Why so much water for pasta?

[haresfur]

The reason for so much water was stated above--better recovery.

Think of a pot of water as a battery, but instead of storing electricity, the water stores heat. The more water you have, the more heat is stored and when room-temp dry pasta is added, the water quickly comes back to a boil. The same principle is used for commercial deep-fryers.

I don't think this is correct. At boiling the amount of heat in the water is essentially constant so any additional heat from the burner either goes into boiling the water faster or is lost out the sides or top of the pot. When you add a given amount of pasta it takes a fixed amount of heat to bring it up to boiling temperature (or if you prefer it saps a fixed amount of heat) no matter how much water. So no matter how much water, the stove has to add the same amount of heat to bring it back to boil except for the fact that a larger pot will be losing more heat to the environment. It seems to me the smaller pot will drop to a lower temperature but return to boiling faster.

I suppose the temperature drop could have an effect on how well the pasta cooks - particularly for pasta that cooks quickly but I'm skeptical. I think the biggest problem of a small pot is crowding increasing the chance of the pasta sticking to the bottom of the pot and to each other. That can be addressed through stirring so it really depends on how much you are willing to baby-sit.

[sparrowgrass]

As I recall, he asked various experts and chefs and the fairly uniform reply was that, well, you could do it, but you wouldn't really want to, if you wanted the pasta to come out well. I read that as a very lukewarm recommendation for boiling pasta in not enough water.

Maybe because the 'experts and chefs' had always done it with lots of water and didn't really know how less water would work?

[Jaymes]

As I recall, he asked various experts and chefs and the fairly uniform reply was that, well, you could do it, but you wouldn't really want to, if you wanted the pasta to come out well. I read that as a very lukewarm recommendation for boiling pasta in not enough water.

Maybe because the 'experts and chefs' had always done it with lots of water and didn't really know how less water would work?

Not sure they'd be called 'experts and chefs' but the Italian friends I've had through the years have told me that the "pasta should swim" in the water.

I don't use as much water as do some others, but I always check to be sure that the pasta is "swimming." More diligent oversight (stirring) can take care of that but, if you're not careful, you will wind up with one gooey mass of pasta stuck together.

[eternal]

Not sure they'd be called 'experts and chefs' but the Italian friends I've had through the years have told me that the "pasta should swim" in the water.

.

And Italians can do things for no apparent reason just like the rest of us - oh I'm italian. The results seem to suggest that this is lore - people have just done it this way because the person before them did it that way or because "experts always told me to do it on TV". I suspect the visual cue of the water returning to boil faster with lots of water led to people to believe that this is the "right" way to do it but not for any valid reason.

[gfweb]

Well said.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Edward J]

[

I don't think this is correct. At boiling the amount of heat in the water is essentially constant so any additional heat from the burner either goes into boiling the water faster or is lost out the sides or top of the pot. When you add a given amount of pasta it takes a fixed amount of heat to bring it up to boiling temperature (or if you prefer it saps a fixed amount of heat) no matter how much water. So no matter how much water, the stove has to add the same amount of heat to bring it back to boil except for the fact that a larger pot will be losing more heat to the environment. It seems to me the smaller pot will drop to a lower temperature but return to boiling faster.

So, the question is, does a 1 qt pot of boiling water have the same thermal mass as a 4 qt pot of boiling water?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Maybe because the 'experts and chefs' had always done it with lots of water and didn't really know how less water would work?

Who has not upon occasion, of necessity or out of laziness, made pasta in too small a pot? I certainly have, and out of curiosity, I've made it in an oversized pot as well. In my experience there is no question that the amount of water affects the texture. It's easy enough to test.

Sometimes there is truth in lore.

[HowardLi]

I don't think this is correct. At boiling the amount of heat in the water is essentially constant so any additional heat from the burner either goes into boiling the water faster or is lost out the sides or top of the pot. When you add a given amount of pasta it takes a fixed amount of heat to bring it up to boiling temperature (or if you prefer it saps a fixed amount of heat) no matter how much water. So no matter how much water, the stove has to add the same amount of heat to bring it back to boil except for the fact that a larger pot will be losing more heat to the environment. It seems to me the smaller pot will drop to a lower temperature but return to boiling faster.

