Shrimp - why remove tails?

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done My wife says that's OK for
cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail sauce). But
she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

I used to work in a small seafood shop. We never removed
the tails regardless of how the shrimp were cooked. I can
see a reason to remove shrimp tails for pasta and rice
dishes, but for cooked shrimp, fried, or broiled, I think
the tails allow more flavor to be imparted to the shrimp
meat as it cooks.

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done My wife says that's OK for
cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail sauce). But
she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

There's no good reason to leave tails on beyond the
aesthetic. No culinary reason. Looks bigger on the plate.

Pastorio

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done My wife says that's OK for
cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail sauce). But
she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

It is purely aesthetic. Shrimp shells turn pink when you
cook them, so that little bit of shell on the end of the
tail gives a little bit of colour to an otherwise bland
looking shrimp. It is certainly not for ease of preparation
because, in my experience, it is not less work to leave the
tip of tail shell on. I have always found it easier to
remove the whole thing than to leave one little piece on the
end. While IMO grilled shrimp taste better when marinated
and cooked in the shell, that little bit on the end can't do
much to enhance flavour. For shrimp cocktails, the little
bit of tail shell presents an attractive little handle.

Maybe the best reason to leave the little bit of tail shell
on is so that you have to work a little and prolong the
dining experience. Shrimp is darned good stuff and those of
us who love them gobble them up like candy. Having that
little piece of shell forces us to do some work and slows us
down. When we have finished our scrumptious shrimp dish, we
are left wanting, so we dig into those little bits of shell
to get the last little morsel of flesh.

"Gary Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ZuDkc.1188$IG1.25369@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done

My

Quoted message said:

wife says that's OK for cocktail shrimp (easier to dip
into cocktail

sauce).

Quoted message said:

But she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

Shrimp taste better when cooked in the shell, but leaving
just the tail on would not make any difference. My guess is
that it is just a timesaver for the kitchen help.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

"Gary Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<ZuDkc.1188$IG1.25369@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done My wife says that's OK for
cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail sauce). But
she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

In response to your subject question: because you want to
keep them for your fish broth.

Zee

Thanks everybody.
Here's another reason: so you can count the tails left on the plates and see
who's eating more than their fair share :-)
- Gary

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook
shrimp with the tails on, but only because I've always
been told that that's the way it's done My wife says
that's OK for cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into
cocktail sauce). But she maintains that there's no reason
to leave tails on cooked shrimp, because it forces you to
get food and/or sauce on your fingers. But every time I
go to a restaurant the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there
an actual reason for this (besides allowing the shrimp to
look fancy)? - Gary

The tails are edible, so why remove them? I eat shell &
tail... no joke.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments

Bob (this one) said:

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook
shrimp with the tails on, but only because I've always
been told that that's the way it's done My wife says
that's OK for cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into
cocktail sauce). But she maintains that there's no reason
to leave tails on cooked shrimp, because it forces you to
get food and/or sauce on your fingers. But every time I
go to a restaurant the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there
an actual reason for this (besides allowing the shrimp to
look fancy)? - Gary

There's no good reason to leave tails on beyond the
aesthetic. No culinary reason. Looks bigger on the plate.

Pastorio

I don't eat them, but they *are* edible. I had a college
roommate who mooched shrimp tails when the dining hall
served fried shrimp.

I think "looks bigger on the plate", and "less work to to
prepare" are probably the main reasons.

-Bob

"fresh~horses" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gary Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<ZuDkc.1188$IG1.25369@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook
shrimp with the

tails

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on, but only because I've always been told that that's
the way it's done

My

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wife says that's OK for cocktail shrimp (easier to dip
into cocktail

sauce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails
on cooked

shrimp,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because it forces you to get food and/or sauce on your
fingers. But

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

time I go to a restaurant the tails are ON the shrimp.
Is there an

actual

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reason for this (besides allowing the shrimp to look
fancy)? - Gary

In response to your subject question: because you want to
keep them for your fish broth.

Zee

Japanese believe the prawn tails (the shell part) is good
for you and can't understand Gaijin (foreign devils)
throwing them away!

I think they believe it prevents cancer?

Frenchy

Quoted message said:

Gary Smiley said:

My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp
with the tails on, but only because I've always been told
that that's the way it's done My wife says that's OK for
cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail sauce). But
she maintains that there's no reason to leave tails on
cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food and/or
sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a restaurant
the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual reason for
this (besides allowing the shrimp to look fancy)? - Gary

I used to work in a small seafood shop. We never removed
the tails regardless of how the shrimp were cooked. I can
see a reason to remove shrimp tails for pasta and rice
dishes, but for cooked shrimp, fried, or broiled, I think
the tails allow more flavor to be imparted to the shrimp
meat as it cooks.

