On 2015-09-22 4:31 PM, Je�us wrote:


>> Real wild rice is not related to rice at all. It is a type of grass that
>> grows in shallow areas of lakes. It takes a lot longer to cook that
>> regular rice and is better if cooked about 1 part wild rice to 3-4 parts
>> long grain. It also helps to cook it in broth.
>
> I'm really beginning to wonder if it's worth it? Is there anything
> about wild rice that is better than the 'cultivated' version?
>


Cooked in a light broth along with long grain rice it has an earthy
taste and texture. IMO it is better than plain rice. Wild rice on its
own is not great.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:36:57 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-09-22 4:31 PM, Je?us wrote:
>
>>> Real wild rice is not related to rice at all. It is a type of grass that
>>> grows in shallow areas of lakes. It takes a lot longer to cook that
>>> regular rice and is better if cooked about 1 part wild rice to 3-4 parts
>>> long grain. It also helps to cook it in broth.
>>
>> I'm really beginning to wonder if it's worth it? Is there anything
>> about wild rice that is better than the 'cultivated' version?
>>
>
>Cooked in a light broth along with long grain rice it has an earthy
>taste and texture. IMO it is better than plain rice. Wild rice on its
>own is not great.

Thanks Dave. You've convinced me to try it... once I find some real
wild rice.

On 2015-09-22 5:41 PM, Je�us wrote:

>> Cooked in a light broth along with long grain rice it has an earthy
>> taste and texture. IMO it is better than plain rice. Wild rice on its
>> own is not great.
>
> Thanks Dave. You've convinced me to try it... once I find some real
> wild rice.

Good luck with that. It is hard enough to find here, and it is expensive.