every bean I've cooked I'd be richer than the Shah
of Iran... not a day passed for a number of years I didn't cook beans
to feed 300-400 hungry sailers (often two types of beans in one day)...
never had any of the problems mentioned here and never used any
fercocktah pressure cooker.