Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking

or

absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking

I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
the best product.

On Jan 22, 8:30*am, "Emrys Davies" > wrote:
> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method *- involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
> the best product.

You should save yourself a lot of trouble and get a small, cheap,
automatic rice cooker. I have heard that some people will cook rice
like pasta. That's probably the easiest way to cook rice. Use a long
grain rice and you'll get a plate of rice with each grain separate
which, I suppose, the casual rice eater would consider ideal.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:38:17 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

> I have heard that some people will cook rice
> like pasta. That's probably the easiest way to cook rice. Use a long
> grain rice and you'll get a plate of rice with each grain separate
> which, I suppose, the casual rice eater would consider ideal.

LOL! Great minds.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:38:17 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Jan 22, 8:30*am, "Emrys Davies" > wrote:
>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>
>> or
>>
>> absorption method *- involves rinsing and soaking
>>
>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
>> the best product.
>
>You should save yourself a lot of trouble and get a small, cheap,
>automatic rice cooker. I have heard that some people will cook rice
>like pasta. That's probably the easiest way to cook rice. Use a long
>grain rice and you'll get a plate of rice with each grain separate
>which, I suppose, the casual rice eater would consider ideal.

Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
pot on the stove

On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>
> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
> pot on the stove

The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
Western families.

On 1/22/2012 4:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>>
>> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
>> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
>> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
>> pot on the stove
>
> The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
> kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
> rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
> the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
> rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
> changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
> Western families.

Yes, I'll agree with you there. We bought a simple Japanese automatic
rice cooker more than 30 years ago. It does not take up much counter
space and gets used several times a week since I eat rice more often
than potatoes.

Unlike Japanese people, I don't want rice for breakfast so timers and
ways of keeping the rice warm aren't necessary.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/22/2012 4:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>
>>> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
>>> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
>>> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
>>> pot on the stove
>>
>> The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
>> kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
>> rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
>> the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
>> rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
>> changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
>> Western families.
>
> Yes, I'll agree with you there. We bought a simple Japanese automatic rice
> cooker more than 30 years ago. It does not take up much counter space and
> gets used several times a week since I eat rice more often than potatoes.
>
> Unlike Japanese people, I don't want rice for breakfast so timers and ways
> of keeping the rice warm aren't necessary.

When I cook rice I always cook at least twice the amount I need. That is
one thing that will almost always get eaten. And it's easy to microwave it
to eat it later.

On 1/22/2012 11:41 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 4:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>
>>> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
>>> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
>>> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
>>> pot on the stove
>>
>> The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
>> kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
>> rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
>> the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
>> rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
>> changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
>> Western families.
>
> Yes, I'll agree with you there. We bought a simple Japanese automatic
> rice cooker more than 30 years ago. It does not take up much counter
> space and gets used several times a week since I eat rice more often
> than potatoes.
>
> Unlike Japanese people, I don't want rice for breakfast so timers and
> ways of keeping the rice warm aren't necessary.
>

The rice pot I used to have was a pretty funky pot, it had a curved,
extended rim that acted as a splatter shield and prevented spill overs.
The design really worked. It's a real "what is it?" kind of pot. It was
a mistake to not sell it on eBay.

I think we must have gotten an electric cooker sometime in the early
70s. We probably got our first color TV sometime around there too. What
a gas!

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:20:59 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>>
>> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
>> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
>> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
>> pot on the stove
>
>The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
>kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
>rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
>the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
>rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
>changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
>Western families.

That's fair enough, I only have rice occasionally, and usually for
just the g/f and myself. So cooking it on the stove suits me better. I
also have to keep an eye on electricity usage here (not on grid).

Speaking of rice...

For most of the past 30 years I used brown rice, thinking it must be
healthier than white rice. After all, white rice is refined, right?
Truth is, I've never really enjoyed brown rice, no matter how I've
tried it. I also always feel 'blah' after eating brown rice.

