Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking directions. The
label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a cooked ham that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier than planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 pound ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to me. I've never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked didn't take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better read labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. Thanks. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
> wrote:
> Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the > label/cooking directions. The label says "ready to cook", > so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a cooked ham that I > just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier > than planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per > pound. It's a 12 pound ham. That works out to 300 minutes or > five hours. Seems a long time to me. I've never had anything > in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked didn't > take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? Yes, that's reasonable. Cook it as directed (use an oven thermometer if you have one). You should be fine. It may well turn out better than a pre-cooked ham might have. Steve |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >,
sf > wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:08:29 -0500, wrote: > > >Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking directions. > >The > >label says "ready to cook" > > This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. > If that's a fresh ham, it's not going to taste at all like what you > expected. So, be prepared. Well, if he said it "looks like a cooked ham", it's not likely to be a "fresh" ham (uncured and unsmoked). -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:24:54 -0500, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:08:29 -0500, wrote: > >>Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking directions. The >>label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a cooked ham >>that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier than >>planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 pound >>ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to me. I've >>never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked didn't >>take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better read >>labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. Thanks. > >You still refuse to say what brand of ham, you ****ing worthless low >IQ piece of shit douchebag. > Well arent' you a real asshole. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:24:54 -0500, brooklyn1 > > wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:08:29 -0500, wrote: >> >>>Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking >>>directions. The >>>label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a >>>cooked ham >>>that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier >>>than >>>planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 >>>pound >>>ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to >>>me. I've >>>never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked >>>didn't >>>take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better >>>read >>>labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. >>>Thanks. >> >>You still refuse to say what brand of ham, you ****ing worthless low >>IQ piece of shit douchebag. >> > Well arent' you a real asshole. He really is. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
<rfdjr1@ wrote
> brooklyn1 wrote: >>You still refuse to say what brand of ham, you ****ing worthless low >>IQ piece of shit douchebag. >> > Well arent' you a real asshole. Thats just Sheldon at Xmas. You know that kindergarden grade for 'plays well with others'? He still gets 'progressing towards'. Hope the ham came out nicely! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
cshenk wrote:
>> Well arent' you a real asshole. > > Thats just Sheldon at Xmas. You know that kindergarden grade for 'plays > well with others'? He still gets 'progressing towards'. To be fair, Sheldon is (non-practicing) Jewish, so Christmas doesn't hold any special significance for him. Bob |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:57:24 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> cshenk wrote: > >>> Well arent' you a real asshole. >> >> Thats just Sheldon at Xmas. You know that kindergarden grade for 'plays >> well with others'? He still gets 'progressing towards'. > > To be fair, Sheldon is (non-practicing) Jewish, so Christmas doesn't hold > any special significance for him. > > Bob ....but he does whip up a batch of eggnog spiked with crystal palace. your pal, blake |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:24:54 -0500, brooklyn1 > > wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:08:29 -0500, wrote: >> >>>Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking >>>directions. The >>>label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a >>>cooked ham >>>that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier >>>than >>>planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 >>>pound >>>ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to >>>me. I've >>>never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked >>>didn't >>>take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better >>>read >>>labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. >>>Thanks. >> >>You still refuse to say what brand of ham, you ****ing worthless low >>IQ piece of shit douchebag. >> > Well arent' you a real asshole. I see that you have met sheldon. Whatever you might have lacked in identifying this ham, you sure make up for in character recognition. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the a-hole