So, the question is, does a 1 qt pot of boiling water have the same thermal mass as a 4 qt pot of boiling water?

Yes, the heat transfer into the "cold" pasta will be fixed based on the mass of the pasta, but the amount of total heat energy inside the pot will vary based on the volume or mass of the water. The temperature drop is smaller with a larger pot of water, so while it may take the same amount of time to bring back to a boil, the pasta will experience less time in colder water.

Does it matter? I have no idea.

Edited September 28, 2011 by HowardLi (log)

[threestars]

A gallon of water maybe for some people. When I do my pasta, I normally just try to boil pasta in a normal water level. So I just estimate it on how much pasta I have. No particular measurement.

[Norm Matthews]

I have a 12-inch skillet in which I cook pasta. It isn't very deep but wide enough for a box of spaghetti to lay down and be covered by water by about an inch. It boils faster than a big pot of water and as soon as the pasta softens a little, I give it a stir and it comes out fine every time.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Norm Matthews (log)

[boudin noir]

I have always cooked pasta in just the amount of water to allow free movement. I recently cooked pasta for an old italian woman who considered herself to be an expert cook. She caught me in the act of cooking pasta in what she felt was a far too small amount of water and gave me a severe chewing out for the error. However when she ate it she reluctantly admitted that it was perfect. I don't think however that it would change the way she would cook pasta.

[patrickamory]

I've seen these articles too.

All I know is that I've made pasta with tons of water in a huge stockpot, and with not much water in a smaller pot - and it's always better in the big pot. Texture, salt absorption, lack of stickiness - and then better cohering with the sauce. Marcella Hazan's process.

I'm sticking to what works.

[eternal]

I've seen these articles too.

All I know is that I've made pasta with tons of water in a huge stockpot, and with not much water in a smaller pot - and it's always better in the big pot. Texture, salt absorption, lack of stickiness - and then better cohering with the sauce. Marcella Hazan's process.

I'm sticking to what works.

Your comment seems to be contradictory. You say it lacks stickiness but coheres with the sauce better. Wouldn't those two things go hand in hand?

[patrickamory]

I've seen these articles too.

All I know is that I've made pasta with tons of water in a huge stockpot, and with not much water in a smaller pot - and it's always better in the big pot. Texture, salt absorption, lack of stickiness - and then better cohering with the sauce. Marcella Hazan's process.

I'm sticking to what works.

Your comment seems to be contradictory. You say it lacks stickiness but coheres with the sauce better. Wouldn't those two things go hand in hand?

Hmm. I meant to say that the pasta pieces don't stick to each other in the water, but seems to pick up the sauce better. I don't know whether those two phenomena are related.

Edited September 30, 2011 by patrickamory (log)

[ChrisTaylor]

I don't think they are related. How well pasta adheres to sauce depends on how coarse or rough the surface of the pasta is.

[SylviaLovegren]

Recently bought a fresh pasta made with heritage wheat and cooked it the traditional way with lots of water. Pasta was delicious, texture perfect. The maker had warned me to use lots of water. The second time I made it I got "economy" and cut back on the amount of water. Since the pasta had a rough texture and was very starchy the additional stirring necessary to keep it from sticking together in less water caused the pasta to break more and a tremendous amount of starch to be released -- the pasta ended up very sticky and gluey. But I sure had some concentrated starch water! Next time, I'll go back to using lots of water.

[Shel_B]

In a NY Times article, Harold McGee suggests that one needn't use 4 quarts of water to cook a pound of pasta (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/dining/25curi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). In a You Tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkz4ef53YjA) it's suggested that you can get good results cooking your spaghetti in a skillet of water.

In this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/17/dining/italy-truth-about-pasta-italians-know-that-less-more-call-for-return-basics.html?pagewanted=2) it is strongly suggested that a "one-pound box of pasta ... must cook in at least five quarts of vigorously boiling, salted water, and more is probably better).

Experts and mavens, including Lidia Bastianich and Marcella Hazen, seem to disagree on the subtleties and specifics of how much water is acceptable to cook a great plate of pasta, as well as disagreeing on whether to start the pasta in cold or boiling water.