Took me until late last year to finally admit to myself that I really
didn't like brown rice and maybe I should compromise and use white
instead.

Then I came across this or a similar article
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...er-than-brown/
in which to my surprise I found other people also suffered in the same
way when eating brown rice. Phytic acid strikes again...

Which for me is good news... now I don't feel bad about eating white
rice any more

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:19:17 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> For most of the past 30 years I used brown rice, thinking it must be
> healthier than white rice. After all, white rice is refined, right?
> Truth is, I've never really enjoyed brown rice, no matter how I've
> tried it. I also always feel 'blah' after eating brown rice.
>
> Took me until late last year to finally admit to myself that I really
> didn't like brown rice and maybe I should compromise and use white
> instead.
>
> Then I came across this or a similar article
> http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...er-than-brown/
> in which to my surprise I found other people also suffered in the same
> way when eating brown rice. Phytic acid strikes again...
>
> Which for me is good news... now I don't feel bad about eating white
> rice any more
>

I think people eat it when they're trying to stave off diabetes. What
was your reasoning for using it when in reality you didn't like it?

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

On Jan 22, 1:19*pm, Jeßus > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:20:59 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> >On 1/22/2012 11:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>
> >> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
> >> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
> >> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
> >> pot on the stove
>
> >The point you make is a good one. I don't care much for a cluttered
> >kitchen. I used to cook rice when I was a kid in a special cast aluminum
> >rice pot. I recently tossed that family pot recently when we moved but
> >the automatic rice cooker really makes life easier for people that cook
> >rice every day or several times a day, as Asian families tend to do. It
> >changed our lives for the better just as the washing machine did for
> >Western families.
>
> That's fair enough, I only have rice occasionally, and usually for
> just the g/f and myself. So cooking it on the stove suits me better. I
> also have to keep an eye on electricity usage here (not on grid).
>
> Speaking of rice...
>
> For most of the past 30 years I used brown rice, thinking it must be
> healthier than white rice. After all, white rice is refined, right?
> Truth is, I've never really enjoyed brown rice, no matter how I've
> tried it. I also always feel 'blah' after eating brown rice.
>
> Took me until late last year to finally admit to myself that I really
> didn't like brown rice and maybe I should compromise and use white
> instead.
>
> Then I came across this or a similar articlehttp://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/what-white-rice-better-than-br...
> in which to my surprise I found other people also suffered in the same
> way when eating brown rice. Phytic acid strikes again...
>
> Which for me is good news... now I don't feel bad about eating white
> rice any more

The world is going goo-goo over brown rice, it seems. I think it's
chewy and nutty tasting, but when I want chewy and nutty, I'll have a
bowl of raisin bran. It's good that you realized that you didn't like
BR. Better late than never.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:38:17 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 22, 8:30 am, "Emrys Davies" > wrote:
>>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>>>
>>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
>>> produces
>>> the best product.
>>
>>You should save yourself a lot of trouble and get a small, cheap,
>>automatic rice cooker. I have heard that some people will cook rice
>>like pasta. That's probably the easiest way to cook rice. Use a long
>>grain rice and you'll get a plate of rice with each grain separate
>>which, I suppose, the casual rice eater would consider ideal.
>
> Only downside to that is one more gadget clogging up the kitchen
> cupboards, and requires electricity (I use a combustion stove and gas
> stove as backup). Come on people, it isn't that hard to cook rice in a
> pot on the stove

I've never understood anyone not being able to cook rice in a pan. When I
got the new stove here, I did notice that the rice was cooking too dry too
soon so I just added more water until I realized that I needed to add 3 cups
of water to each cup of rice. If I add less, the water cooks off too
quickly. If I turn the burner down to less than 3 it doesn't simmer enough
to cook it. Odd because I had a really old gas stove at one place where I
lived that could get an extremely low flame to it and the rice was always
perfect every time. I have occasionally had the bottom of the rice get too
dry and stick to the pan when cooked with no oil in it. But I have never
had the sticky, gummy rice that many people complain about.

