Talk:Seasoning (cookware)

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Michaeld42 in topic Someone should edit this whole damn thing

Chemistry edit

Note, seasoning is polymerization. The older versions of this page (and the content which was previously embedded in other wikipedia articles) included false chemistry statements, or conjectures which occured on various cooking-related (not authoritative) sources. As the author of this new page, I have kept much of the old content and sources, but this page still needs to be improved. Ideally, someone expert in polymer chemistry will fill in the gaps, and also explain the role of the metal in catalyzing the polymerization reactions. Wxidea (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The statement "seasoning is polymerization" is an assertion without any scientific evidence.184.53.48.29 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, and the unsupported claim that "seasoning is polymerization" offends me. When oils are heated in a cast-iron skillet to a high enough temperature, the oils decompose as evidenced by smoke being given off. This is not necessarily polymerization. There are industrial processes that use various metal surfaces to catalyze polymerization; iron is not one of them, as far as I can tell. Not all metal surfaces necessarily catalyze polymerization! What seems to have happened is this: somebody without much chemical knowledge wanted to find out what the chemistry of seasoning cast-iron skillets was. They found articles about carbon compounds polymerizing by heating or on some metal surfaces. Then they jumped to the conclusion that this must also be happening on the surface of cast iron, and voila! "seasoning is polymerization." Unfortunately, there is no experimental evidence to support this assumption. Instead, it is possible that carbon atoms from decomposed oils are adsorbed onto the surface of cast iron to form iron carbide, and perhaps that is the "seasoning" rather than polymers.

Please note that I also have no evidence to back up the hypothesis that iron carbide is the seasoning, rather than polymers. I would be happy to accept that polymers formed the seasoning coating, if there was any credible scientific evidence for that. The problem is, there is no evidence cited at all for polymerization on cast iron, except for more unsupported website articles. The two scientific citations about deep-fat frying do not refer to cast-iron skillets.

So, please! Either find some actual scientific evidence to support the claim that seasoning on cast-iron skillets is due to polymerized oil, or delete the claim!

Michaeld42 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Someone should edit this whole damn thing edit

So, a lot of the stuff on the Wiki is based from a blog article by Sheryl Canter in which she states that flax seed oil is the best oil to use for cast iron seasoning. This article made it into Cooks Illustrated and eventually hit the forums causing much debate. The threads on the subject have been controversial, and it has been concluded that Sheryl Canter (who does not have a hard science background) made several factual errors. Also, it has been concluded through several attempts of her method that flaxseed oil produced no better results than any of the other oils. Infact, flaking of the seasoning was a common problem.

So, I think we should move to take those portions out of the Wiki. Anyone else with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.100.166 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no evidence that seasoning is due to polymerization as opposed to, for example, formation of an iron carbide layer. Until there is some evidence of the actual mechanism, the language dealing with polymerization should be deleted.184.53.48.29 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've removed most mentions of polymerization. It has been nearly a year since I noted, above, that there is no evidence that seasoning is due to polymerization. If anyone would like to put "polymerization" back in, please be sure to provide appropriate citations. Michaeld42 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is this not just folklore? edit

Isn't seasoning really just folklore? I have cooked on both "seasoned" and unseasoned cast iron cookware (i.e., frequently scrubbed to bare metal), and I have yet to see a real difference. Food doesn't ever stick to my unseasoned cast iron cookware.

It's like the legend of the mother who cut the ends off her ham before cooking. Why did she do it? Because her mom did it. Why did her mom do it? Because her mom did it. Etc. It's not done because of any benefit to the cook. How is seasoning any different?

What I don't want is a response full of scientific jargon. I want real-world results. Without that, this article may be promoting an urban legend.

99.29.98.85 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Without some kind of coating, an iron vessel (or anything iron or steel) will rust when exposed to moisture. Seasoning is an accepted practice - otherwise, why would anybody buy stainless steel for cooking? FiveRings (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction in which oils are best edit

The article reads:

Other types of oils which work well are generally high in saturated fats and have high smoke points (e.g., lard, or hydrogenated cooking oils such as Crisco, and palm or coconut oil and oils -- a direct measurement of an oil’s ability to polymerize is its iodine value)."

Palm, and coconut oil all have some of the *lowest* iodine values, at 10 and 37. This page says the best oil is flaxseed oil, which has a HIGH iodine value (175). High iodine values indicate more ability to polymerize. So the article is contradicting itself (and I don't know what to season my pans with!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.79.216 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the mechanism of seasoning was actually polymerization, it would makes sense chemically that unsaturated fats are better for seasoning. The fact that seasoning can be done just as easily with saturated fats suggests that polymerization has nothing to do with the seasoning process.184.53.48.29 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Template: Seasoning cast iron cookware edit

I've added a template box with links to seasoning instructions, in the hope of settling the repeated arguing over the placement of seasoning instructions in this article. --Modemac (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not reverting immediately, but that looks to me like it could be a violation of WP:ELNO#12. It should really be discussed here before inclusion - WP:NOTMANUAL is part of Wikipedia policy; I can't understand why you're so set on circumventing it. Yunshui  14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not circumventing it. This argument about the inclusion of seasoning instructions in the article has been going on since the beginning, because a step-by-step guide is an essential reason why people would look at such an article in the first place. Since the instructions keep being deleted to conform to the Wikipolicy of "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual," I figured it would be acceptable to include a direct link to a site that does have the instructions. I chose Wikihow especially to avoid the other accusation given towards the inclusion of instructions: that the link to official Web-based instructions on sites such as the Lodge cast iron Web site are actually a commercial product plug. Therefore, the template will resolve both of those issues. -- Modemac (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Removed reference to fission edit

Fission has been listed as one of the processes that takes place during the formation of the seasoning on a pan, since the article's creation. And there was a citation for that. I am confident that the cite doesn't support the assertion that fission takes place, though I don't have immediate access to the cited material. I am unsure who the author who added "fission" might be, since the copy-and-paste move of the page's initial content confounds the early history of the page.

If I'm wrong, though, I'll eat my hat (It has happened before).

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Whether you're wrong or not depends on the definition of "fission" that was used. Clearly, you are correct if "atomic fission" was the intended meaning. However, if by "fission" the intended meaning was simply breaking carbon-carbon bonds, you should be sure to start wearing hats made of tasty materials. Michaeld42 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply