I'm Northern Italian, and I'm in the cup at a time camp, absolutely. All the broth at once gives you tasty, flavored rice. It doesn't give you risotto. It's just not the same stuff.

If you're not going to stir the risotto then it is called baked rice, steamed rice or rice casserole, but in my opinion it is no longer risotto. There's nothing wrong with making different rice dishes, but in my day, you stirred risotto until your arm broke and you liked it.

I love the process of making risotto. It's calming to stand at the stove and just stir. I wouldn't have it any other way!

I make risotto all the time, and it's not really that big of a deal. Stand by the stove and use one hand to stir while you use another to read a book. Sometimes I even drag a chair over and get cozy. It's worth it.

You DO NOT have to continuously stir risotto and Marcella Hazan, of all people, has said as much. However, as other people have mentioned, I don't think you can get away with baking rice and calling it risotto. Instead, my typical method is lazy, half-stirred risotto.

Keeping the hot broth on the back burner and the rice on medium-low heat, I add in about two cups of broth at a time and stir it in thoroughly. Step away from the stove and prep veggies for the risotto or for a salad, etc. Do other things while this broth absorbs. When it's mostly absorbed, stir well and add in a few more cups of broth. Go and chat to dinner guests and pour yourself a glass of wine, etc. until all the broth is used. Changed my life! Now putting together risotto is an "easy meal."

I'm with lotusmoss - we add liquid in several batches and stir it when we pass the stove. Works fine for us and is nice and creamy too.

I've tried other methods of making risotto, and nothing beats slowly adding the broth and stirring constantly. Making it in the crock-pot is easier, but definitely not as tasty!

One cup at a time. Otherwise, it is not risotto (risotto is actually a method, I thought).

I'm with lotusmoss. You can do a halfway risotto, where you pour in a cup of broth, stir a bit to get the starch flowing, and then dash away from the stove to chop up stuff for a salad or whatever.

If you keep your ears alert and listen for the sound of the broth cooking away, you'll know when to dash back and add more.

This might not be pitch-perfect risotto, but you do get a decent, silky sauce around the rice--far more interesting than just stovetop, non-stirred rice.

Oh, and the other thing I discovered: short-grain sushi rice makes pretty decent risotto. We always have that on hand, and never arborio, and I think it's a little cheaper.

What is the deal with all the fiddle headed ferns lately. /cringes!

From what I understand, the reason that you use short grain rice and not long grain for risotto is the way that the starch is located on the outer hull. Arborio rice has lots of starch on the outer layer and long grain has the starch more evenly distributed. Thus when you are constantly stirring Arborio for a risotto you are dissolving the starch that you are rubbing out of the rice and putting it into the broth that it is cooking in making that creamy sauce that we all love.

I've tried differing amounts of stirring and near constant makes a creamier end result.

I know this isn't authentic, but I put mine in a rice cooker (hey, I'm Asian). I used to spend the time to add in the broth one cup at a time on the stovetop, but I found that 3/4 cup of aborio rice and 1 1/4 cup of chicken broth comes out perfectly in the rice cooker. (30 minutes and no burning or stirring).

Add some veggies towards the end, a dollop of marscarpone, some parmesan and fresh ground black pepper, and you're done.

Risotto doesn't seem like risotto unless it's stirred in slowly. I also always do a very vigorous whip at the end: the key to a smooth but al dente texture. Yum!

Y'know, I've read several places this week mention risotto as a difficult or time-consuming thing, and I'm a little baffled by it - to my mind, risotto falls in the category of 'dead-simple dishes' - in fact, when I was growing up, it was the only thing my father knew how to cook - and this is a man who burned his toast almost every day until a mechanical toaster was purchased...

Make risotto in a pressure cooker, and you have no stirring and perfection!

I agree with wickenden. From my experience you can make a very passable risotto with the "add a little liquid and stir it every now and then" method. To get a risotto that is perfectly creamy AND al dente however, near constant stirring is required. On a side note I know what I'm having for dinner now...

I think risotto is something you just have to stir constantly and I enjoy it. I pour myself a glass of wine and sip while I am stirring, sometimes putzing around the kitchen with my spare hand.

I think the process of risotto is comforting-I could never imagine not stirring it.