I have also never understood the need for a rice cooker. We had a Thai
neighbor who had one and had rice in it 24/7. I guess it worked for her
because people were constantly coming to visit so she always had hot rice to
serve them.

I could see it if you had a makeshift kitchen. But if you've got a stove in
your kitchen, you don't need it.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:53:27 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>I've never understood anyone not being able to cook rice in a pan. When I
>got the new stove here, I did notice that the rice was cooking too dry too
>soon so I just added more water until I realized that I needed to add 3 cups
>of water to each cup of rice. If I add less, the water cooks off too
>quickly. If I turn the burner down to less than 3 it doesn't simmer enough
>to cook it. Odd because I had a really old gas stove at one place where I
>lived that could get an extremely low flame to it and the rice was always
>perfect every time. I have occasionally had the bottom of the rice get too
>dry and stick to the pan when cooked with no oil in it. But I have never
>had the sticky, gummy rice that many people complain about.

Strange... not sure why your new stove would require more water with
the rice.

>I have also never understood the need for a rice cooker. We had a Thai
>neighbor who had one and had rice in it 24/7. I guess it worked for her
>because people were constantly coming to visit so she always had hot rice to
>serve them.
>
>I could see it if you had a makeshift kitchen. But if you've got a stove in
>your kitchen, you don't need it.


Yep, the less clutter the better I say.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:30:25 -0000, "Emrys Davies" >
wrote:

>Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
>or
>
>absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>
>I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
>the best product.

GoogleGroups is sucking again this AM (now PM) so we'll all see this
response twice, *eventually*!

I don't rinse or soak my brown rice. I justg bring the
water/butter/salt to a high rolling boil, dump in the rice, cover and
turn my gas stove down to low and simmer about an hour for all the
water to be absorbed (2+ to 1 water to rice, by volume.)

Perfect every time!

John Kuthe...

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:43:19 -0600, John Kuthe >
wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:30:25 -0000, "Emrys Davies" >
> wrote:
>
> >Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
> >
> >or
> >
> >absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
> >
> >I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
> >the best product.
>
> GoogleGroups is sucking again this AM (now PM) so we'll all see this
> response twice, *eventually*!

You know it's posted, you know most people will see it before you
do...
>
> I don't rinse or soak my brown rice. I justg bring the
> water/butter/salt to a high rolling boil, dump in the rice, cover and
> turn my gas stove down to low and simmer about an hour for all the
> water to be absorbed (2+ to 1 water to rice, by volume.)
>
> Perfect every time!
>
- so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

On Jan 22, 2:38*pm, sf > wrote:
....
>
> *- so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.
>

Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.

John Kuthe...

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:57:08 -0800 (PST), John Kuthe
> wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2:38*pm, sf > wrote:
> ...
> >
> > *- so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.
> >
>
> Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.
>

John, you'd be changing providers if GG wasn't free. Spend a couple
of bucks and do something about your problem. It doesn't have to be
expensive. http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/Editors_Choice.html Some
providers do block accounts which means you buy a block of xxGB and
when you run out, you buy more. I've got APN at $3 a month and a
block account from Astraweb at $10 for 25GB. Both do binaries.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

sf wrote:

>>> - so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.

>> Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.

> John, you'd be changing providers if GG wasn't free. Spend a couple
> of bucks and do something about your problem. It doesn't have to be
> expensive. http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/Editors_Choice.html Some
> providers do block accounts which means you buy a block of xxGB and
> when you run out, you buy more. I've got APN at $3 a month and a
> block account from Astraweb at $10 for 25GB. Both do binaries.

Also eternal-september.org does and it is totally free. But I fear we're
still going to see posts about googlegroups' speed...

"John Kuthe" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 22, 2:38 pm, sf > wrote:
> ...
>>
>> - so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.
>>
>
> Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.
>
> John Kuthe...

STFU about Google Groups! You've been given many options for accessing
newsgroups and have chosen to ignore them. WE can't make Google Groups not
suck because we don't work for Google. I think Google is trying to tell you
to go the **** away.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

>> Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.
>>
>> John Kuthe...

> STFU about Google Groups! You've been given many options for
> accessing newsgroups and have chosen to ignore them. WE can't make
> Google Groups not suck because we don't work for Google. I think
> Google is trying to tell you to go the **** away.

Now that you make me think of it, well... it does make sense!

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:07:13 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>
> "John Kuthe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jan 22, 2:38 pm, sf > wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> - so stop cluttering up the ng with double posts.
> >>
> >
> > Make GoogleGroups not suck so badly.
> >
> > John Kuthe...
>
> STFU about Google Groups! You've been given many options for accessing
> newsgroups and have chosen to ignore them. WE can't make Google Groups not
> suck because we don't work for Google. I think Google is trying to tell you
> to go the **** away.
>

What he doesn't get is GG has always been that way. It used to be a
regular occurrence that you wouldn't see your posts until the
following day (a 12-24 hour turn around). They aren't trying to
compete with commercial news providers. They give it to you in their
own sweet time; like or leave it... and STFU about how "slow" it is.
John has *very* low cost to free options but he's too lazy to try
them.


--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

On Jan 22, 12:30*pm, "Emrys Davies" > wrote:
> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method *- involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
> the best product.

I don't rinse or soak my brown rice before cooking. I just bring the
water/butter/salt to a high boil, dump the rice in, turn down to LOW
on my gas stove, cover and it takes about an hour for all the water to
be absorbed (2+ to 1 water to rice, by volume.)

John Kuthe...

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:30:25 -0000, "Emrys Davies" >
wrote:

> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method produces
> the best product.

Both, if you do it right. If I didn't eat very much rice, I'd stick
with boil, strain, steam.... but I've had a rice maker ever since I
got married and use that to make rice. I don't do the type of cooking
that requires soaking it, I don't even rinse it anymore. Modern rice
is clean and I want the starch, because I prefer sticky rice. Sounds
like you're predisposed to using long grain, so I won't be a good
resource for you.

Doing it right means first of all deciding how "fluffy" you like it
and hitting it every time. People also prefer certain types of rice
over others. I've noticed that people who prefer white meat on
chicken and turkey also prefer white, long grained rice and they
probably use the full measure of water if they use the absorption
method.

I prefer my rice more toothy and sticky, so I don't use the entire
recommended amount of water when I cook white rice. Medium grain is
my default - but I also like short grain and would use it more if it
wasn't a specialty rice and expensive. Long grain is at the bottom of
my "rice I like" list... in fact, I don't like it.

We're switching over to brown rice now, so I have another learning
curve.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:30:25 -0000, "Emrys Davies" >
> wrote:
>
>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>
>> or
>>
>> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>>
>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
>> produces
>> the best product.
>
> Both, if you do it right. If I didn't eat very much rice, I'd stick
> with boil, strain, steam....
>
(snippage)

> We're switching over to brown rice now, so I have another learning
> curve.
>
> --

I love brown rice but it takes longer to cook. Other than that, you
shouldn't have any problems.

Jill

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:11:03 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

> I love brown rice but it takes longer to cook. Other than that, you
> shouldn't have any problems.

That's what I'm finding out - and I need to add the full measure of
waster or else it's crunchy.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:11:03 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
> > I love brown rice but it takes longer to cook. Other than that, you
> > shouldn't have any problems.
>
> That's what I'm finding out - and I need to add the full measure of
> water or else it's crunchy.

With any rice, follow the instructions on the bag. Most rice is 2 cups
water to one cup rice. A bit extra water won't hurt, you can pour it off
later. I don't think anyone likes "al dente' rice. ehehehh

I got tired of brown rice myself and lately have switched back to white. It
cooks quicker and is more versatile to accommodate other flavors.

Gary

On 22/01/2012 1:30 PM, Emrys Davies wrote:
> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
> produces the best product.

I usually cook Basmati rice. I use one part rice and two parts water,
put it in a heavy pot, bring it to a boil then turn it down and cook it
for 15 minutes... no peeking. Fluff it by stirring it around with chop
sticks or a fork... not a spoon, and put hte top back on unitl you are
ready to serve.

I do the same twice per week. No stariner, or goofy rice cooker. So simple, eh?

I go tumeric, olive oil, garlic and cilantro in chicken stock with a little bullion (for salt). If you know how to measure, you can make the best rice on earth in 20 minutes with little hassle. The galric turns soft and mellow, cilantro adds just the right hint of savory. Some achiote for color now and then, or Mexican saffron. Voila!!

This shouldn't be so difficult.

I do the same twice per week. No strainer, or goofy rice cooker. So simple, eh?

I go tumeric, olive oil, garlic and cilantro in chicken stock with a little bullion (for salt). If you know how to measure, you can make the best rice on earth in 20 minutes with little hassle. The garlic turns soft and mellow, cilantro adds just the right hint of savory. Some achiote for color now and then, or Mexican saffron. Voila!!

This shouldn't be so difficult.

I don't get why you need another "specialized" appliance for what can be done with a pot on the stovetop. I've already been through the breadmakers, George Foremans, and other silly countertop appliances made for one purpose. Always go back to the range. Easy stuff, IMHO.

"Gorio" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'Dave Smith[_1_ Wrote:
>> ;1706578']On 22/01/2012 1:30 PM, Emrys Davies wrote:-
>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>
>> or
>>
>> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>>
>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
>> produces the best product.-
>>
>> I usually cook Basmati rice. I use one part rice and two parts water,
>> put it in a heavy pot, bring it to a boil then turn it down and cook it
>> for 15 minutes... no peeking. Fluff it by stirring it around with chop
>> sticks or a fork... not a spoon, and put hte top back on unitl you are
>> ready to serve.
>
> I do the same twice per week. No strainer, or goofy rice cooker. So
> simple, eh?
>
> I go tumeric, olive oil, garlic and cilantro in chicken stock with a
> little bullion (for salt). If you know how to measure, you can make the
> best rice on earth in 20 minutes with little hassle. The garlic turns
> soft and mellow, cilantro adds just the right hint of savory. Some
> achiote for color now and then, or Mexican saffron. Voila!!
>
> This shouldn't be so difficult.
>
> I don't get why you need another "specialized" appliance for what can be
> done with a pot on the stovetop. I've already been through the
> breadmakers, George Foremans, and other silly countertop appliances made
> for one purpose. Always go back to the range. Easy stuff, IMHO.

I was given a George Forman as a gift. I gave it away. Bought a
breadmaker. It's out in the garage. Dehydrator is out in the garage too
but it does get occasional use. Have a mixer and food processor that get
precious little use. Bought a replacement Magic Bullet and it hasn't come
out of the box. Bought it last summer.

Emrys Davies wrote:
> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
> produces the best product.


White rice or brown rice? I cook them differently.

-Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Emrys Davies wrote:
>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>
>> or
>>
>> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>>
>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
>> produces the best product.
>
>
> White rice or brown rice? I cook them differently.
>
> -Bob

White basmati - Tilda next

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:56:58 -0000, "Emrys Davies" >
wrote:

>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Emrys Davies wrote:
> >> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
> >>
> >> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
> >> produces the best product.
> >
> >
> > White rice or brown rice? I cook them differently.
> >
> > -Bob
>
> White basmati - Tilda next

Tilda is a brand, not a type of rice.

--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Emrys Davies wrote:
>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Emrys Davies wrote:
>>> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>>>
>>> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
>>> produces the best product.
>>
>>
>> White rice or brown rice? I cook them differently.
>>
>> -Bob
>
> White basmati - Tilda next

For long grain white rice, I put 1 cup of rice in 2 cups of water and
1/2 tsp of salt in a saucepan and bring it to a boil. Reduce the heat
to the lowest setting, put a lid on the pot, and cook for 15 minutes.
Wait an additional 5 minutes before opening the lid, and fluff with a fork.

For brown rice, I dump some in a saucepan and cover with at least 3x as
much water, maybe more. Bring it to a boil, turn the heat down to a low
simmer, and skim off any scum and foam. Let it cook for 30 minutes then
check a few grains to make sure it's done. Drain in a wire colander,
and dump it back in the saucepan and stir in a generous pinch of salt.
Cover with a lid and let it sit for 5 minutes.

For short grain white rice -- I'm not sure. :-/ I practiced making
sushi rice about a year ago until I got it right, but I don't remember.
I *think* I rinsed it twice, letting it rest a while after each time
(so it's clean *and* absorbs some water.) Then cooked it kind of like
long grain rice but with less water. Maybe 1 cup rinsed rice and 1.5
cups of water. Or something like that. It comes out cooked all the way
through but sticky. Then sprinkle on a little vinegar with a pinch of
sugar and a pinch of salt dissolved in it, and stir gently. It's
supposed to be rice wine vinegar, but apple cider vinegar (real ACV, not
just flavored distilled vinegar) is also nice.

-Bob

Emrys Davies wrote:
> Quick boil method - no rinsing and soaking
>
> or
>
> absorption method - involves rinsing and soaking
>
> I am quite new to rice cooking and am interested as to which method
> produces the best product.

I have never heard to rinse and soak rice. I use one cup of rice and three
cups of water. A little oil or butter and some salt. Bring to boil, lower
heat to not quite the lowest setting and cook for 20 minutes. This is what
works with my stove now. When I had a certain gas stove I could use two
cups of water to one of rice.

Julie Bove > wrote:

>I use one cup of rice and three
>cups of water. A little oil or butter and some salt. Bring to boil, lower
>heat to not quite the lowest setting and cook for 20 minutes. This is what
>works with my stove now. When I had a certain gas stove I could use two
>cups of water to one of rice.

As Steve mentioned a few threads back, the Revereware saucepans have
the exact sort of lid you need for cooking rice. I'm not sure of the
explanation for this, but they keep all the steam in and do not require
as exact a low temperature burner to work.

Cooking rice in a Le Creuset does not work as well, despite the lid
having all appearances of fitting tightly.



Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>
>>I use one cup of rice and three
>>cups of water. A little oil or butter and some salt. Bring to boil,
>>lower
>>heat to not quite the lowest setting and cook for 20 minutes. This is
>>what
>>works with my stove now. When I had a certain gas stove I could use two
>>cups of water to one of rice.
>
> As Steve mentioned a few threads back, the Revereware saucepans have
> the exact sort of lid you need for cooking rice. I'm not sure of the
> explanation for this, but they keep all the steam in and do not require
> as exact a low temperature burner to work.
>
> Cooking rice in a Le Creuset does not work as well, despite the lid
> having all appearances of fitting tightly.

I do use Revereware for my rice. I have a set plus an open stock piece.
The only other pots/pans I have are a Rachel Ray pasta pot which I use also
for soups, stews and beans, a Circulon giant fry type pan which I use for
all sorts of things. And a non-stick skillet that these days gets very
little use. I did use it the other day. I only use it when I need to cook
a small amount of food.

I kept my old Revereware pan for popcorn. It has a few scorch marks in it
from when I used to buy old popcorn and it always sat there and stuck
instead of popping. Now I buy my corn from the health food store. It is
very fresh and it always pops well. I also know now never to put too much
corn in the pan. One layer of kernels only. If I want more I will pop a
second or third batch. Works like a dream!

