Instant Pot thread

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

Isn't it customary to mention where, and for how much, and stuff?

I figured everyone would just head to Amazon. At least 2 were on sale.

Or in other words I saw an article and didn't dare click the Amazon link.

[Hitch]

Gang:

Well, I'm going to make a beef stew today. One of the things I can't help but notice is that all the recipes you see around the net (or in THREE diff. cookbooks I've acquired) are either potato-less, or they use NEW potatotes, OR, on the Net, you see that people comment on the recipe, talking about how their spuds are MUSH, following the recipe. I can't face a potato-less stew, esp. not today. (Just...ignroe that, but Must. Have. Spuds.)

I'm debating on whether I should cook the spuds separately, in stock, say, and add them when the stew is done? Or...? I have regular russets and REGULAR, not Baby, Reds.

I will be using stock, carrots (fresh, of course), peas (frozen) corn (ditto), and whatever all else veggies I have in the leftover are of the fridge. Shrooms, fresh, and some herbs. I'm not a tomato-ey stew person, so I shan't be using canned or fresh tomatoes in it (a squoosh of tomato paste, though, as that always boosts the beefy flavor). I'm using a top sirloin cut, as I'm reserving my chucks for another couple of meals that need the chuck more than stew typically does. (Plus, isn't the IP supposed to help with tougher meats that aren't wonderfully marbled, etc.? I guess we'll find out...).

If anyone has any "best practices" for the spuds in stew, I'd appreciate it. If I can't get a real feel for it, I'll probably split the baby--put some halved reds in, and then cook some on the side, "just in case." ;-) I have some lovely crusty French loaves, Kerrygold butter for the bread, so...it should be fine, even if the spuds turn to squish, but I'd prefer it if they don't.

Thx in advance!

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Gang:

Well, I'm going to make a beef stew today. One of the things I can't help but notice is that all the recipes you see around the net (or in THREE diff. cookbooks I've acquired) are either potato-less, or they use NEW potatotes, OR, on the Net, you see that people comment on the recipe, talking about how their spuds are MUSH, following the recipe. I can't face a potato-less stew, esp. not today. (Just...ignroe that, but Must. Have. Spuds.)

I'm debating on whether I should cook the spuds separately, in stock, say, and add them when the stew is done? Or...? I have regular russets and REGULAR, not Baby, Reds.

I will be using stock, carrots (fresh, of course), peas (frozen) corn (ditto), and whatever all else veggies I have in the leftover are of the fridge. Shrooms, fresh, and some herbs. I'm not a tomato-ey stew person, so I shan't be using canned or fresh tomatoes in it (a squoosh of tomato paste, though, as that always boosts the beefy flavor). I'm using a top sirloin cut, as I'm reserving my chucks for another couple of meals that need the chuck more than stew typically does. (Plus, isn't the IP supposed to help with tougher meats that aren't wonderfully marbled, etc.? I guess we'll find out...).

If anyone has any "best practices" for the spuds in stew, I'd appreciate it. If I can't get a real feel for it, I'll probably split the baby--put some halved reds in, and then cook some on the side, "just in case." ;-) I have some lovely crusty French loaves, Kerrygold butter for the bread, so...it should be fine, even if the spuds turn to squish, but I'd prefer it if they don't.

Thx in advance!

Hitch

Reds are also called new potatoes. You probably don't want to use russets (the big brown potatoes).

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Reds are also called new potatoes. You probably don't want to use russets (the big brown potatoes).

Actually, Cins, "new" potatoes mean just that--new. They are the newly-harvested potatoes of any type, so that there can be new reds, new russets, etc. FWIW: https://idahopotato.com/dr-potato/what-are-new-potatoes

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Actually, Cins, "new" potatoes mean just that--new. They are the newly-harvested potatoes of any type, so that there can be new reds, new russets, etc. FWIW: https://idahopotato.com/dr-potato/what-are-new-potatoes

Hitch

Down here russets are never referred to as new, but reds are.

They are two different types of potatoes.

Now on topic, for slow or fast cooking, reds hold up much better than russets.
I just knew most recipes (home cooks) if they call for new potatoes mean the red ones.

So just make the stew with your reds.
Russets are better suited to roasting, baking and french frying.

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Actually, Cins, "new" potatoes mean just that--new. They are the newly-harvested potatoes of any type, so that there can be new reds, new russets, etc. FWIW: https://idahopotato.com/dr-potato/what-are-new-potatoes

Hitch

Not only are they new-harvested but they are small partly grown ones. Cin is right about the red ones. They hold up much for boiling and in stew.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Gardenman

Not only are they new-harvested but they are small partly grown ones. Cin is right about the red ones. They hold up much for boiling and in stew.

Yes, that much I know. I've been cooking for 4+ decades, and I'm allegedly pretty good at it. I just don't yet have any feel for the realities of potatoes in this environment, but I've decided that worst case, I can cook the potatoes separately, if they don't cook enough; or cook another batch, if (heaven forfend) they end up as mush, (to me, that's the worst case because you can't un-incorporate them from the stew, if they end up effectively potato particles suspended in the stew stock), or, I can just make smashed spuds and serve the stew therewith.

