On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:11:31 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:48:32 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


How would you define stodgy?

Cooked in an Aga?


Not if you follow the instructions.

However, you can produce stodginess in an Aga, such as easily as any
other cooker.

No doubt, you can make chips as well.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:46 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:03:36 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Even like that, which we can do, they still have too high a glycaemic
load for me to eat more than a tiny amount, so typically we don't
bother with them.

But you SAID they were stodgy!

Anything like that which I can't eat much of I describe to myself as
stodgy so that I won't be tempted.

So you didn't mean that they were stodgy.

Hmm. That could lead to a lack of credibility in other posts ...


How would you define stodgy?

Well, in this context, since you used the word, the onus is on you to define
it but stodgy to me is dense and heavy. I've never had a steamed pudding
like that.

Apart from Christmas puddings I rarely mak eany other than suet pastry ones
such as steak and kidney, oh they're glorious! The pastry is light and flaky
.... drool ...

The reason I don't make any sweet puddings is because as we've aged we
simply can't eat more than one course at dinner, as a rule. It's very sad
:-( I'll occasionally do it when we have guests as a special treat for
them.

Mary



--

.andy

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:52:09 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:55:38 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:29:11 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

The list is perfectly reasonable for any gas appliance.

Hands up all those that had their rope seals and vermiculite levels
checked on the last gas boiler servicing.

One would hope that rope seals, if present, would be checked.



The rope
seals referred to are those around the oven doors and can be visually
checked quite easily. The insulation level can be checked by lifting
the rings around the plates. Neither are exactly difficult.

Neither should be necessary.

Your point is rather thin. It isn't difficult to open an oven door
and look at a rope seal, and it isn't difficult to lift the plate
rings - takes all of 20 seconds.

--

..andy

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:46 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:03:36 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Even like that, which we can do, they still have too high a
glycaemic
load for me to eat more than a tiny amount, so typically we don't
bother with them.

But you SAID they were stodgy!

Anything like that which I can't eat much of I describe to myself
as
stodgy so that I won't be tempted.

So you didn't mean that they were stodgy.

Hmm. That could lead to a lack of credibility in other posts ...


How would you define stodgy?

Well, in this context, since you used the word, the onus is on you to
define it but stodgy to me is dense and heavy. I've never had a
steamed pudding like that.

Apart from Christmas puddings I rarely mak eany other than suet pastry
ones such as steak and kidney, oh they're glorious! The pastry is
light and flaky ... drool ...

The reason I don't make any sweet puddings is because as we've aged we
simply can't eat more than one course at dinner, as a rule. It's very
sad :-( I'll occasionally do it when we have guests as a special
treat for them.

Unlike when we came for dinner and you gave us pie from a supermarket
and a chocolates for pudding)

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:23:54 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


How would you define stodgy?

Well, in this context, since you used the word, the onus is on you to define
it but stodgy to me is dense and heavy. I've never had a steamed pudding
like that.

OK. I meant more in the context of carbohydrate-heavy, and any of
these tend to be of that genre even if they do have an apparently
light texture.



Apart from Christmas puddings I rarely mak eany other than suet pastry ones
such as steak and kidney, oh they're glorious! The pastry is light and flaky
... drool ...

We don't make those at all. This year, I did have a small piece of a
christmas pudding (about a tablespoonful), but that's about it.


The reason I don't make any sweet puddings is because as we've aged we
simply can't eat more than one course at dinner, as a rule. It's very sad
:-( I'll occasionally do it when we have guests as a special treat for
them.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:23:54 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


How would you define stodgy?

Well, in this context, since you used the word, the onus is on you to
define
it but stodgy to me is dense and heavy. I've never had a steamed pudding
like that.

OK. I meant more in the context of carbohydrate-heavy, and any of
these tend to be of that genre even if they do have an apparently
light texture.

You mean like bread?

I suspect you mean the calorie content, which is more to do with the fat
element.

Mary



Apart from Christmas puddings I rarely mak eany other than suet pastry
ones
such as steak and kidney, oh they're glorious! The pastry is light and
flaky
... drool ...

We don't make those at all. This year, I did have a small piece of a
christmas pudding (about a tablespoonful), but that's about it.


The reason I don't make any sweet puddings is because as we've aged we
simply can't eat more than one course at dinner, as a rule. It's very sad
:-( I'll occasionally do it when we have guests as a special treat for
them.



--

.andy

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:49:57 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:23:54 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


How would you define stodgy?

Well, in this context, since you used the word, the onus is on you to
define
it but stodgy to me is dense and heavy. I've never had a steamed pudding
like that.

OK. I meant more in the context of carbohydrate-heavy, and any of
these tend to be of that genre even if they do have an apparently
light texture.

You mean like bread?

Some types, not others.


I suspect you mean the calorie content, which is more to do with the fat
element.


Both carbohydrates and fats contribute to calories, although it is
true to say that fats normally contain more calories for a given
weight than carbohydrates.

My primary objective is maintaining blood glucose levels, while the
secondary one is to control weight. My way of doing that is to look
more at glycaemic load, which is related to the proportion of
carbohydrate in a portion of food and its glycaemic index. Fat content
can be beneficial in certain instances, since it slows down the rate
of processing into the bloodstream.

In essence the way I do this is to avoid processed foods as much as
possible (especially any that are created for one formulaic fad diet
or another) and if I want to eat something that might be considered
to be high in one component or another, to balance that off against
something else or eat a very small quantity. It's effective and
sustainable and suits my needs

Background and some clinical references at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...ohydrates.html


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news

OK. I meant more in the context of carbohydrate-heavy, and any of
these tend to be of that genre even if they do have an apparently
light texture.

You mean like bread?

Some types, not others.

Such as?


I suspect you mean the calorie content, which is more to do with the fat
element.


Both carbohydrates and fats contribute to calories, although it is
true to say that fats normally contain more calories for a given
weight than carbohydrates.

Indeed.

My primary objective is maintaining blood glucose levels, while the
secondary one is to control weight. My way of doing that is to look
more at glycaemic load, which is related to the proportion of
carbohydrate in a portion of food and its glycaemic index. Fat content
can be beneficial in certain instances, since it slows down the rate
of processing into the bloodstream.

In essence the way I do this is to avoid processed foods as much as
possible (especially any that are created for one formulaic fad diet
or another) and if I want to eat something that might be considered
to be high in one component or another, to balance that off against
something else or eat a very small quantity. It's effective and
sustainable and suits my needs

Background and some clinical references at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...ohydrates.html

I thought the GI was unfashionable, even discredited now :-) Allthough I'm
not a practising dietician I keep up with things.

Not going to look for my sources, I'm off to bed. The solar panel is now
installed, we're all tired and deserve a treat.

Treacle pudding tomorrow perhaps ... with cream. The hens are off-lay so
can't make custard. :-)

Mary

Andy Hall wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
owdman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

[ about Agas/Rayburns ]
I think that you must have missed my point.
Yes I have - what is it exactly?

That, flying in the face of reality as shown by replies here, and
other *real world* experience, he's right, and everyone else is wrong?

Do you actually have an Aga, or have you ever used or lived in a house
with one? If you haven't, then how would you be in a position to
comment either way?

Mine's been going since October. I will stop using it in April, perhaps.
A relative has a Stanley. There's another cooker next to it. His wife is
a very good cook indeed, perhaps a more "organic" and "vegetarian" than
the vast majority of cooks, but still, a very good cook. Stanley in
season, electric otherwise.
My grandmother had a Rayburn. In the dairy, she also had an electric
cooker, which was used sometimes in Winter, most other times.
My grandfather had in a place which had an Aga the like of which I've
never seen before, with at least two places you could put fuel in, and
lots of doors and lids and bits and pieces. I have no idea of the
capabilities of his cook or kitchen helper, but they were at least good.
Electric cooking apparatus also present.

I know others who have these things, similar stories.


I have made the point, and so did TNP, that an Aga can contribute
usefully to the space heating of the house. In that respect, when
one takes the broad view, rather than the narrow one that you have, it
is an efficient way of providing some of the space heating.

You don't need space heating for much of the time, and when you do, it's
far more sensible to direct it properly.


I also pointed out, that IME, it is a great way to cook once you learn
the techniques. I found that pretty easy, not everybody does.

So what. It's easy to cook with, although somewhat limited in effectuality.


Some people feel that they can only cook on a gas flame that they can
turn up and down because that is the only way they can control what's
going on. For them, that may be the case, but it certainly is not
the only way to do so.

An Aga or Rayburn is more akin to using electric cooking, with added lag
and hysteresis.


You have certainly missed mine!

There's none so blind as those that *will not* see.


Quite.

You seem to be in a small minority with your views. That's more telling
than smart-alec weaseling.

That's about it, really, unless you've something *startlingly* new or
interesting to say.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:33:30 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news

OK. I meant more in the context of carbohydrate-heavy, and any of
these tend to be of that genre even if they do have an apparently
light texture.

You mean like bread?

Some types, not others.

Such as?

Generally, those with larger amounts of grains, seeds, wholewheat,
even rye have lower glycaemic load than those at the white end of the
spectrum.




I suspect you mean the calorie content, which is more to do with the fat
element.


Both carbohydrates and fats contribute to calories, although it is
true to say that fats normally contain more calories for a given
weight than carbohydrates.

Indeed.

My primary objective is maintaining blood glucose levels, while the
secondary one is to control weight. My way of doing that is to look
more at glycaemic load, which is related to the proportion of
carbohydrate in a portion of food and its glycaemic index. Fat content
can be beneficial in certain instances, since it slows down the rate
of processing into the bloodstream.

In essence the way I do this is to avoid processed foods as much as
possible (especially any that are created for one formulaic fad diet
or another) and if I want to eat something that might be considered
to be high in one component or another, to balance that off against
something else or eat a very small quantity. It's effective and
sustainable and suits my needs

Background and some clinical references at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...ohydrates.html

I thought the GI was unfashionable, even discredited now :-) Allthough I'm
not a practising dietician I keep up with things.

It depends on what you are trying to do. GI on its own doesn't take
into account quantity. For example, water melon has a fairly high GI,
but its GL is low because it is mainly water. Thus, one can eat quite
a lot by weight and have relatively little impact. Watermelon juice
(if there is such a thing) would be a different proposition.

In terms of blood glucose control, GL certainly works well for me, but
may not for others - varies between individuals. Another aspect is
that it is quite common to be more sensitive to carbohydrates earlier
in the day than later. Thus, I also consider when I'm eating
different things.



Not going to look for my sources, I'm off to bed. The solar panel is now
installed, we're all tired and deserve a treat.

Treacle pudding tomorrow perhaps ... with cream. The hens are off-lay so
can't make custard. :-)

That's *really* a shame.

--

..andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:09:48 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:



Mine's been going since October. I will stop using it in April, perhaps.
A relative has a Stanley. There's another cooker next to it. His wife is
a very good cook indeed, perhaps a more "organic" and "vegetarian" than
the vast majority of cooks, but still, a very good cook. Stanley in
season, electric otherwise.
My grandmother had a Rayburn. In the dairy, she also had an electric
cooker, which was used sometimes in Winter, most other times.
My grandfather had in a place which had an Aga the like of which I've
never seen before, with at least two places you could put fuel in, and
lots of doors and lids and bits and pieces. I have no idea of the
capabilities of his cook or kitchen helper, but they were at least good.
Electric cooking apparatus also present.

I know others who have these things, similar stories.


I have made the point, and so did TNP, that an Aga can contribute
usefully to the space heating of the house. In that respect, when
one takes the broad view, rather than the narrow one that you have, it
is an efficient way of providing some of the space heating.

You don't need space heating for much of the time, and when you do, it's
far more sensible to direct it properly.

That depends on the house and the pattern of use.

I think that using the Aga as one of the heat sources in the house is
entirely reasonable since it's a fairly small proportion in the
winter, and covers more of the need for the rest of the year.



I also pointed out, that IME, it is a great way to cook once you learn
the techniques. I found that pretty easy, not everybody does.

So what. It's easy to cook with, although somewhat limited in effectuality.

I don't find that at all, and certainly don't limit myself to what is
cooked.




Some people feel that they can only cook on a gas flame that they can
turn up and down because that is the only way they can control what's
going on. For them, that may be the case, but it certainly is not
the only way to do so.

An Aga or Rayburn is more akin to using electric cooking, with added lag
and hysteresis.

???

It's not meant to be used like either, so this doesn't make sense as a
comparison.




You have certainly missed mine!

There's none so blind as those that *will not* see.


Quite.

You seem to be in a small minority with your views.

I have never been one to go with the herd, so thinking laterally is
fairly natural.


That's more telling
than smart-alec weaseling.

That's about it, really, unless you've something *startlingly* new or
interesting to say.

I've been clear about what I've done, what I've found and what I've
measured. The mileage of others may vary (to paraphrase).



--

..andy

snip

As for drying food out badly - mine
doesn't at all.

Then you are very lucky. Mine certainly did, and it's rather obvious
when one considers the effect of blowing air over things.


It is no different in that respect from an Aga, and
I used one of those dreadful things for a couple of years.

snip

Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).

Just spotted this
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx...fx2451468.html .
Electric Agas? Dafter and dafter!

cheers
Jacob

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

snip

As for drying food out badly - mine
doesn't at all.

Then you are very lucky. Mine certainly did, and it's rather obvious
when one considers the effect of blowing air over things.


It is no different in that respect from an Aga, and
I used one of those dreadful things for a couple of years.

snip

Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).

I can only tell you what I observed.

In terms of mechanisms, the two that seem obvious are a) that the fan
oven is not a closed system and b) that there is an effect from
blowing hot air over the contents. Air at higher temperatures has
considerably more water carrying capacity than it does at lower
temperatures. These are only suggestions of possibilities. The
observations were from side by side comparisons of doing the same
things.






--

..andy

"Edward W. Thompson" wrote in message

Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).

What an interesting question!

Mary

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Not going to look for my sources, I'm off to bed. The solar panel is now
installed, we're all tired and deserve a treat.

Treacle pudding tomorrow perhaps ... with cream. The hens are off-lay so
can't make custard. :-)

That's *really* a shame.

Are your hens still laying?

Mary

--

.andy

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:01:17 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On a day like today, when it's cold and drizzling outside, it's a real
pleasure to come in from an early morning walk, warm up, dry out and
have some toast of unassailable quality prepared on the Aga.

Funny how when Aga owners rant about their cookers the selling points
seem to be toast, stews and keeping the pets warm. Personally I don't
think that's worth the energy costs, but then again, unlike Aga owners I
can cook.

But what energy costs? Agas are MORE efficient than CH boilers.


Only when you don't need CH at all do they 'cost' and then we switch em
off.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:44:51 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:01:17 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On a day like today, when it's cold and drizzling outside, it's a real
pleasure to come in from an early morning walk, warm up, dry out and
have some toast of unassailable quality prepared on the Aga.
Funny how when Aga owners rant about their cookers the selling points
seem to be toast, stews and keeping the pets warm.

I don't need to sell anything in terms of cookers. Aga toast toast
is legendary,

And also the only advantage that Aga users can think of. It's also a
downright load of old ******** since I get better toast out of a toaster.

it is true; however one can cook anything else very well
also, and certainly better than can be achieved in fan ovens and the
like.

Bull.

Personally I don't
think that's worth the energy costs, but then again, unlike Aga owners I
can cook.

Generally people who criticise storage cookers have never tried one or
read something in a magazine, both of which make their comments
meaningless.

You pull that one every time I cxriticise Agas. I've owned both Agas and
Rayburns. I've also removed them for the inefficient pointless piles of
crap they are.

If they have tried one, then either they had a very
old or badly set up one or themselves are unable to cook, since it is
really very easy.

And very limited. No decent progessional chef uses and Aga. The ovens
are too small, and the temperature is never right.


Well it is right, if you take the trouble to set it up and use an internal
rack hung thermometer.


What it isn't, is rapidly and easily adjustable.

Which is why the pro chefs who have to produce just about anything in a
hurry won't use em.

Quiet a few have them a6 HOME though.


Aga owners cook in a particular way, the food they produce is **** but
they are used to eating it.

It can be ****, but then I vidily remember walking into a college friends
mothers immaculate and hige kitchen, and being invited to lunch..I thought
'wow, with a stove like that, and worktops everywhere, she miust be a real
good cook'

Imagine my disaapointment when te ginsodden woamn removed a load of frozen
burgers and chips from the deep freeze, shoved them on a tray in the oven,
and heated up a tin of baked beans..

**** food cvan be produced on any cooker.

Good food is understanding what you have and using it to its best. I've
produced excellent meals on a butane camping stove.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:49:31 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:


As the Aga lacks any form of controllable hob, has wildly fluctuating
oven temperatures and has no grill there are many things which can't
be done on it as well as on a conventional oven.

Never used a hob instead of an oven meself

Seriously though, totally agree on grilling and stir frying. The toast IS a
little better since it takes longer and its less violently heated. I
wouldn't 'die' for it though. Its good, but not that good.

The hob technique is simply a question of realising both the temperatures
on the hobs, and the inevitable deacy of those if you go in for prolonged
hob work, and the chances of dropping the oven temps if you do.

The aga is promarliy a damned good oven, the hobs are useful, but a lot of
modern style food seems to be based on what chefs can turn out in fancy
restaurants in 5 minutes - a lot of stir fry, grill and flash frying. The
Aga comes from a more lesiurely age when meals were preapred in advance.

I'd back roast meat and two veg in an aga aginst any competition anywhere.

Also cake and bread baking, pizzas and the like.

Thats it basically. If you want lightly seared tuna steaks on a bed of
couscous with roquette salad and a balsamic drizzled garnish, an aga is of
very little use to you.

If you want roast pork, roast potatoes, roast parsnips, red cabbage and
apple simmered for seveal hours in the bottom oven, hot plates and a place
to stand the Rioja to warm it, frankly an aga is unbeatable.

