I seem to be short on pans, and am preparing pates for a party. Why do the
recipe books always specify cooking in a water bath? What about just baking
ina low oven?

Thanks for advice!

"Theo" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message
news
> I seem to be short on pans, and am preparing pates for a party. Why do the
> recipe books always specify cooking in a water bath? What about just
baking
> ina low oven?
>
> Thanks for advice!
>
>

The water acts as a heat sink and aids in constant cooking temperature.
Your oven set on low will vary the temp.

Jack Calor

"Theo" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message
news
> I seem to be short on pans, and am preparing pates for a party. Why do the
> recipe books always specify cooking in a water bath? What about just
baking
> ina low oven?
>
> Thanks for advice!
>
>

The water bath ensures that the pate never gets too hot and that the heat is
evenly distributed. For the best results I would not omit the water bath.
You could use one of those cheap disposable aluminum pans.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Theo" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message
news
> I seem to be short on pans, and am preparing pates for a party. Why do the
> recipe books always specify cooking in a water bath? What about just
baking
> ina low oven?
>
> Thanks for advice!

Like the others said - it's not a good idea. The problem is not with the
elimination of the water, the problem is your oven can not be trusted to
bake evenly in all areas ergo the water to regulate the bottom of the pan to
210 degrees.

Dimitri

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Theo" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message
> news
> > I seem to be short on pans, and am preparing pates for a party. Why do
the
> > recipe books always specify cooking in a water bath? What about just
> baking
> > ina low oven?
> >
> > Thanks for advice!
>
> Like the others said - it's not a good idea. The problem is not with the
> elimination of the water, the problem is your oven can not be trusted to
> bake evenly in all areas ergo the water to regulate the bottom of the pan
to
> 210 degrees.
>
> Dimitri

Darn fingers - 212 degrees

:-)

Dimitri

OK, I'm convinced! Thanks for the various perspectives, which are entirely
convincing.

It now makes me wonder - why bother with the oven at all? I remember once
(because it was SOOO fattening) cooking a real suet pudding the traditional
way, and having the same thought. Why not just simmer the pate (or pudding)
inside a large covered pot on the stovetop?

"Theo" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message
...
> OK, I'm convinced! Thanks for the various perspectives, which are entirely
> convincing.
>
> It now makes me wonder - why bother with the oven at all? I remember once
> (because it was SOOO fattening) cooking a real suet pudding the
traditional
> way, and having the same thought. Why not just simmer the pate (or
pudding)
> inside a large covered pot on the stovetop?

Browning the top.

Dimitri

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:18:50 GMT, "Theo" (reply
w/o spam)> wrote:

>OK, I'm convinced! Thanks for the various perspectives, which are entirely
>convincing.
>
>It now makes me wonder - why bother with the oven at all? I remember once
>(because it was SOOO fattening) cooking a real suet pudding the traditional
>way, and having the same thought. Why not just simmer the pate (or pudding)
>inside a large covered pot on the stovetop?

Doubtless possible (with water in the bottom). Not much different than
a steamed pudding, no? However, I favor following recipe directions,
at least for the first go. There are plenty of pates that *aren't*
cooked after assembling -- I seem to remember something with pureed
(cooked) chicken livers, brandy, butter, cream, and possibly geletin
that was simply chilled before serving. And pretty darned good. I
cook biscuits on a baking sheet in a convection oven, yet from many
reports, they can turn out quite well in a covered cast-iron pot in a
campfire.

[Thoughts: the water bath not only keeps the temperature even, but
must have a little anti-drying-out action. Many pates are cooked in a
pan lined with fat, or with a fat wrapping, which would also keep the
edges of the pate from becoming crispy.]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:12:10 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:18:50 GMT, "Theo" (reply
>w/o spam)> wrote:
>
>>OK, I'm convinced! Thanks for the various perspectives, which are entirely
>>convincing.
>>
>>It now makes me wonder - why bother with the oven at all? I remember once
>>(because it was SOOO fattening) cooking a real suet pudding the traditional
>>way, and having the same thought. Why not just simmer the pate (or pudding)
>>inside a large covered pot on the stovetop?
>
>Doubtless possible (with water in the bottom). Not much different than
>a steamed pudding, no? However, I favor following recipe directions,
>at least for the first go. There are plenty of pates that *aren't*
>cooked after assembling -- I seem to remember something with pureed
>(cooked) chicken livers, brandy, butter, cream, and possibly geletin
>that was simply chilled before serving. And pretty darned good. I
>cook biscuits on a baking sheet in a convection oven, yet from many
>reports, they can turn out quite well in a covered cast-iron pot in a
>campfire.
>
>[Thoughts: the water bath not only keeps the temperature even, but
>must have a little anti-drying-out action. Many pates are cooked in a
>pan lined with fat, or with a fat wrapping, which would also keep the
>edges of the pate from becoming crispy.]

patay?