I've noted that virtually all the self-appointed expeerts around the web either omit discussion of the reality of potatoes in a stew/soup/etc., omit the potatoes altogether, using barley or the like, instead, or say "oh, sorry," when commenters say that their potatoes came out like moosh. I've got several new IP/PC cookbooks, and that's also a topic that's curiously silent. Trial and error, then...which I don't love, in the kitchen, when it could result in wasting food.

But, {shrug}, I've scrubbed my reds, and I'll halve them at the last moment (they're large, not small, for reds), and we'll hope for the best. I considered leaving them whole, (and may well yet) even though that's downright odd for a stew. (It would make them easier to retrieve, to cook further, AND significantly decrease the possibility of a stew that's really a potato&corn chowder with beef...)

I dunno...onward, onward, rode the 600. Ours is not to burn or fry, ours is but to reason why...

(With apologies to Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, that much I know. I've been cooking for 4+ decades, and I'm allegedly pretty good at it. I just don't yet have any feel for the realities of potatoes in this environment, but I've decided that worst case, I can cook the potatoes separately, if they don't cook enough; or cook another batch, if (heaven forfend) they end up as mush, (to me, that's the worst case because you can't un-incorporate them from the stew, if they end up effectively potato particles suspended in the stew stock), or, I can just make smashed spuds and serve the stew therewith.

I've noted that virtually all the self-appointed expeerts around the web either omit discussion of the reality of potatoes in a stew/soup/etc., omit the potatoes altogether, using barley or the like, instead, or say "oh, sorry," when commenters say that their potatoes came out like moosh. I've got several new IP/PC cookbooks, and that's also a topic that's curiously silent. Trial and error, then...which I don't love, in the kitchen, when it could result in wasting food.

But, {shrug}, I've scrubbed my reds, and I'll halve them at the last moment (they're large, not small, for reds), and we'll hope for the best. I considered leaving them whole, (and may well yet) even though that's downright odd for a stew. (It would make them easier to retrieve, to cook further, AND significantly decrease the possibility of a stew that's really a potato&corn chowder with beef...)

I dunno...onward, onward, rode the 600. Ours is not to burn or fry, ours is but to reason why...

(With apologies to Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

Hitch

That could be because many people just use russets and they do not pressure cook well.

Spoiler: I always cook russets separate.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

That could be because many people just use russets and they do not pressure cook well.

Spoiler: I always cook russets separate.

Yeah. Well, I tend to prefer reds, generally, for all-round, but russets do come in handy for a few things. I'll keep that in mind, tx.

Hitch

[Blossom]

Potatoes do fine in the Instant Pot. There are plenty recipes for them. It depends on the settings used some don't add them till the last 3-5 minutes. Some cook them all together using the stew setting for beef stew. It depends on the recipe.

Potatoes do not do well in some pressure cookers. My old Power Cooker could never get them right but the Instant Pot doesn't have this problem.

If you have Facebook there's a huge community there with tons of recipes, tips and everything Instant Pot.

Sent from my XT1528

[Blossom]

Hitch,

Simple Beef Stew
http://www.savorytooth.com/instant-pot-beef-stew/


Sent from my XT1528

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Hitch,

Simple Beef Stew
http://www.savorytooth.com/instant-pot-beef-stew/


Sent from my XT1528

Thanks, Blossom--for this link and the prior post.

FWIW, my potatoes came out perfectly fine. I did beef cut to normal stewing size, the ubiquitous veggies (peas/corn), frozen; fresh carrots, babies, cut in half; and I used fist-sized reds, halved. The standard 35 minute stew setting in the IP, natural release (let it sit/release 35 mins, as we weren't ready to eat yet) and everything was really perfect. Can't complain at all.

More adventures in the offing, no doubt. ;-) Thanks, gang.

Hitch

[Carmelreader]

I just found this thread and downloaded the veggie recipes. Thanks badgoodDeb! I bought the mini a month ago and I actually am using it more than the 6 I have had for years. I don't cook for a big group these days. From what I understand a recipe reduced in size still has the same cooking time. Is that correct? That's what I did with my beans, plain beans, which is the only recipe I have cut in half so far.

[cc_in_oh]

Can anyone compare slow cooking in the 6qt IP to a 4qt Crockpot? When I tried a 6qt slow cooker the same amount of food took much longer (too long IMO) to get up to cooking temp. Can I use slow cooker liners in the IP?

Thanks...

Edit> Also, aren't Ninja multicookers similar to IP? I don't see any mention of them in this thread...

Edit2> Those smokeless indoor grills they're advertising on TV lately also look tempting...

[ApK]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

Can anyone compare slow cooking in the 6qt IP to a 4qt Crockpot? When I tried a 6qt slow cooker the same amount of food took much longer (too long IMO) to get up to cooking temp. Can I use slow cooker liners in the IP?

Thanks...

Edit> Also, aren't Ninja multicookers similar to IP? I don't see any mention of them in this thread...

I'd be curious to hear about the IP's slow cooker performance as well. My wife has heard some negative reports, but I'd like to know if we can retire our large Crockpot for those dishes that really do benefit from the true low and slow treatment.

As for the Ninja, this thread was specifically started because a lot of us bought Instant Pots on the Prime Day before last. The Power Cooker stuff was just 'cuz Blossom happened to get one. It hasn't quite spread to a general pressure cooking thread. Yet.

FWIW, I know some people who are happy with various Ninja products, but the brand's Infomercial style and overstated claims keeps me away from it.

ApK