As ar as strir frying goes, even an electric hob is a real struggle. Only
gas really carries the hot gases up around the curved sides and heats a wok
properly, although I have had a fair successes on an openb charcoal fire.
We actually find that the best a;lternatie is to roast vegetables at the
top of the oven after tossng in a coating of oil.

Steaming is easy - put your puddings ins a 'bain marie' in the bottom
oven..

Scrambled eggs? again I use the microwave..it is far less likley to
separate the millk. Its also fantastic for CRISPY bacon..suaages and bacon
may be fried, but I tend to use the oven instead. Chips - REAL chips - are
done in a wok on te hot hob...whilst fried eggs are dne on teh cooler one

Pasta and sauces - its perfect. Garlic bread in the oven, sauce made on the
cooler hob, and the pasta boils on the hot hob.

The biggest danger of te aga - and its reputatin for gghahstly food - comes
from stupid housewives who have discocvered that the warming oven means
never having to time your meals properly..meat that gest cooked too early,
and just about anything else, goes in there to wait for te veg to be ready.
Result is soggy and disgusting.

But then in any other scenario, it would be worse - over cooked meat or raw
vegetables..

Serious grilling of
any sort and stir frying are two obvious examples (yes - I know Aga
will sell you a vastly overpriced Philip Harben frying pan they call
a "flat bottom wok" but I prefer a real wok).

As I said, those are not really much good even on an electric hob.


and certainly better than can be achieved in fan ovens and the
like.

Matthew Fort of the Gruniad has written a rather nice piece on the
Aga
(http://www.waitrose.com/food_drink/w...cs/0509032.asp)

"It is a life-support, lifestyle system designed for people who don't
really like cooking, who like playing at cooking, for whom the image
of cooking is more important than the reality."


Ther are sadly a lot of aga owners like that. There are also a fair few who
are not.

"To take one small example, let us say that you want to cook a
traditional Sunday lunch for a group of eight: roast meat, roast
potatoes, Yorkshire puddings, carrots, greens of some variety, gravy
and a nice treacle tart. That's not unreasonable is it?

Well, you can forget about the Yorkshire pudding and the treacle tart
for a start. You see, when you start opening and shutting those
boiling plates and simmering plates (to cook the veg and make the
gravy), you immediately start reducing the heat in the ovens (which
is being reduced anyway because you are cooking the meat in one of
them and continually opening the others as you try to keep things
warm or cook them). If you're lucky, you will just about get the fat
hot enough to roast the potatoes, but you'll have to make the treacle
tart the day before and nothing, but nothing, will save the Yorkshire
puddings. They will be as flabby as an old man's dewlap. My mother
was unable to make a decent Yorkshire pudding in the 30 years she
cooked on an Aga. Of course, you could sacrifice the roast potatoes,
but that isn't a serious option in our house.

This is just rotten technique.

We use roasting dishes with covers that can be removed to adjust teh heat,
make sure the oven is hot to start with, and te majority of te roasting is
done BEFIRE teh vegetables are set to boil.

The treacle tart goes in just as the main course is removed, at the top of
te hot oven, which will be down from its 210C to about 180C - just right
for te tart. By the time the main course is finsihed, the tart will be
perfect.

The yiorkshire puds go in late, on te oven top, when te meat has been put
in te bottom oven to alow the temperature to stabilise. Its better than
'tresting it' as the outside cools off less.

The gravy and te veg are all doen last of all on the top whils the roast
potatoes are still roasting and the puds are baking.


I grew up with an Aga. I would like to say that I learnt to cook on
an Aga but it simply wouldn't be true. As a cook, you learn survival
techniques on an Aga; how to get by, how to rescue disaster, how to
take pleasure in small triumphs. But you don't learn how to cook. "


It sounds like he still can't.

Bad workman etc.

I learnt to cook on a one ring gas hob in college.


Generally people who criticise storage cookers have never tried one or
read something in a magazine, both of which make their comments
meaningless. If they have tried one, then either they had a very
old or badly set up one or themselves are unable to cook, since it is
really very easy.

Of course it is easy as it limits what you can do - it is glorified
haybox cooking. The one I had was perfectly well set up by Aga.
Every six months its own fitter turned up to service it at vast
expense (and this also meant three days downtime - one to cool, one
to be serviced and one to heat up again) - a cooker that needs 6
monthly servicing - I ask you! (I didn't own it BTW). However you
looked at from any objective viewpoint it was large, obsolete and
inefficient. As Fort says:-


Mad. I turn mine off the night before, the man comes in and is gone again
by 2pm, and its up o temp by teh time the next meal is readu to be cooked -
or would be if the annual service awasn;t arrianged to coincide with the
summer, when its off anyway.

This must ahve been an old coal fired one...those are vile, but when you
haven't got an elternative, they do work..just. however they need to be
filled up with coal at least 4 hours before cooking starts, because any
attempt to pile coal on later will simply LOWER teh temperature.


"So what precisely is an Aga? An icon, a status symbol, a domestic
statement, and a companion to the golden retriever, the faded jeans
with the crease down the legs and the Ralph Lauren something or
other, the four-wheel drive, the 2.4 children called Jack and Daisy
and Ch-, and the holiday home in Tuscany. An Aga is anything but a
machine to cook on.


No, its a n attactive space heater, that can be harnessed to provide free
energy for a certain style of traditional cooking, which it does very well
indeed.

IF you have the intelligence to understand how it works.


Think of it like the ancient family retriever: much loved, but dozy
and smelly and with dodgy back legs. It's time to have it put down. "

Another good article is at
http://www.ovolopublishing.co.uk/hou...-aga-help.html

"The Aga cookbook is full of Aga versions of recipes. They can take a
very simple conventional recipe ("Cook for two hours at 200 degrees
C") and turn it into a major epic ("Put on the boiling plate for ten
minutes. Cover and move to the simmering plate for 30 minutes.
Transfer to a shallow pan and leave it in the simmering oven
overnight. Finish off with 45 minutes in the baking oven before
serving.")"

