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

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

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 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
````````````

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

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

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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

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

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" > wrote in message
news:ZuDkc.1188$IG1.25369@attbi_s04...
> 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
>


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 crap from my email address before using.

zxcvbob > wrote in message >...

> 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

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

"fresh~horses" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gary Smiley" > wrote in message
news:<ZuDkc.1188$IG1.25369@attbi_s04>...
> > 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

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

wrote:

> 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
>
>
> 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 religion, and
avoid the people, you might better stay home."
--James Michener

On Sat, 01 May 2004 01:58:17 GMT, "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
>

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


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Sat, 01 May 2004 16:05:45 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>
> 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

PENMART01 > wrote:

> 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 wrote:
>> Gary Smiley wrote:
>> My wife and I are having an argument. I always cook shrimp with the
>> tails
>> on
(snip)
- Gary
>
Also, some folks
> actually enjoy nibbling that last section of shrimp shell.... has a
> stronger shrimp flavor than the shrimp meat.
(snip)
> "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... )

Jill

On 2 May 2004 12:35:02 GMT, wrote:

> PENMART01 > wrote:
>
> > 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 > wrote:
> 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.