So, what are your experiences and beliefs? How do you cook your pasta? Do you use different amounts of water and different techniques depending on the pasta shape or ingredients, or do you follow a one size suits all approach?

[JoNorvelleWalker]

I cook three oz of dried pasta in a tall stock pot, in about seven quarts of water, with not much stirring. Same for any shape of dried pasta.

[patrickamory]

As I've written before, with dried factory pasta, I consistently get the best results from using a very large proportion of water to pasta. YMMV.

[gfweb]

I see no difference between large and small volume of water with my dried pasta. I don't understand why there should be a difference, Batali's asenine pronouncements not withstanding. There is a lot of pure bullshit surrounding pasta eg "Pasta should cooked in water as salty as the Adriatic". Why? Why not as salty as tears (0.9%), which is considerably less than the Adriatic? Why not as salty as prosciutto? Or why not as salty as McDonald's fries?

I tire of the crap promoted as wisdom.

[patrickamory]

All I know is what works, for me, here. More water proportionally always leads to better results for me. I follow Hazan's recommendations to the last detail and since I started doing that, my (dried) pasta has always been perfect.

As I wrote above, YMMV.

[Bill Klapp]

I see no difference between large and small volume of water with my dried pasta. I don't understand why there should be a difference, Batali's asenine pronouncements not withstanding. There is a lot of pure bullshit surrounding pasta eg "Pasta should cooked in water as salty as the Adriatic". Why? Why not as salty as tears (0.9%), which is considerably less than the Adriatic? Why not as salty as prosciutto? Or why not as salty as McDonald's fries?

I tire of the crap promoted as wisdom.

"Like Water for Pasta"...could be a catchy book title!

And a lot of pure bullshit surrounding Batali for his entire career, from the very first minute, after he emerged from a few months of working in the kitchen of a now-defunct osteria in the middle of nowhere in Italy to become the male Marcella Hazan. And America fell for it. Beef cheek ravioli is my fave. Unknown in Italy, and after Troppo Mario discovered that he could not get a steady, cost-effective supply of beef cheeks, unknown in his ristoranti, too. But still called beef cheek ravioli, I believe.

But to the point, why would you want to risk an unevenly cooked batch of pasta, perhaps even with unimmersed sections uncooked and brittle, just for the want of water, a renewable resource most places where pasta is beng eaten? Texture is critical to great pasta, whether dried or fresh, and the artisanal dried pasta producers use ancient bronze dies and techniques to create pastas of unique shapes and textures which hold sauces particularly well. How much salt to add to the water is the only question to be answered...

Edited October 5, 2013 by Bill Klapp (log)

[gfweb]

I see no difference between large and small volume of water with my dried pasta. I don't understand why there should be a difference, Batali's asenine pronouncements not withstanding. There is a lot of pure bullshit surrounding pasta eg "Pasta should cooked in water as salty as the Adriatic". Why? Why not as salty as tears (0.9%), which is considerably less than the Adriatic? Why not as salty as prosciutto? Or why not as salty as McDonald's fries?

I tire of the crap promoted as wisdom.

"Like Water for Pasta"...could be a catchy book title!

.

But to the point, why would you want to risk an unevenly cooked batch of pasta, perhaps even with unimmersed sections uncooked and brittle, just for the want of water, a renewable resource most places where pasta is beng eaten?

There's a happy medium of course. Gotta have enough water to keep everything immersed and boiling; but the huge volumes some suggest take forever to boil and try my severely limited patience

[scubadoo97]

As an added bonus to not using an over abundance of water is that the pasta water will have a higher percentage of starch in it to tighten a sauce.

[Bill Klapp]

You are right. Huge amounts are silly. Enough to safely cover the quantity and shape of pasta used. Centuries ago when Ronald Reagan and I were kids, we called that "common sense". No longer fashionable!

By the way, on the subject of cooking water BS, I do subscribe to the idea that boiling seafood in the sea water that it was pulled from is a splendid idea. Unless the water is polluted. In which case you should throw out the seafood with the sea water, so to speak...