Well I have heard that Italians say you should never salt a risotto because the sweat off your brow from standing over the stove cooking it... salts it up. While I personally avoid salting in this method... I do think you gotta do it old school and stir.... or else it really isnt risotto in my opinion. But I still bake bread from scratch... so maybe I am biased to the old way of things.

Having not read the comments above (I have a habit of that,) an un-stirred risotto isn't--it's a rice pilaf, assuming you toast the rice. Without toasting or stirring makes it rice cooked in broth. Also, if you add all of your broth at once, you may have too much or too little, stirring gives the advantage of getting the perfect amount of doneness and consistency. Cooking to me is all about control, and I can't really have a dish that I don't know. It's a bit like no-boil lasagna noodles. For me, they soak up too much of my sauce, so I must have boil. Not to get off topic or anything.

Oh is that fiddlehead risotto! That sounds *wonderful.* WANT.

I just made risotto for the first time, using my slow cooker and a recipe from the Not Your Mother's Slow Cooker cookbook. I started out the garlic and shallots on the stove, added the rice and wine, and then transferred to the slow cooker with the broth for 2 hours, added pumpkin and sage and cooked it for another 30 minutes. I only stirred it twice-- when I first put it in the slow cooker, and when I added the pumpkin and sage.

It turned out delicious-- as good as any stirred risotto I've ever had. I wish I had stopped cooking it 10 minutes earlier, though, as too much of the liquid got absorbed for my liking. It was like a creamy casserole. I'd make it that way again in a second!

If you do the prep work beforehand, risotto done the traditional way takes 30 minutes or less at the stove. For the awesome texture and taste, that isn't so long. If you're too busy, cook an omelette or some pasta and save risotto for when you have the time. It's worth it.

I do stir but I'm not tied to the oven-I add a cup, do some washing up, turn round give it a stir, wash a few more dishes, stir again and maybe add more stock... it only takes 20 minutes until it's ready for me too. I honestly don't find it much of a bother, I tend to consider risotto a quick meal, one I make when I'm tired and uninspired!

There's a Delia Smith oven-baked risotto, but I've never tried it, might be an option for some though:

http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/cuisine/european/italian/oven-baked-wild-mushroom-risotto.html

I'm interested in trying the slow-cooker version though^^ I'm in love with my slow-cooker!

I'm with Lotusmoss on this one. And I don't know how stirring it often versus stirring it all the time instantly means one is risotto and one isn't. My asparagus risotto comes out wonderful every time.

Oven: no stirring
Pan on hob: stir till you can't stirr no more

;o)

Seems odd to complain about stirring. It only takes 20 minutes and you don't have to stir every second of that. Usually I do a little prep of the rest of my dinner while intermittently stirring and adding liquid. I also consider risotto one of the easiest dinners to prepare. Easy to clean up too. One pot! Can't think of much else that takes only 20 minutes start to finish. (um, that sounded bad)

Tried the oven bake method once and ended up with raw rice in a warm stock. One cup at a time method all the way!

Jeez, it takes 20 minutes. I'm all about practical shortcuts in cooking if the quality is reasonably similar, but if you can't bear being at the stove for a whole 20 minutes, you don't deserve risotto. It's not like traditional polenta recipes that require about 40 minutes of constantly stirring a thick paste... it's easy to stir and a pleasure to cook. Have some respect for the dish and do it correctly I say.

I make up risotto in the usual way, then pour in all the stock, stir and cover. Turn the heat down to very very low and allow to simmer for just 13 minutes. Take off lid, make sure most of stock is absorbed and add cheese/butter etc. Then with a wooden spoon beat quite hard for two minutes or until the risotto turns thick and creamy. Other ingredients that you want to remain whole can now be added. And I cannot tell the diffrenece.

My family loves Risotto. I agree with other's comments regarding Risotto not being Risotto unless it is stirred and the broth is added gradually. Those who have tried authentic Risotto would never settle for the other method! I use a product that makes incredible risotto...using the stirring method, without my having to stand over it. All I do is occasionally add the broth. If you are a fan of risotto, you should check it out. I recently saw it on Pinterest. It is called the Chef's stir pan by KitchenStir.