Even Agas own suggestion for making something as simple as a steamed
pudding (6 mins in microwave) is a masterpiece of fiddle - "Boil hard
on the boiling plate for 10 minutes, before moving to the simmering
plate for a further 20 minutes. Check to see if it needs topping
up... After this initial 30 minute start, transfer the whole pan,
water and all, to the simmering oven for 2 1/2 hours" (The 6 min
microwave version also tastes rather better than the Aga one).

It doesn't actually.


Other cooks have remarked similarly:-

"it does have a major drawback - it is most certainly not an accurate
cooking tool that can maintain a uniform temperature without
fluctuation. Leave one of the lids up and the temperature drops;
leave both lids up and it drops even more; open the oven door and it
plummets dramatically. We discovered this flaw while trying to cook a
piece of pork shoulder at 70C for 12 hours. At such a low
temperature, a 10C drop meant that the meat would not cook. In fact,
we soon worked out that the temperature fluctuations were up to 25%
in either direction, and when my wife telephoned Aga to inquire about
this, she was told that it was quite normal."

"depending on what we were making, we had to make sure that nothing
else was being cooked on top, to open and close the oven door to cool
it down, to leave the oven door open for a few minutes or switch the
meat from one oven to another."


I have never found it that bad.

You do get an imediate drop on opening te doors, but it son goes away - the
air mass is trivial compared to the mass of the cast iron.

Using tehobs does reduce oven temperarres - but not by 25%. I see about a
30 deg C variation on 200-210 C on tehe maoin oven, and a lot less on te
cool oven - noramlly from around 105C down to 95C or so.

The chap who wrote that probably came under your heading of "are
unable to cook", his name is Hester Blumenthal.


Yep. a nouvae ****** undoubtedly.

Other celebrity chefs of course are quite effusive in their
endorsement - Jamie Oliver waxes lyrical about them as underwear
dryers omitting to mention that Aga paid him "undisclosed amounts" to
supply and fit an oven for him. Other Agas regularly appear because
the shows producers "happen" to have one fitted free by Aga in the
kitchen they use for filming (usually the producers own kitchen). As
Aga said "Our famous customers come to us because we are discreet,
and we do not discuss the arrangements we have with them,". It's
nice to know you are contributing to such worthy causes when buying
an Aga :-).

I don't think they are the greatest cookers ever made, and people
who buy them as fashion statements won;t be able to cook on them
just by gazing at pictures in magainbes, either.

But they are servicable enough if you take the trouble to play to their
strengths and work around the weaknesses.

I didn't buy ours purely as a cooker. Its there to add warmth (phsyical and
aesthetic) to a very large kitchen, and being well aware of its
limitations, it has the aga companion electric cooker bolted on the side
(which has even SMALLER ovens..)

That plus a microwave covers all the bases we need.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:25:39 GMT, Ophelia wrote:

an Aga :-).

Thank you Peter. That is the kind of personal experience I was looking
for. It seems to me you are correct in that it is in fact "a status
symbol". Unfortunately some people will pay a fortune for such a thing
and yet others like to be in the middle of it by pretending to have
knowledge and make 'clever' comments It is something I decided I
would have when we moved to the right house but you have changed my
mind.

Peter is doing something that needs to be dine, debunking the aga myth, but
be aware that much of that polemic is actually false. It exagerrates for
reasons of making good copy, and although I too have eaten some execrable
meals cooked on or in agas, I have also eaten some fine ones - very fine
ones.

I would urge you to take a more balanced view.

In terms of rapid modern food, with kit that enables crap cooks to turn out
average meals fast, agas don't score well.

In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design (in a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or gas
boiler, that is also capable of fulfilling cooking needs to a very large
extent IF YOU TAKE THE TROUBLE TO UNDERSTAND how it works, it has no
peer..But if at all possible, hedge yor bets. If you are on gas, get a gas
hob as well - the gas aga companion is actually nice - electric ovens, gas
hob, and a gas aga is the best of all worls..and on oil with no gas the
electric companion is also advantageous.

Undesrtanding the nature of the beast is the key to getting the best out of
it, Not all cooks can grasp engineering principles - they have little idea
of food chemistry and what cooking actually does, either.

As I say, we have both. We don't boil kettles on the aga, but we don;t
normally use the electric cooker either. Only when doing a meal for 10-12
people..then we need te extar space. Its OK, but nothing special, The Aga
is special, but takes time to develop the proper relationship with...

"A whore is easy to meet..."

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:51:31 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:30:45 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:




Thanks Andy but your description of how you have to make jam was enough
to put me off. I make enough jam in the summer time for it to matter!


The method's strightforward enough, and results identical to or better
than achievable on a hob.


Yes. For example, the use of e.g. Le Creuset cast riron pots that are
equally at home on the hobs or in the oven is one useful trick.

Sizziling up onions and browning off meat before adding stock to simmer in
the oven becomes second nature.

Using the ovens in summertines insead of having stuff on the simmer on top
of a conventional cooker also reduces kitchen heat.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:03:36 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...




I'm not sure why people eat stodgy rubbish like steamed puddings
anyway,

Oh Andy! Steamed puddings are anything BUT stodgy - they're light and airy
(if made properly) and I wish I could afford to eat them more often.
Nothing
todo with finances - the waistline you understand ...


Even like that, which we can do, they still have too high a glycaemic
load for me to eat more than a tiny amount, so typically we don't
bother with them.

But you SAID they were stodgy!




We periodically do an overnight roast in the simmering oven and it
always works very well. Obviously one should always thaw it first
and check with a meat thermometer and start and end of cooking. THat
is the case regardless of the method of cooking.

Why a thermometer?


In the case of meat, I don't like it to be overcooked, although
obviously in the case of pork or poultry, one has to be sure that it
is enough.

You mean you can't tell its condition by sight and resilience?

I was once given a meat thermometer. Most people try to give me food related
presents, they know my passion. Because it was a present from someone I
loved I used it. I could see no value in it at all so it somehow became lost
... as do many gadgets. They're simply not necessary.


Thery are not if you have learn by trail and experience yoyr standard cuts
and the oven..but in terms of when e.g. you are doing a dibner party, with
a larger chuink than yoiu normally use, or of a different cut, they are so
cheap, that to not have one seems a waste.

KNOWING that youy beef is EXACTLY rare in the middle enables you to get it
more right.

And knowing that your turkey isn't dangerously raw in its armpits and
crotch is also very useful.


Mary

On 15 Jan 2006 10:09:23 -0800, wrote:

700W. Aga quote weekly gas consumption for a 4 oven model at 527kW
per week, yours seems to use much less. Aga quote the maximum power

Strewth 527kW per week? Our last (typical) gas bill is for 336kW per
QUARTER and we do a fair amount of cooking - not as much as some on
this thread but more than the average household I'd guess.

cheers
Jacob

Yes, but what did you spend on heating the house?

That heat doesn't go up the chimney, it heats the kitchen.

Reducing CH needs.

If you are telling me you can get through a winter on 336KW of total heat
per quarter, then you mnust live inside a polystyrene block.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:52:09 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:55:38 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:29:11 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

The list is perfectly reasonable for any gas appliance.

Hands up all those that had their rope seals and vermiculite levels
checked on the last gas boiler servicing.

Mm. Of course if te vermiculite is in poor sahpe, it WILL bleed 700-600W
instead of 50-600W...

Since its normal to whip the hobs off anway, that check is about 15 seconds
worth of activity.

And at least on an aga the doors fit well enough for te rope seals to be
something worth checking - unlike many electric cookers I have had that
simply need to be twisted straight before you can SHUT the door.

Actually all the oil fired aga needs is the feed pipe annually cleared of
carbon build up - the rest you check on a 3-5 years basis.

On 15 Jan 2006 01:50:27 -0800, wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 08:03:11 -0800, wrote:


Andy Hall wrote:

Contrast this with our former arrangement of a fan oven and gas hob,
it could work out that when cooking a complex meal that 10-12kW or
more is released from this lot. Then the windows have to be opened
wide to maintain a sensible temperature. That's what I call a waste.

My last gas bill shows 336KWh for the quarter which is about 3.3KW per
day.
Your estimate equals 16.8 KW per day. Thats what I call waste.

No, because the heat is virtually all used within the house and may be
subtracted from the consumption of the other heating systems.

So, if my gas cooker was 1/5th as efficient this would be a good thing
as "the heat is virtually all used within the house and may be
subtracted from the consumption of the other heating systems"? Righto
I'll make a point of leaving it on unecessarily, and remove all the
insulation from around the oven!
cheers
Jacob

It is more ffeicient than teh gas boiler you use.

Sadly it also priduces a lot of water vapour.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:22:03 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 01:50:27 -0800, wrote:


Andy Hall wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 08:03:11 -0800, wrote:


Andy Hall wrote:

Contrast this with our former arrangement of a fan oven and gas hob,
it could work out that when cooking a complex meal that 10-12kW or
more is released from this lot. Then the windows have to be opened
wide to maintain a sensible temperature. That's what I call a waste.

My last gas bill shows 336KWh for the quarter which is about 3.3KW per
day.
Your estimate equals 16.8 KW per day. Thats what I call waste.

No, because the heat is virtually all used within the house and may be
subtracted from the consumption of the other heating systems.

So, if my gas cooker was 1/5th as efficient this would be a good thing
as "the heat is virtually all used within the house and may be
subtracted from the consumption of the other heating systems"? Righto
I'll make a point of leaving it on unecessarily, and remove all the
insulation from around the oven!
cheers
Jacob

I think that you must have missed my point.

The Aga produces heat at a virtually constant rate of around 700W.

It is released in part in the kitchen and in part from the lower parts
of the flue where it usefully warms the house.

The cooking techniques are different from conventional cookers in that
there are a wide range of temperatures available across the four ovens
and a large proportion of cooking operations that would be done on the
top on a conventional cooker are done in the ovens. Thus, the top
plates, proportionately, are not used as much as the ovens.

A conventional set up of a cooker or a cooker and hob is quite
different. Firstly, insulation is comparatively poor for the oven and
large amounts of heat (2-3kW) are released into the room when it is
running. Secondly, the designs are poor. The one-size-fits-all fan
oven is one of the worst services to proper cooking ever invented. It
limits the range of temperatures available and dries the food badly.
There needs to be much more use of the hob. At around 2-3kW per
burner, it is very easy to be producing 10-12kW released into a small
space in the kitchen while cooking.

That is the essential point. There is no value in having this amount
of heat released into a small space because it will overheat it,
necessitating opening of the windows. At that point, the heat is
wasted. This is a very different proposition to having 700W released
on a continuous basis and forming part of the heating of the house. If
you think about the amount of heat required to heat a room in a
typical house (whatever that is), it is generally much closer to 700W
than 10kW.


Actually, in midl equuinioctal weather, you need a couple of hundred
watts,if that, to heat a smallish room.

I agree Agas in small well insulated kitchens simply are stupid.
We have an aneormous kitchen and open doors through to orgerareas - and a
bedroiom above, It heats the lot. Except in freezing weather,

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:42:36 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:06:24 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
[ about Agas/Rayburns ]
I think that you must have missed my point.

Yes I have - what is it exactly?

That, flying in the face of reality as shown by replies here, and
other *real world* experience, he's right, and everyone else is wrong?

Do you actually have an Aga, or have you ever used or lived in a house
with one? If you haven't, then how would you be in a position to
comment either way?

I have made the point, and so did TNP, that an Aga can contribute
usefully to the space heating of the house. In that respect, when
one takes the broad view, rather than the narrow one that you have, it
is an efficient way of providing some of the space heating.

I also pointed out, that IME, it is a great way to cook once you learn
the techniques. I found that pretty easy, not everybody does.

Some people feel that they can only cook on a gas flame that they can
turn up and down because that is the only way they can control what's
going on. For them, that may be the case, but it certainly is not
the only way to do so.


You have certainly missed mine!

There's none so blind as those that *will not* see.

Quite.

And there it is. The balanced view.

It works in some sutuations for some cooking styles.

It suits my situation and MOST of my cooking styles. I like it.