who needed to know the manufacturer), apparently was cured but needed to be cooked. It spent five hours in the oven with the probe thermometer monitoring it. I basted it the last half hour. I had quite a bit of trepidation about how it was going to come out (for you who wants to know the make of the ham, you'll probably have to look up trepidation as it has several sylables). But it came out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be doing it again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! Happy Holidays to all minus one. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >,
wrote: > Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the > a-hole > who needed to know the manufacturer), apparently was cured but needed to be > cooked. It spent five hours in the oven with the probe thermometer monitoring > it. I basted it the last half hour. I had quite a bit of trepidation about > how > it was going to come out (for you who wants to know the make of the ham, > you'll > probably have to look up trepidation as it has several sylables). But it came > out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be doing it > again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! Happy > Holidays to all minus one. Glad you liked it! A few decades ago, we decided to do an uncooked ham instead of a cooked one. Being that it was a holiday season like now, it was just ridiculously cheap. It tasted so much better that we've never bought a cooked ham for the oven since. Although the uncooked hams are cheap, they lose a lot of weight due to moisture and fat loss, but it's still a deal, and IMNSHO, much better. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dan Abel" wrote
> rfdjr1@ wrote: >> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the (snips) >> out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be >> doing it >> again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! >> Happy >> Holidays to all minus one. > > Glad you liked it! A few decades ago, we decided to do an uncooked ham > instead of a cooked one. Being that it was a holiday season like now, > it was just ridiculously cheap. It tasted so much better that we've > never bought a cooked ham for the oven since. Although the uncooked > hams are cheap, they lose a lot of weight due to moisture and fat loss, > but it's still a deal, and IMNSHO, much better. Same here Dan. We've found most of the 'pre-cooked' ones have been injected with all sorts of things (not just a simple salt brine in sensible amounts). Ham itself in this natural un-cooked state is already 'sweet' tasting with nothing added. Since it's already as 'sweet' as we want, added injected sugars and stuff do not suit us. Definately less price too. The precooked ones ranged all the way up to 2.89/lb. The actually *better* (if you dare to try as the above person learned how) raw hams were .89/lb with additional money off if a member of that grocery club. I think it was .59/lb then? Not sure exactly because I tossed the recipts already. I just remember it was over 11 lbs (11.5?), and less than 7$ by a bit. I picked the one with the best bone for later use. Sure, we paid for bone at meat prices. Hehehe we often end up trying to find bone for just .59/lb anyways (hard to find here in the city). Brand? Dunno as it had one. Local hog farms likely. Had a warning 'must be cooked' on the store label and that's all I recall. This one wasnt pre-brined but we've gotten ones that have been as long as they list that the brine injection is just salt and water. Don's usual method is to pre-brine in the fridge for a day or so, using just water, some salt, a little vinegar and soy sauce. This time I ran late with the ham shopping so only got it the day before and we didnt bother. He made a nice ham gravy to go with from the drippings and we let it shine in all it's simple purity with just that. I like the term 'Cooks Ham' for these BTW. The flavor is just better to me and the flexibility in what you do with it is higher. If you want to studd it deep with cloves or star anise, there won't be any competing flavors from what the 'factory' _thought_ you wanted it pre-flavored with. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "cshenk" > wrote in message ... > "Dan Abel" wrote >> rfdjr1@ wrote: > > >>> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the > > (snips) > >>> out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be >>> doing it >>> again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! >>> Happy >>> Holidays to all minus one. >> >> Glad you liked it! A few decades ago, we decided to do an uncooked ham >> instead of a cooked one. Being that it was a holiday season like now, >> it was just ridiculously cheap. It tasted so much better that we've >> never bought a cooked ham for the oven since. Although the uncooked >> hams are cheap, they lose a lot of weight due to moisture and fat loss, >> but it's still a deal, and IMNSHO, much better. > > Same here Dan. We've found most of the 'pre-cooked' ones have been > injected with all sorts of things (not just a simple salt brine in > sensible amounts). Ham itself in this natural un-cooked state is already > 'sweet' tasting with nothing added. Since it's already as 'sweet' as we > want, added injected sugars and stuff do not suit us. > > Definately less price too. The precooked ones ranged all the way up to > 2.89/lb. The actually *better* (if you dare to try as the above person > learned how) raw hams were .89/lb with additional money off if a member of > that grocery club. I think it was .59/lb then? Not sure exactly because > I tossed the recipts already. I just remember it was over 11 lbs (11.5?), > and less than 7$ by a bit. I picked the one with the best bone for later > use. > > Sure, we paid for bone at meat prices. Hehehe we often end up trying to > find bone for just .59/lb anyways (hard to find here in the city). Brand? > Dunno as it had one. Local hog farms likely. Had a warning 'must be > cooked' on the store label and that's all I recall. This one wasnt > pre-brined but we've gotten ones that have been as long as they list that > the brine injection is just salt and water. > > Don's usual method is to pre-brine in the fridge for a day or so, using > just water, some salt, a little vinegar and soy sauce. This time I ran > late with the ham shopping so only got it the day before and we didnt > bother. He made a nice ham gravy to go with from the drippings and we let > it shine in all it's simple purity with just that. > > I like the term 'Cooks Ham' for these BTW. The flavor is just better to > me and the flexibility in what you do with it is higher. If you want to > studd it deep with cloves or star anise, there won't be any competing > flavors from what the 'factory' _thought_ you wanted it pre-flavored with. > Cook's Ham is a brand of smoked uncooked hams. http://cooksham.com/product/bone-in-...onal-whole-ham |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 26, 9:10*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
> "cshenk" > wrote in message > > ... > > > "Dan Abel" wrote > >> rfdjr1@ wrote: > > >>> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the > > > (snips) > > >>> out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be > >>> doing it > >>> again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! > >>> Happy > >>> Holidays to all minus one. > > >> Glad you liked it! *A few decades ago, we decided to do an uncooked ham > >> instead of a cooked one. *Being that it was a holiday season like now, > >> it was just ridiculously cheap. *It tasted so much better that we've > >> never bought a cooked ham for the oven since. *Although the uncooked > >> hams are cheap, they lose a lot of weight due to moisture and fat loss, > >> but it's still a deal, and IMNSHO, much better. > > > Same here Dan. *We've found most of the 'pre-cooked' ones have been > > injected with all sorts of things (not just a simple salt brine in > > sensible amounts). Ham itself in this natural un-cooked state is already > > 'sweet' tasting with nothing added. *Since it's already as 'sweet' as we > > want, added injected sugars and stuff do not suit us. > > > Definately less price too. *The precooked ones ranged all the way up to > > 2.89/lb. *The actually *better* (if you dare to try as the above person > > learned how) raw hams were .89/lb with additional money off if a member of > > that grocery club. *I think it was .59/lb then? *Not sure exactly because > > I tossed the recipts already. *I just remember it was over 11 lbs (11..5?), > > and less than 7$ by a bit. *I picked the one with the best bone for later > > use. > > > Sure, we paid for bone at meat prices. *Hehehe we often end up trying to > > find bone for just .59/lb anyways (hard to find here in the city). *Brand? > > Dunno as it had one. *Local hog farms likely. *Had a warning 'must be > > cooked' on the store label and that's all I recall. *This one wasnt > > pre-brined but we've gotten ones that have been as long as they list that > > the brine injection is just salt and water. > > > Don's usual method is to pre-brine in the fridge for a day or so, using > > just water, some salt, a little vinegar and soy sauce. *This time I ran > > late with the ham shopping so only got it the day before and we didnt > > bother. *He made a nice ham gravy to go with from the drippings and we let > > it shine in all it's simple purity with just that. > > > I like the term 'Cooks Ham' for these BTW. *The flavor is just better to > > me and the flexibility in what you do with it is higher. *If you want to > > studd it deep with cloves or star anise, there won't be any competing > > flavors from what the 'factory' _thought_ you wanted it pre-flavored with. > > Cook's Ham is a brand of smoked uncooked hams.http://cooksham.com/product/bone-in-...onal-whole-ham See where it says "cured"? That means "cooked"! Not necessarily by heat, there are a number of ways to denature the proteins in meat. No where in the website does it say "uncooked". John Kuthe... |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kent" wrote
