TromboneAl
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,880
We've had our Crock-Pot since around 1992. It works great, but it didn't pass the would you take this if it was free at a garage sale? test. IOW, it is rusty and grody and looks like it belongs in a condemned slum apartment.
So, when I saw a mint-condition Crock-Pot for $1, I purchased it and brought it home.
Today we cooked in it for the first time, and I noticed that even on low, the food was boiling away merrily. The liquid was at 210 degrees. With the old cooker, the contents boiled lazily when on low. The chicken pieces cooked in Alfredo sauce were more fall-apart tender than usual.
I found that the old one uses 138 watts, the new one 151.
I and others on the InterGoogle suspect that due to lawsuits and/or fear of germs, they upped the temperatures. Apparently older slow cookers are in high demand, cooking at the more ideal 190 degrees.
BTW, I talked with a rep at Crock-pot Corp, who told me that "both Low and High bring the food to the same temp, but High heats it faster."
So now the question is: Do I use the new Crock-pot or the old?
So, when I saw a mint-condition Crock-Pot for $1, I purchased it and brought it home.
Today we cooked in it for the first time, and I noticed that even on low, the food was boiling away merrily. The liquid was at 210 degrees. With the old cooker, the contents boiled lazily when on low. The chicken pieces cooked in Alfredo sauce were more fall-apart tender than usual.
I found that the old one uses 138 watts, the new one 151.
I and others on the InterGoogle suspect that due to lawsuits and/or fear of germs, they upped the temperatures. Apparently older slow cookers are in high demand, cooking at the more ideal 190 degrees.
BTW, I talked with a rep at Crock-pot Corp, who told me that "both Low and High bring the food to the same temp, but High heats it faster."
So now the question is: Do I use the new Crock-pot or the old?