It doesn't f in a modern well insulated house with a pokey kitchem,
toflash fry ditzy food from the Guardian color section

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But what energy costs? Agas are MORE efficient than CH boilers.

That's complete nonsense, surely? How can an open-flued non-condensing
appliance possibly compete with a modern condensing gas boiler?

--
Andy

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:25:39 GMT, Ophelia wrote:

an Aga :-).

Thank you Peter. That is the kind of personal experience I was
looking
for. It seems to me you are correct in that it is in fact "a status
symbol". Unfortunately some people will pay a fortune for such a
thing
and yet others like to be in the middle of it by pretending to have
knowledge and make 'clever' comments It is something I decided I
would have when we moved to the right house but you have changed my
mind.

Peter is doing something that needs to be dine, debunking the aga
myth, but
be aware that much of that polemic is actually false. It exagerrates
for
reasons of making good copy, and although I too have eaten some
execrable
meals cooked on or in agas, I have also eaten some fine ones - very
fine
ones.

I would urge you to take a more balanced view.

In terms of rapid modern food, with kit that enables crap cooks to
turn out
average meals fast, agas don't score well.

In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design
(in a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or
gas
boiler, that is also capable of fulfilling cooking needs to a very
large
extent IF YOU TAKE THE TROUBLE TO UNDERSTAND how it works, it has no
peer..But if at all possible, hedge yor bets. If you are on gas, get a
gas
hob as well - the gas aga companion is actually nice - electric
ovens, gas
hob, and a gas aga is the best of all worls..and on oil with no gas
the
electric companion is also advantageous.

Undesrtanding the nature of the beast is the key to getting the best
out of
it, Not all cooks can grasp engineering principles - they have little
idea
of food chemistry and what cooking actually does, either.

As I say, we have both. We don't boil kettles on the aga, but we don;t
normally use the electric cooker either. Only when doing a meal for
10-12
people..then we need te extar space. Its OK, but nothing special, The
Aga
is special, but takes time to develop the proper relationship with...

Thank you I will give it some thought

O

Ophelia wrote:
[ snip waffle ]

If you must wibble everywhere you go, at least learn to snip.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
wrote:


Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).

I don't think there is a difference. Certainly I have never observed
one. The claim first appeared in the advertisements of a number of
"range" cooker manufacturers in the mid 1920's and in Aga advertising
in the early 1930's.

I suspect it arose because the competition they were facing in those
days came mainly from one gas cooker, the Radiation Ltd New World
H16, which was the first cooker to incorporate thermostatic control
(using a similar modulation system to the one now used in the gas
Aga). Introduced in 1923, one year before the Aga was made, it was
probably the biggest single advance in cooker technology of the
century. This cooker and its successors virtually killed off the
range stove industry over the next two decades.

Because it used an open gas flame at the back of the oven it had to
have a vent at the top and a constant air flow to keep the flame
burning. The range cooker manufacturers, all of whose designs used
more or less sealed boxes, jumped upon this as a flaw and claimed the
airflow dried out food cooking in the oven. Aga have used the claim
ever since.





--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

....

... ditzy food from the Guardian color section

Round here they don't use newspapers to wrap chips any more.

Mary

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:46:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design (in a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or gas
boiler,

They are not more efficient than a modern oil or gas boiler - the
range cooker industry even had to negotiate a category of their own
for water heating because they found it difficult to reach even 85%
efficiency, most still wallow around 75%.

But if at all possible, hedge yor bets. If you are on gas, get a gas
hob as well - the gas aga companion is actually nice - electric ovens, gas
hob, and a gas aga is the best of all worls..and on oil with no gas the
electric companion is also advantageous.

Something else which needs to be factored in is price. A new four
oven gas Aga today costs over GBP 7,000. If you want the companion
module - a simple double oven and hob it adds a staggering GBP 2,600.
On top of that you need to add the cost of reinforcing the floor.

GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:46:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design (in a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or gas
boiler,

They are not more efficient than a modern oil or gas boiler - the
range cooker industry even had to negotiate a category of their own
for water heating because they found it difficult to reach even 85%
efficiency, most still wallow around 75%.

We weren't discussing water heating. Other than as a backup in case
of electricity failure, it isn't interesting to heat water cylinders
at a rate of 3-5kW.

In terms of space heating, if one compares flue temperatures at exit
from the house it is clear that a gas Aga with conventional flue is
very efficient.




But if at all possible, hedge yor bets. If you are on gas, get a gas
hob as well - the gas aga companion is actually nice - electric ovens, gas
hob, and a gas aga is the best of all worls..and on oil with no gas the
electric companion is also advantageous.

Something else which needs to be factored in is price.

Why?

A new four
oven gas Aga today costs over GBP 7,000. If you want the companion
module - a simple double oven and hob it adds a staggering GBP 2,600.
On top of that you need to add the cost of reinforcing the floor.

Why would you need to reinforce a concrete floor?



GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

1) At the measured rate of 700W, at a gas price of 2p a unit, that
adds up to around £120.

2) You may have had mediochre performance with some old model at some
point in the past. I achieve rather better.




--

..andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:35:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Thats it basically. If you want lightly seared tuna steaks on a bed of
couscous with roquette salad and a balsamic drizzled garnish, an aga is of
very little use to you.

I disagree. I can sear oily fish very well on the griddle. I don't
bother with the couscous and limit the balsamico.



If you want roast pork, roast potatoes, roast parsnips, red cabbage and
apple simmered for seveal hours in the bottom oven, hot plates and a place
to stand the Rioja to warm it, frankly an aga is unbeatable.

As ar as strir frying goes, even an electric hob is a real struggle. Only
gas really carries the hot gases up around the curved sides and heats a wok
properly, although I have had a fair successes on an openb charcoal fire.
We actually find that the best a;lternatie is to roast vegetables at the
top of the oven after tossng in a coating of oil.

Steaming is easy - put your puddings ins a 'bain marie' in the bottom
oven..

