iron cookware will look this way because of the necessary seasoning, Calphalon’s hand-anodized aluminum Dutch oven looks precisely because it has been treated twice for durability.
The heavy-gauge aluminum’s full infusion produces an elegant finish, which is truly a joy to behold. Cooking with this Dutch oven means you won’t have to use as much oil as before, and this pot also has the lifetime warranty offered by the manufacturer.
Cooks Standard Dutch Oven Casserole (7-Quart)
Lightweight but always classy, the Cooks Standard Dutch oven holds 6.62 liters and is a wonderful addition to your modern kitchen because of its shiny silver finish and round form factor. This is a hybrid Dutch oven because it was made with both stainless steel and aluminum.
The cookware’s body is heavy-gauge 18/10 stainless steel, while an aluminum disc was used at the bottom for quick and even heat distribution. This Dutch oven comes with an ideal tempered glass lid, equipped with just the steam hole vent’s right size.
The glass lid makes it easier for you to monitor your food as it is cooking. If you love braising and roasting in the oven, you need a Dutch oven with a glass lid. The more classical Dutch ovens with metal lids would require you to remove the lid manually before you can take a peek.
This Dutch oven also comes with effortlessly durable riveted handles. The tempered glass lid is oven-safe to 350°F/176.67°C.
On top of these conveniences, you can also use your Dutch oven on various stovetops, from ceramic stoves, glass stoves, electric stoves, gas stoves, and induction stoves. This product is completely dishwasher safe, and there are no issues with using soap.
Like we said earlier, those who would like to experience the conveniences of using a Dutch oven but have no experiencing with maintaining cast iron Dutch ovens should switch to either anodized aluminum or stainless steel so that they can get the same cooking experiences but with less of the worries associated with using cast iron. Cast iron is a top choice, but it is not for everyone.A in 2001 and, so far, nearly $400m has been spent on it. Now a new report, tabled in Federal Parliament, has called on the Federal government to redouble its efforts. And yes: more money is needed. Someone who’s a sceptic of this, is someone who sat up last night reading the report. Dr Pam Swepson who was a senior policy officer in the Department of Primary Industries has been a constant critic of how Queensland has handled the eradication program. She became a whistle-blower, although her whistleblowing was rejected by the Crime and Corruption Commission here in Queensland. Pam Swepson, you sat up and read the latest report and you see it as a money grab. Tell me why.
PS I’d have to agree with the report that we do need more money, but my concern would be about giving it to Biosecurity Queensland.
SA Why?
PS Because Biosecurity Queensland has wasted $350-400m of public money only to see the infestation get ten times bigger than it was.
The independent review makes the claim that thirteen previous reviews have found that the program was sound. Those reviews do NOT say that. Previous reviews have been very critical of the program’s ability to contain fire ants.
This current review is (I suggest) too close to Biosecurity Queensland and is claiming that the remote-sensing technology (for detecting fire ant nest by helicopter) has delimited the infestation and therefore eradication is on track. That helicopter surveillance found a whole 38 nests while it identified thousands of rocks and lumps of manure as nests. (But the technology) MISSED hundreds of nests that the public found. So, the remote-sensing technology has not worked.
SA So your argument is that the remote-sensing technology is very expensive and has not been successful (in doing what) it was aimed at.
PS And while they fiddled around with that, the infestation tripled. We’ve now got the Port of Brisbane, which the program has been claiming had been eradicated, back on the fire ant maps in July. And fire ants have been found beyond that map already with new infestation in Brookfield and Bracken Ridge.
And Biosecurity Queensland’s constant claim (for failing to eradicate fire ants) is ‘It’s not our fault. It’s the Commonwealth government’s (fault) for not giving us certainty about funding.’ Now the 2006 review certainly said (the problem was) more about poor management decisions than about funding. And the Capability Review of biosecurity in Queensland in 2015 also said that part of the problem was that Biosecurity Queensland cannot give funding bodies a business case for future funding, because Biosecurity Queensland make poor management decisions and has no performance information to support (future funding) claims. So, I am saying, for goodness sake, we do need more money. I totally agree with that.
In 2001 the American (fire ant experts) said ‘you’ve got a narrow window of opportunity (to eradicate fire ants.)’ In 2006, the scientific review said, ‘Start again.’
I really do think we need to start again: with a new program, with more money. But don’t give it to Biosecurity Queensland.
Biosecurity Queensland was never intended to be part of a government department. It was intended to be a stand-alone, science based, independent biosecurity agency. At best, give the fire ant program to the (Queensland) Department of Environment. But don’t give it to Biosecurity Queensland. Unless you give it to a totally different agency, and start afresh, the Commonwealth is going to be throwing good money after bad.
SA So you think (giving the program and money to Biosecurity Queensland) will simply be repeating the failures. We’ve spent nearly $400m of tax payer money so far on an eradication program that has not eradicated anything: indeed it’s expanded in places that were declared fire ant free. (They) have had to be put back on the register. That we will simply be repeating all of the mistakes of the past.
PS And the (latest) report makes the point that a miniscule fraction of the budget is being spent on movement controls and containment (when human- assisted movement) is the MAJOR cause of the spread. So, this is what we’re going to get, however much money we give to Biosecurity Queensland.
(With Biosecurity Queensland) we’ve seen the infestation get ten times worse. Are they going to make it one hundred times worse? So, (the program) really does need to be given to a totally different agency to manage.
SA I’m talking with Dr Pam Swepson. She was a senior policy officer in the Department of Primary Industries for many years. She’s been a constant critic of how Queensland has handled the fire ant infestation that started in 2001.
PS Found in 2001.
SA Found in 2001. My apologies.
PS They had been here ten years before that.
SA Ten years before (they were found). I should also point out that Dr Swepson went and claimed whistle-blower status but this was rejected by the Crime and Corruption Commission. This is 612 ABC Brisbane.
We’re talking about a new report, tabled in Federal Parliament, that’s calls on the Federal government to double its efforts and spend another $380m over the next ten years to stop fire ants spreading.
SA Pam Swepson, you’ve previously told me that one of the concerns you had about this program was that merely using the word ‘eradicate’, triggers federal funding. In other words, if it was a containment program, which you apparently favour…..
PS I only favour a containment program because it’s the first step to eradication.
SA But at the moment, they’re using an eradication strategy which triggers massive Commonwealth funding. You feel that this is why the State is say ‘we can eradicate it’ when really what they’re trying to do is to access federal funds.
PS That’s correct. And all of the money has gone into surveillance and treatment instead of anything that looks like containment which is movement controls.
SA What you’re saying, this is an important element, that this is mis-use or fraudulent use of Commonwealth funds. If that was the case…
PS It’s the crazy science behind it. If you can’t contain fire ants, you can’t kill them. But (Biosecurity Queensland has) put all the money and all the effort of the program into helicopter surveillance to find them and baits to kill them.
But whatever program you have, whether you are going to contain them or to eradicate them (you have to contain them first) That’s what the 2009 review of the program said ‘If you can’t delimit them, if you can’t put a boundary around (the extent of the infestation), you can’t do anything.
I’m only pushing for a containment (program) as the first step towards ANYTHING. If you can’t contain fire ants, you can’t eradicate them. And there has been NO effort put into containment. We’ve got a handful of biosecurity inspectors and a minimal fraction of the budget goes on containment when (human-assisted movement) is the MAJOR cause of fire ants spreading.
SA So you’re