Author Topic: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread  (Read 842278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gwywnnydd

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1626
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6000 on: November 05, 2012, 05:28:21 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

It also has to do with whether the recipe calls for canned beans (already cooked), or dry (cook time for the beans needs to be included).

CakeBeret

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4212
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6001 on: November 05, 2012, 05:47:42 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

It also has to do with whether the recipe calls for canned beans (already cooked), or dry (cook time for the beans needs to be included).

I've never seen a chili recipe that included dry beans, because (I'm pretty sure) dry beans are not supposed to be cooked with tomatoes and most chili has tomatoes, in some form, in it. I believe that the acid in tomatoes will prevent the beans from becoming tender.
"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5283
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6002 on: November 05, 2012, 07:30:24 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

My DFIL does not believe anything needs to simmer longer than absolutely necessary to ensure everything is up to temperature. I do not miss those days. Get a pot of chili, stew or soup ready and simmering on the stove for a few hours, come back an hour later to check it and half of it is gone. Some of the ingredients hadn't even been added!

I cook my chile con carne for two hours once the browning has occurred and the liquids added. I cook it for one hour with the lid on, and one with the lid off. Just be sure to stir all the way to the bottom of the pot. I have had a few pots scorch from the bottom not being stirred.

VorFemme

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12258
  • Strolls with scissors! Too tired to run today!
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6003 on: November 05, 2012, 07:58:47 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

My DFIL does not believe anything needs to simmer longer than absolutely necessary to ensure everything is up to temperature. I do not miss those days. Get a pot of chili, stew or soup ready and simmering on the stove for a few hours, come back an hour later to check it and half of it is gone. Some of the ingredients hadn't even been added!

I cook my chile con carne for two hours once the browning has occurred and the liquids added. I cook it for one hour with the lid on, and one with the lid off. Just be sure to stir all the way to the bottom of the pot. I have had a few pots scorch from the bottom not being stirred.

VorGuy came in one day and started eating out of the crock pot while I was still adding ingredients.  Fortunately for him, the recipe was intended to be made with "leftover" cooked turkey (recipe was turned in to the recipe thread years ago - Turkey Machacha) and he was amazed to find that it tasted even better the next day....after it cooked overnight on low heat.
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I say more?

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5283
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6004 on: November 05, 2012, 08:36:44 PM »
It was just so frustrating to me, like someone eating half the cake batter before I baked the cake. If I am cooking dinner and do not ask for help with it, leave it alone! There were snacks everywhere in the house, so I don't know why DFIL did that!

MerryCat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6005 on: November 05, 2012, 08:40:05 PM »
But doesn't everyone eat unbaked cake batter? Mind you, I only eat the leftovers, I wouldn't just dig into a bowl of batter with a spoon.

Sapphire23

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • I'm a smart cookie!
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6006 on: November 05, 2012, 09:10:33 PM »
I do, never gotten sick eating it either.
Never make someone a priority, when they only make you an option.

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3866
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6007 on: November 05, 2012, 11:38:39 PM »
But doesn't everyone eat unbaked cake batter? Mind you, I only eat the leftovers, I wouldn't just dig into a bowl of batter with a spoon.

Eating leftover cake batter is a perfectly acceptable activity if that's what you enjoy. Eating cake batter before the person who has mixed it is finished using it for its intended purpose is highly inconsiderate and punishable by the Icy Look Of Death, and withdrawal of cake privileges.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

Optimoose Prime

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6008 on: November 06, 2012, 12:17:28 AM »
My mom used to do this with brownie batter.  You would think it was safe once it was in the oven but noooooo.  She would take a spoon to the baking brownies.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5283
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6009 on: November 06, 2012, 08:46:01 AM »
There would have been an Epic Icy Glare of Doom then!

I bake all of our special occasion cakes and bake for friends and other events. I take my baking very seriously!

Snooks

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2267
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6010 on: November 06, 2012, 02:23:56 PM »
If you live outside of the US but are a registered US voter which state does your vote count in?

guihong

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6307
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6011 on: November 06, 2012, 02:42:02 PM »
If you live outside of the US but are a registered US voter which state does your vote count in?

Whatever state you were registered in immediately before you left the country.



CakeBeret

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4212
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6012 on: November 06, 2012, 02:42:28 PM »
If you live outside of the US but are a registered US voter which state does your vote count in?

The state in which you were last registered, I believe. You have to contact the locality in which you last registered to request an absentee ballot, so your ballot ought to count toward that state.
"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

Tea Drinker

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1124
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6013 on: November 06, 2012, 06:00:23 PM »
If you live outside of the US but are a registered US voter which state does your vote count in?

The state you last lived in, but only for offices that are voted on statewide.

My mother lives in England, and her last U.S. address was in New York. She votes for president, vice president, senator, and the state governor and comptroller. She doesn't get to vote for Congress, state legislature, or anything else that is divided up by districts or counties.

Disclaimer: I don't know, if the person last lived in a state with only one member of Congress, whether their vote would count for that.

This year, New Yorkers displaced by Sandy can vote at any polling place in the state, with a similar restriction: the vote counts for president and senate, and for anything else, it only counts if the person lives in the district they are handed a ballot for. (Someone's vote might thus count for congress but not the state legislature, or vice versa, or for neither.) It's not perfect, but probably the best they can manage under the circumstances.
Any advice that requires the use of a time machine may safely be ignored.

LadyJaneinMD

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2421
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #6014 on: November 07, 2012, 10:01:52 AM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

I made a recipe from Pioneer Woman's cookbook last weekend, her Burgundy Mushrooms recipe.  It is supposed to be simmered gently for NINE HOURS.  yes, that's right, 9 hours.
I tried it at the 6 hour mark, and it was good.  After 9 hours, it was truly spectacular.   Definitely worth the wait.