hob wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> hob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of the old cooks around here used to keep a jar of bacon
>>>> grease near the stove, and they would occasionally strain the
>>>> hot grease thru a cloth. Apprently it was proper practice back
>>>> then to fry a piece of potato in the grease after use - word
>>>> was it took out "odors". Don't know if it worked or not.
>>>
>>> Yes it does take away the odor and some tastes, salt, and so on.
>>> The main reason they saved the grease was to fry their eggs.
>>
>> Cooking a potato in hot fat crusts the surface and does nothing to
>> remove anything from the fat.
>
> Good lord - you don't cook the potato in oil hot enough to crust it -
> do you assume all the old cooks were that stupid so as to crust a
> potato when removing odors?
Is this some sort of rhetorical question?
As you say below, you only know of the whole thing second-hand. And what
makes you believe that potatoes will remove odors? Guesswork?
Potatoes will crust if the oil is more than 212°F. At that point, water
is driven from the surface and starch will gelatinize.
> Do you have any extrapolations or any first hand data based on
> cooking a potato in oil not hot enough to "crust it", or is your post
> just more "Pastorio Pontifications"?
I can offer an explanation or I can offer an argument. You may choose
which path to travel here.
Do tell me what mechanism is at work when cooking a potato "does take
away the odor and some tastes, salt, and so on." How, exactly does that
work? And at what temperature would "all the old cooks" cook "a potato
when removing odors?"
> I known second-hand of the method used in school kitchens, and from
> older cooks - according to the users, with ongoing success - but I
> can admit have not personally used it ot tested it. Have you tested
> it?
Yes. I have. And I've read a lot of food science in my three decades of
professional food service. Taken classes and seminars on unfolding
understandings and research results. And spent lots of time with reps
from the oil manufacturing companies to find out how to minimize usage
and keep quality high.
You?
> If it did, restaurants would do that and they don't.
>
> Why would they do that? Most oil kept at temp for days breaks down
> in heat and needs to be replaced, a more compelling reason to change
> oil than than food odors in the oil.
Obviously, you have *no* experience with oils in commercial cooking.
Equally obviously, you decided to get into this thread to fight. Oils
kept at temperature and properly cleaned and filtered are good for
weeks. The manufacturers say so. Go argue with them. Flavor tests say
so. Argue with them.
> Salt doesn't dissolve in oil, it settles to the bottom and
>> sits there ruining the fat. Nothing removes tastes from fats.
>
> Nothing that you know of, which is far, far different than "nothing".
I wrote exactly what I meant. You might want to check a reliable source
of information on the subject before posting guesses.
>> Filtering removes salt from fat.
>
> If you are correct in your claim about its behavior in that "it
> settles to the bottom" , then draining the bottom couple inches of
> oil out also removes salt.
You mean you have no idea if it's so. But this is very different that
asserting that doing *anything* with a potato removes salt from oil. The
implication is that the salt dissolves in the oil and is somehow removed
by cooking a potato in it. Both assertions are nonsense.
Salt will cause changes in frying oil that will make it break down very
quickly. It's why hoity-toity French chefs and fast food guys alike
don't salt anything until after it's fried, and away from the fryer.
But, unless you have a bottom-drain fryer, "draining the bottom couple
inches of oil out" isn't possible without major hassles. Better to
simply not put salt into the fryer at all. And filter it after each use.
Scorched particles settle to the bottom of fryers and form a rather
dense sediment. Just draining won't move them. They typically need to be
stirred or agitated to break loose and that act redistributes them. In
that case, all the oil needs to be drained and filtered. And the oil pan
needs to be cleaned of stubborn sediments and polymerized oil buildup.
>> The whole point of cooking the potato was to heat the fat to cook
>> any potential spoilage factors and essentially dehydrate them.
>
> pure speculatation
Give it a rest. You just don't know what you're talking about.
> - and - why would one cook a slice of potato in fat and toss it to
> "essentailly dehydrate them [potatoes]" ? Do you think those with
> more real experience cooking than you are all stupid enough to fry
> potatoes in oil merely to dry them out? Or heat the fat to 350
> degrees to remove water?
One at a time:
1) My sentence above as written was clumsy. The crux is that cooking the
potato is not the point. Heating the oil is. It serves to minimize any
spoilage factors and dehydrates anything in the oil that might create
off tastes and breakdown. But certainly not free water.
2) Your snotty question about "more real experience" assumes that I
don't have much experience. My first restaurant job was 52 years ago.
I've owned and operated all sorts of restaurants from BBQ joints to
starred operations to country clubs and resorts since the 70's. I'm a
consultant to foodservice companies. I've written 1500 or so articles
about food, cooking , etc.
3) Anyone who heats fat to remove free water is plain stupid. Once it
gets over 212°, there's every chance it'll flash to steam explosively.
People end up in hospital burn wards from that.
>> The potato serves the same purpose as that old recipe for where the
>> ham shank gets cut off but the real reason is the size of the
>> roasting pan.
>
> What does a ham shank have to do with odors?
Obviously, you don't know that legendary story about why a certain cook
cut the shanks off her hams. Ask around.
> Sounds good, but on second reading it is pure confuscation.
There's no such word as "confuscation."
> Besides, cracking the shank or cutting the bone is the way to get
> marrow out during cooking (that bone doesn't always come cut, FYI).
<LOL> We used to cut them with our meat bandsaws in my restaurants. Ever
worked with one of them?
> And who told you the "real reason" was the size of the roasting pan?
> FYE, my old roasting pans can fit a whole ham with bone and room to
> spare.
FYE, save yourself the embarrassment of taking this any further.
>> The potato isn't the real reason; it just seems like it should be.
>
> If you haven't tried it or tested it, how would you ever know? And
> why do you say such foolish things?
Why do you assume that your assumptions are true? Particularly since
virtually everything you've said in this post is belligerent guesswork.
Pastorio
>>> Of course, then you need some grits, butter, salt and pepper, a
>>> dash of hot sauce . . .
>>
>> Now this part is true.
>>
>> Pastorio
