cast iron that needs no pre-seasoning

Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Dimitri said:

"Orc General" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
does the "pre-" come in?

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
"Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
The "pre-" is not necessary.

N.

nancy1 said:

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

Quoted message said:

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

Brian

nancy1 said:

Dimitri said:

"Orc General" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
does the "pre-" come in?

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
"Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
The "pre-" is not necessary.

Bwah...

I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
bite me.

People offer all kinds of rationales for the distinctions and not a one
stands up to any scrutiny. Good for you. You get my vote when you run
for Imperial office.

Pastorio

Default User said:

nancy1 said:

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
the cast iron. Gibberish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
"pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
no information.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) said:

Default User wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever
used to cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season

Yes.

Quoted message said:

and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time

No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's take
place.

Quoted message said:

"Seasoning" is the name of a process.

Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
more specific.

Similarly pay and prepay.

Brian

nancy1 said:

Dimitri said:

"Orc General" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
does the "pre-" come in?

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
"Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
The "pre-" is not necessary.

Yes it is, the 'pre' is absolutely manditory... pre-heat an oven
indicates the oven is brought to temperature and left to stay at said
temperature before opening and introducing food, so that not only the
air in the oven is correctly heated but that the interior chassis of
the oven is fully heated as well. Pre-heat is more precise a direction
than "heat".

Merriam Webster

preheat

transitive verb

: to heat beforehand; especially : to heat (an oven) to a designated
temperature before using for cooking.
---

Sheldon

Default User said:

Bob (this one) said:

Default User wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever
used to cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season

Yes.

So you do make time differentiation germane to the name of the process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time

No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's take
place.

But if one time needs its own specific description, why not every time?
What does the first time have to do with anything?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Seasoning" is the name of a process.

Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
more specific.

A needless specificity. The pan will be, by that logic, pre-seasoned
each time it's to be used. So maybe the technique should be called
"pre-seasoning."

And if the seasoning needs to be done from scratch before the pan can be
used to cook, is it pre-season time again? Or is it merely seasoning
every time it's done?

Quoted message said:

Similarly pay and prepay.

These make a bit more sense because the time component matters. If I pay
for a service before I get it, I'm prepaying. If afterward, just paying.
Right? No. I'm paying in both cases irrespective of the time.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

Bob (this one) said:

Default User wrote:

Quoted message said:

> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose".
> The pan also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before
> it's ever used to cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season

Yes.

So you do make time differentiation germane to the name of the
process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time

No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's
take place.

But if one time needs its own specific description, why not every
time? What does the first time have to do with anything?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Seasoning" is the name of a process.

Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
more specific.

A needless specificity.

In your opinion. Not in mine. There is a difference.

Quoted message said:

The pan will be, by that logic, pre-seasoned
each time it's to be used. So maybe the technique should be called
"pre-seasoning."

You season a pan before each use?

Quoted message said:

And if the seasoning needs to be done from scratch before the pan can
be used to cook, is it pre-season time again? Or is it merely
seasoning every time it's done?

No, it has been used by you to cook at some point. Similarly the term
reseason. Also unnecessary by your theory, but it adds information.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Similarly pay and prepay.

These make a bit more sense because the time component matters. If I
pay for a service before I get it, I'm prepaying. If afterward, just
paying. Right? No. I'm paying in both cases irrespective of the time.

That's like claiming that you can't say, "I'm wearing a blue shirt."
After all, you're wearing a shirt no matter color it is.

These are perfectly good terms that people understand and carry
specific information. If you don't want to use them, I have no problem
with that. However, you're wrong about them being somehow incorrect.

Brian

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

nancy1 said:

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used
to cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
you do it.

But if you repeat, do you have to peat first? 😉

Jill

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

nancy1 said:

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used
to cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
you do it.

But if you repeat, do you have to peat first? 😉

Jill

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

nancy1 said:

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
the cast iron. Gibberish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
"pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
no information.

Pastorio

Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
might be an indication of order.

Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
inflammable? And then there's . . .

jim

Bob (this one) said:

Bwah...

I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
bite me.

I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are caught
with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed and
embarrassed.

jim

JimLane said:

Bob (this one) said:

Bwah...

I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
bite me.

I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are caught
with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed and
embarrassed.

Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take a
cheap shot.

Bite me.

Pastorio

JimLane said:

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

nancy1 wrote:

> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
you do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality.
It doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as
sensible to say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the
infrastructure of the cast iron. Gibberish.

Quoted message said:

> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter
what else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It
must predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition.
The "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating
add no information.

Pastorio

Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
might be an indication of order.

Like, I thought I'd pretty well dealt with that above, Jim, when I said:
"Anything that's requisite is required. It must predate whatever it is
required for; inherent in the definition."

But you probably haven't had your coffee yet, huh...?

Sure. And prepare means to pare first. One can vent and one can prevent...

Quoted message said:

Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
inflammable?

Different linguistic formations.

"Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However,
the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that
inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in
inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is
related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and
inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the
Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But
many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it
is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings."
<http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0164700.html>

"Combustible" and "incombustible" are opposites but "flammable" and
"inflammable" are synonyms. Why? The "in-" of "incombustible" is a
common prefix meaning "not," but the "in-" of "inflammable" is a
different prefix. "Inflammable," which dates back to 1605, descends from
the Latin "inflammare" ("to inflame"😉, from "in-" (here meaning "in" or
"into"😉 plus "flammare" ("to flame"😉. "Flammable" also comes from
"flammare," but didn't enter English until 1813. In the early 20th
century, firefighters worried that people might think "inflammable"
meant "not able to catch fire," so they adopted "flammable" and
"nonflammable" as official safety labels and encouraged their use to
prevent confusion. In general use, "flammable" is now the preferred term
for describing things that can catch fire, but "inflammable" is still
occasionally used with that meaning as well.
--Merriam-Webster dictionary

Quoted message said:

And then there's . . .

And then there's waxing poetic and waxing Brazilian...

Pastorio

JimLane said:

Bob (this one) said:

Default User said:

nancy1 wrote:

> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
the cast iron. Gibberish.

Quoted message said:

> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
"pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
no information.

Pastorio

Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
might be an indication of order.

Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
inflammable? And then there's . . .

jim

Ja. LOL. I didn't mean to start something big. Just wanted to say
that "preheat" and "preseason" just get on my last nerve. It's
probably just me. ;-)

N.

JimLane said:

Bob (this one) said:

Bwah...

I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
people to bite me.

I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
caught with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed
and embarrassed.

One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
supported by the language or its history.

These prescriptive diatribes of Bob and his ilk are silly, like the
long ago self-appointed language experts that came up with "don't end
with a preposition" or "don't split the infinitive". It's a way of
being self-important and order people around for no good reason.

Brian

"nancy1" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JimLane said:

Bob (this one) said:

Default User wrote:

> nancy1 wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>
>
> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used
> to
> cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
the cast iron. Gibberish.

>> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
>> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
>> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
>> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
>> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
>
>
> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
"pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
no information.

Pastorio

Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
might be an indication of order.

Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
inflammable? And then there's . . .

jim

Ja. LOL. I didn't mean to start something big. Just wanted to say
that "preheat" and "preseason" just get on my last nerve. It's
probably just me. ;-)

N.

It is *not* just you. The "pre" prefix certainly has valid uses but is also
used in many foolish and stupid ways. But I must disagree about the opinion
that "prerequisite" is redundant. I will illustrate with an example. To chop
onions, a knife is required - it is requisite. You do not have to have a
knife before you chop, just while you are chopping. Therefore it is not a
prerequisite. However to be hired as a staff physician at a hospital you
have to have an MD degree - you must have the degree *before* you are hired.
Hence it is a prerequisite.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

jmcquown wrote on 8/3/2005:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

But if you repeat, do you have to peat first? 😉

Jill

Say again? (Or maybe just say).