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:05:59 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I also know now never to put too much
> corn in the pan. One layer of kernels only. If I want more I will pop a
> second or third batch. Works like a dream!

I didn't realize my son didn't have a clue about how to pop popcorn
until he did it when they spent the night here a couple of weeks ago.
Apparently he burned the first batch and the second one didn't turn
out very well either, but the end result was he used up the entire
brand new jar of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn. That stuff is
expensive!


--

Tell congress not to censor the web. Add your voice here.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:05:59 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I also know now never to put too much
>> corn in the pan. One layer of kernels only. If I want more I will pop a
>> second or third batch. Works like a dream!
>
> I didn't realize my son didn't have a clue about how to pop popcorn
> until he did it when they spent the night here a couple of weeks ago.
> Apparently he burned the first batch and the second one didn't turn
> out very well either, but the end result was he used up the entire
> brand new jar of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn. That stuff is
> expensive!

My mom always popped it in her Revereware pan in Wesson oil then added
melted margarine at the end. For a brief period of time we had some idiotic
popper that my grandma sent us as a gift. When my grandma made it she used
Jiffy Pop. Somehow she thought it would be exciting for us kids to watch
the foil poof up. Actually it was more exciting watching her get all
excited about it. We knew better. The popper she sent us was unnecessary
and didn't work any better than the pan so we got rid of it.

When I was a young adult, I had a friend who had her own apartment but never
bothered to stock it with anything besides beer. That she bought. The
food, she borrowed. Once she shocked me when she went door to door until
she collected enough stuff to make a loaf of zucchini bread. Different
story at each door. I ran out of sugar. Can I borrow a cup? You're not
going to believe this but I have all the ingredients except for the
zucchini! Another time she borrowed popcorn and butter. And I do use the
word borrowed lightly. Because I highly doubt she ever returned those foods
to the people.

I told her that she couldn't pop the popcorn in butter. She gave me a
dirty/silly look and told me that she could. And then she proved me wrong!
I had always heard that you couldn't because the butter would burn. That's
why it is always popped in oil and then the butter is added later.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:54:24 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>
>>>I use one cup of rice and three
>>>cups of water. A little oil or butter and some salt. Bring to boil,
>>>lower
>>>heat to not quite the lowest setting and cook for 20 minutes. This is
>>>what
>>>works with my stove now. When I had a certain gas stove I could use two
>>>cups of water to one of rice.
>>
>> As Steve mentioned a few threads back, the Revereware saucepans have
>> the exact sort of lid you need for cooking rice. I'm not sure of the
>> explanation for this, but they keep all the steam in and do not require
>> as exact a low temperature burner to work.
>
> I think they call them vapor-lock. There's nothing special about the
> lid/pan combo (except that the lid fits fully inside the pan), it's
> just that they fit so well together and they haven't dented, ruing
> that seal, in 47 years.
>
>> Cooking rice in a Le Creuset does not work as well, despite the lid
>> having all appearances of fitting tightly.
>
> I still can't see one stove needed 1 more cup of water than another
> other stove, given the same amount of the same rice.

Dunno but that is what I've found and I've cooked a lot of rice over the
years. Granted I use Texmati rice most of the time now. In the old days it
was Calrose. I'd buy a huge bag. That could be the difference.

However I have notice that different stoves and ovens do cook differently.
And no, I have never used a thermometer in them to see why.

At one place where I lived, I had a really old electric stove with double
ovens. I can't tell you how many batches of cookies I baked in that thing.
And I found that what worked best in that oven were recipes from the 1930's
through 1950's. If it was a newer recipe I might have to check the bake
time more carefully.

I also know that the horrible gas stoves we had in the military housing
(always the same kind) were bad. I don't recall having any rice issues.
But if it was something that was baked in the oven, I always had to add 20
minutes to the baking time. Otherwise it wouldn't be done.