And besides, in Chinese restaurants salted shrimp is served
with the tails intact, along with the head and body shells
as well. All meant to be eaten.
--
Alan

"If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the relig-
ion, and avoid the people, you might better stay home."
-- James Michener

Peter Aitken said:

Shrimp taste better when cooked in the shell, but leaving
just the tail on would not make any difference. My guess
is that it is just a timesaver for the kitchen help.

Having shelled a few shrimp in my lifetime, I can tell you
that it's a lot easier to just rip off the tail along with
the shell.

Leaving on a little shell to keep the tail on slows you
down, which is a money losing proposition for a restaurant -
unless they can charge more for shrimp with tails attached.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments

zxcvbob <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't eat them, but they *are* edible. I had a college
roommate who mooched shrimp tails when the dining hall
served fried shrimp.

The roasted and salted shrimp heads which come with "ama
ebi" (raw shrimp) sushi are delicious.

Derek Juhl

Quoted message said:

Gary Smiley wrote: My wife and I are having an argument. I
always cook shrimp with the tails on, but only because I've
always been told that that's the way it's done My wife says
that's OK for cocktail shrimp (easier to dip into cocktail
sauce). But she maintains that there's no reason to leave
tails on cooked shrimp, because it forces you to get food
and/or sauce on your fingers. But every time I go to a
restaurant the tails are ON the shrimp. Is there an actual
reason for this (besides allowing the shrimp to look
fancy)? - Gary

Yes, it's visual, and that bit of shell imparts a more
intense shrimp flavor to the dish.

With the tail intact shrimp look more attractive insomuch as
they look like shrimp, difficult to be mistaken for anything
else... tailess shrimp don't look very appetizing, they look
like slugs. Another important reason is that with the tails
left on the shrimp appear larger, especially when breaded.
To make shrimp look even larger, leave the tails on and
butterfly them too. Also, some folks actually enjoy nibbling
that last section of shrimp shell.... has a stronger shrimp
flavor than the shrimp meat.

---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move
UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without
tribulation." Sheldon ````````````

PENMART01 said:

With the tail intact shrimp look more attractive insomuch
as they look like shrimp, difficult to be mistaken for
anything else... tailess shrimp don't look very
appetizing, they look like slugs. Another important
reason is that with the tails left on the shrimp appear
larger, especially when breaded. To make shrimp look even
larger, leave the tails on and butterfly them too. Also,
some folks actually enjoy nibbling that last section of
shrimp shell.... has a stronger shrimp flavor than the
shrimp meat.

That's a good point. A skeptic might also say that leaving
the tails on cooked shrimp boosts the weight, but at the
restaurant where I used to work, we did not sell cooked
shrimp by weight. We sold cooked shrimp in plastic
containers, something like 21 shrimp, plus cocktail sauce
for $9.99. This was quite a while ago though so I am sure
the retail cost has gone up since.

PENMART01 said:

Quoted message said:

Gary Smiley wrote: My wife and I are having an argument.
I always cook shrimp with the tails on

(snip)
- Gary

Quoted message said:

Also, some folks

Quoted message said:

actually enjoy nibbling that last section of shrimp
shell.... has a stronger shrimp flavor than the
shrimp meat.

(snip)

Quoted message said:

"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without
tribulation." Sheldon ````````````

And to think my parents used to make fun of me for eating
the shrimp tails... :o)

Jill

Quoted message said:

PENMART01 said:

With the tail intact shrimp look more attractive
insomuch as they look like shrimp, difficult to be
mistaken for anything else... tailess shrimp don't look
very appetizing, they look like slugs. Another
important reason is that with the tails left on the
shrimp appear larger, especially when breaded. To make
shrimp look even larger, leave the tails on and
butterfly them too. Also, some folks actually enjoy
nibbling that last section of shrimp shell.... has a
stronger shrimp flavor than the shrimp meat.

That's a good point. A skeptic might also say that
leaving the tails on cooked shrimp boosts the weight, but
at the restaurant where I used to work, we did not sell
cooked shrimp by weight. We sold cooked shrimp in plastic
containers, something like 21 shrimp, plus cocktail sauce
for $9.99. This was quite a while ago though so I am sure
the retail cost has gone up since.

Consider the tails as little handles, perfect for
shrimp dipping.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments

Gary Smiley said:

Thanks everybody. Here's another reason: so you can count
the tails left on the plates and see who's eating more
than their fair share :-)

But that does not work for those people who also eat the
tail.