Cooking pasta in minimal water: seconds

My Times column of last Wednesday incited dozens of readers to write, more by far than any other column has done. Here's a summary of what I heard from you. 

To my surprise, no one seriously objected to the idea of cooking pasta in much less water than the usually prescribed 4 to 6 quarts per pound. A couple of readers doubted that fresh pasta can be cooked this way. I doubted it too, until I tried it.

Many people have been cooking pasta in minimal water, including Sicilians in Sicily and here in the U.S., and parents of young children who are impatient to eat. Frequent campers point out that the savings in water and energy are especially valuable in outdoor cooking.

Some people, including Ligurian olive growers and chef Alain Ducasse, have been cooking small pasta shapes in the manner of a risotto, starting with a small amount of liquid and making frequent additions as the liquid is absorbed. The released starch helps thicken the liquid into a sauce. (Thanks to Patrick Wang for the link.) The Valencian dish fideuà is a version of paella made with pasta instead of rice.

Many people bring pasta and a reduced volume of water to the boil, then turn the heat off while the pasta cooks through. Some use an infomercial product, a plastic tube, designed for this method. Off-heat finishing does work (the pot temperature stays plenty high), and saves the energy of keeping the water at the boil.

A number of technically minded readers suggest other ways of saving energy. Start the water in an electric kettle, which is more efficient than a pot on a burner. Put the lid on the pot to prevent heat from escaping via evaporation. Once the pasta is cooked, keep the water in the pot and let it contribute its heat to the dwelling, rather than pouring it down the drain. (Works best in winter.)

Some readers avoid wasting pasta water by adding it to soups. Others add it to their gardens.

My thanks to everyone who took the time to write!