> "cshenk" wrote >>>> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the >> >> (snips) >>> Glad you liked it! A few decades ago, we decided to do an uncooked ham >>> instead of a cooked one. Being that it was a holiday season like now, >>> it was just ridiculously cheap. It tasted so much better that we've >>> never bought a cooked ham for the oven since. Although the uncooked >>> hams are cheap, they lose a lot of weight due to moisture and fat loss, >>> but it's still a deal, and IMNSHO, much better. >> >> Same here Dan. We've found most of the 'pre-cooked' ones have been >> injected with all sorts of things (not just a simple salt brine in >> sensible amounts). Ham itself in this natural un-cooked state is already >> I like the term 'Cooks Ham' for these BTW. The flavor is just better to >> me and the flexibility in what you do with it is higher. If you want to >> studd it deep with cloves or star anise, there won't be any competing >> flavors from what the 'factory' _thought_ you wanted it pre-flavored >> with. >> > Cook's Ham is a brand of smoked uncooked hams. > http://cooksham.com/product/bone-in-...onal-whole-ham Cool! It;s a brand as well? I hadnt realized that and took it as a nom-de-plume for a type vice a brand. I don't like their brine though. A good ham doesnt need added sugar. Pre-smoking (I assume cold smoking?) isnt bad though. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
<rfdjr1 wrote
> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the > a-hole > who needed to know the manufacturer), apparently was cured but needed to > be > cooked. It spent five hours in the oven with the probe thermometer > monitoring > it. I basted it the last half hour. I had quite a bit of trepidation about > how > it was going to come out (for you who wants to know the make of the ham, > you'll > probably have to look up trepidation as it has several sylables). But it > came > out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be doing > it > again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! > Happy Glad it worked! Don cooked ours 3 hours but it was probably a smaller one or he used a higher heat. That or it's still a bit rare at the bone (grin). Thats ok if so as it's been in the fridge and will be chopped down and bits re-cooked in many meals over the next 2-3 months (frozen and held in 1 cup or less hunks for use with other meals). Ours is bone in so we have the lovely bone for the crockpot. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() > wrote in message ... > Thanks for all the help and suggestions. The ham, (a COOK'S ham for the > a-hole > who needed to know the manufacturer), apparently was cured but needed to > be > cooked. It spent five hours in the oven with the probe thermometer > monitoring > it. I basted it the last half hour. I had quite a bit of trepidation about > how > it was going to come out (for you who wants to know the make of the ham, > you'll > probably have to look up trepidation as it has several sylables). But it > came > out absolutely tender and delicious. Best ham I ever cooked. I'll be doing > it > again real soon. Don't want to wait for a holiday to enjoy that meal! > Happy > Holidays to all minus one. > > Was this a whole or a half? I'm guessing whole if it needed five hours. Cook's hams are a favorite for us. They are very attractively priced at SuperWalmarts. Make sure you use the bone and remaining uneaten parts to make ham stock. Ham stock raises "Scalloped Potatoes with Ham" to a whole new level. Kent |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 24, 11:08*pm, wrote:
> Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking directions. The > label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a cooked ham > that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier than > planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 pound > ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to me.. I've > never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked didn't > take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better read > labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. Thanks. If it's called a "ham", it's been "cooked" already. Smoked hopefully, or some semblance thereof. Ham is 100% cooked when sold. You do not have to cook it more, although many may. John Kuthe... |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Imbecile Kuthe wrote:
> >If it's called a "ham", it's been "cooked" already. Imbecile thinks swine walk about with smoked butts... what a maroon. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Kuthe" wrote
rfd...wrote: >> label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a >> cooked ham >> that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier >> than >> planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 >> pound >> ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to >> me. I've Ah, there's the size and temp. Missed it before. Yes, he had a bigger ham and a lower temp. >> take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better >> read >> labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. >> Thanks. RFD, there are some things that take even longer. A pork shoulder for example done 'southern style' often goes in at 375 for 30-45 mins, then reduce temp to 225 for 8 hours or more (size dependant, I know by looking but there's probably stuff on th web showing how long per lb). > If it's called a "ham", it's been "cooked" already. Smoked hopefully, > or some semblance thereof. > Ham is 100% cooked when sold. You do not have to cook it more, > although many may. Sorry John but that isn't true where I am nor apparently Dan. Could be in your part of the country? Here it is sold as 'ham' based on the cut and if it hasnt been pre-cooked, has to be labeled something like 'must be cooked before eating' or some semblance there-of. I will say that they are normally off to the side a bit since the store probably gets a higher markup for the pre-cooked ones hence tends to put them more where the eye will see them first. I had to scrabble around behind the gwaltney's to find the 'good one' we got. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "cshenk" > wrote in message ... > "John Kuthe" wrote > rfd...wrote: > >>> label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a >>> cooked ham >>> that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier >>> than >>> planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 >>> pound >>> ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to >>> me. I've > > Ah, there's the size and temp. Missed it before. Yes, he had a bigger > ham and a lower temp. > >>> take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better >>> read >>> labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. >>> Thanks. > > RFD, there are some things that take even longer. A pork shoulder for > example done 'southern style' often goes in at 375 for 30-45 mins, then > reduce temp to 225 for 8 hours or more (size dependant, I know by looking > but there's probably stuff on th web showing how long per lb). > >> If it's called a "ham", it's been "cooked" already. Smoked hopefully, >> or some semblance thereof. >> Ham is 100% cooked when sold. You do not have to cook it more, >> although many may. > > Sorry John but that isn't true where I am nor apparently Dan. Could be in > your part of the country? Here it is sold as 'ham' based on the cut and > if it hasnt been pre-cooked, has to be labeled something like 'must be > cooked before eating' or some semblance there-of. I will say that they > are normally off to the side a bit since the store probably gets a higher > markup for the pre-cooked ones hence tends to put them more where the eye > will see them first. I had to scrabble around behind the gwaltney's to > find the 'good one' we got. > > You should be able to eat the Gwaltney Hams without cooking them. In fact some do. I may try it. Every time I've tried to cook a dry cured Virginia ham something didn't work out, and I ended up with a bunch of ham fragments.. Kent |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kent" wrote
> "cshenk" wrote >> your part of the country? Here it is sold as 'ham' based on the cut and >> if it hasnt been pre-cooked, has to be labeled something like 'must be >> cooked before eating' or some semblance there-of. I will say that they > You should be able to eat the Gwaltney Hams without cooking them. In fact > some do. I may try it. Every time I've tried to cook a dry cured Virginia > ham something didn't work out, and I ended up with a bunch of ham > fragments.. Snicker, the dried ones are quite a different tactic indeed. There are also the spiral sliced ones (pre-cooked, just heat and eat) ut we dont like those very much. The spiral slices are so thin, you might as well hit up the deli counter. Flavor of them is largely sugar to us. While I recognize many enjoy that, we do not. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 28, 3:21*am, marchvill_499
> wrote: > ;1418853 Wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for all the previous answers. I checked the label/cooking > > directions. The > > label says "ready to cook", so I guess I screwed up and didn't buy a > > cooked ham > > that I just have to warm up. Alright, so I start my day a lot earlier > > than > > planned. It says cook at 325 degrees for 25 minutes per pound. It's a 12 > > pound > > ham. That works out to 300 minutes or five hours. Seems a long time to > > me. I've > > never had anything in the oven for that long. Even turkey's I've cooked > > didn't > > take that long. Does five hours for a ham sound reasonable? I'd better > > read > > labels better in the future. This thing sure looks like a cooked ham. > > Thanks. > > The best way to cook with ham is to soaked it with pineapple juice and > then out into oven for 3 minutes just to heat it. then put a sauce on > top of it. > > > marchvill_499- > > Thank goodness no invitations to dine at your house are forthcoming if you think this is all there is to cooking a ham. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >,
marchvill_499 > wrote: > The best way to cook with ham is to soaked it with pineapple juice and > then out into oven for 3 minutes just to heat it. then put a sauce on > top of it. Over the many years I've been here on this group (the oldest post here I've found of mine is from 1992), I have tried hard not to have preconceived notions of posters based on domain name. I've been through the deluges in September from the .edu domain, the AOL newbies back when AOL sent several free trials to every address each week and the onslaught of webtv. But we've had a couple of foodbanter.com posts lately that have tried my patience. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
MW cornbread followup | General Cooking | |||
Pizza Followup question | Baking | |||
Thanksgiving followup | General Cooking | |||
Church Pot Luck followup | General Cooking | |||
Bitter Melon Followup | Preserving |