Scrambled eggs? again I use the microwave..it is far less likley to
separate the millk. Its also fantastic for CRISPY bacon..suaages and bacon
may be fried, but I tend to use the oven instead. Chips - REAL chips - are
done in a wok on te hot hob...whilst fried eggs are dne on teh cooler one

Pasta and sauces - its perfect. Garlic bread in the oven, sauce made on the
cooler hob, and the pasta boils on the hot hob.

The biggest danger of te aga - and its reputatin for gghahstly food - comes
from stupid housewives who have discocvered that the warming oven means
never having to time your meals properly..meat that gest cooked too early,
and just about anything else, goes in there to wait for te veg to be ready.
Result is soggy and disgusting.

Unnecessary as well. Timing is pretty easy.




"To take one small example, let us say that you want to cook a
traditional Sunday lunch for a group of eight: roast meat, roast
potatoes, Yorkshire puddings, carrots, greens of some variety, gravy
and a nice treacle tart. That's not unreasonable is it?

Well, you can forget about the Yorkshire pudding and the treacle tart
for a start. You see, when you start opening and shutting those
boiling plates and simmering plates (to cook the veg and make the
gravy), you immediately start reducing the heat in the ovens (which
is being reduced anyway because you are cooking the meat in one of
them and continually opening the others as you try to keep things
warm or cook them). If you're lucky, you will just about get the fat
hot enough to roast the potatoes, but you'll have to make the treacle
tart the day before and nothing, but nothing, will save the Yorkshire
puddings. They will be as flabby as an old man's dewlap. My mother
was unable to make a decent Yorkshire pudding in the 30 years she
cooked on an Aga. Of course, you could sacrifice the roast potatoes,
but that isn't a serious option in our house.

This is just rotten technique.

We use roasting dishes with covers that can be removed to adjust teh heat,
make sure the oven is hot to start with, and te majority of te roasting is
done BEFIRE teh vegetables are set to boil.

.... or they can be refreshed instead.



The treacle tart goes in just as the main course is removed, at the top of
te hot oven, which will be down from its 210C to about 180C - just right
for te tart. By the time the main course is finsihed, the tart will be
perfect.

The yiorkshire puds go in late, on te oven top, when te meat has been put
in te bottom oven to alow the temperature to stabilise. Its better than
'tresting it' as the outside cools off less.

The gravy and te veg are all doen last of all on the top whils the roast
potatoes are still roasting and the puds are baking.





Other cooks have remarked similarly:-

"it does have a major drawback - it is most certainly not an accurate
cooking tool that can maintain a uniform temperature without
fluctuation. Leave one of the lids up and the temperature drops;
leave both lids up and it drops even more; open the oven door and it
plummets dramatically. We discovered this flaw while trying to cook a
piece of pork shoulder at 70C for 12 hours. At such a low
temperature, a 10C drop meant that the meat would not cook. In fact,
we soon worked out that the temperature fluctuations were up to 25%
in either direction, and when my wife telephoned Aga to inquire about
this, she was told that it was quite normal."

"depending on what we were making, we had to make sure that nothing
else was being cooked on top, to open and close the oven door to cool
it down, to leave the oven door open for a few minutes or switch the
meat from one oven to another."


I have never found it that bad.

You do get an imediate drop on opening te doors, but it son goes away - the
air mass is trivial compared to the mass of the cast iron.

Using tehobs does reduce oven temperarres - but not by 25%. I see about a
30 deg C variation on 200-210 C on tehe maoin oven, and a lot less on te
cool oven - noramlly from around 105C down to 95C or so.

The chap who wrote that probably came under your heading of "are
unable to cook", his name is Hester Blumenthal.


Yep. a nouvae ****** undoubtedly.

Runs a restaurant in Bray which isn't bad, although he does specialise
in scrambled egg flavoured ice cream.





--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:46:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Something else which needs to be factored in is price.

Why?

I wondered that too. If you want something you pay for it. If you want the
best you pay for it.

A son bought an all singing all dancing cooker in stainless steel, which I
wouldn't give house room. It cost a LOT of money but it's what he wanted and
he can afford it (hmm, I wonder if that was the meaning behind the
question?).

His cooker does have the advantage over mine in that its large oven will
accommodate a pig's head or a proper whole ham. I'll be using in it at some
time but it wouldn't be worth my having an oven as huge as that for most of
my cooking.

Each to his own.

A new four
oven gas Aga today costs over GBP 7,000. If you want the companion
module - a simple double oven and hob it adds a staggering GBP 2,600.
On top of that you need to add the cost of reinforcing the floor.

Why would you need to reinforce a concrete floor?

Or a solid earth one or a stone flagged one or... well, perhaps if you have
a flimsy modern house it might be necessary. Our 1930s wooden floorboards
didn't sag at all.

Mary

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:46:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design (in
a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or gas
boiler,

They are not more efficient than a modern oil or gas boiler - the
range cooker industry even had to negotiate a category of their own
for water heating because they found it difficult to reach even 85%
efficiency, most still wallow around 75%.

We weren't discussing water heating. Other than as a backup in case
of electricity failure, it isn't interesting to heat water cylinders
at a rate of 3-5kW.

In terms of space heating, if one compares flue temperatures at exit
from the house it is clear that a gas Aga with conventional flue is
very efficient.


Come on Andy, The flue of an Aga has a draught break which entrains lots of
cool air so any temperature after such flu break is NOT an indicator of
efficiency
I used to laugh when I came across test point holes drilled after flue
breaks, usually with service record cards dutifully filled in with
combustion analyser results taken straight out of the manual but quite
obviously not the readings from the point :-(

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



I wondered that too. If you want something you pay for it. If you want the
best you pay for it.

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it. If you want
it for "lifestyle" reasons then of course logic and cost is
irrelevant. If you want to buy a cooker then both price and
performance are usually important factors.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
His cooker does have the advantage over mine in that its large oven
will accommodate a pig's head

As marketing slogans go I'm sure this one will work g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:16:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Something else which needs to be factored in is price.

Why?

Because most people have to buy things and both cost and performance
are factors. When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

1) At the measured rate of 700W, at a gas price of 2p a unit, that
adds up to around £120.

Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier. That is
significantly more than I spend on heating the whole house, the hot
water and all the cooking fuel for a complete year.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/