The almost-lost art of rosin potatoes
thecookscook.com
thecookscook.com
They were almost definitely locally grown, doubtless extremely fresh, and almost definitely an heirloom variety. (And I acknowledge that food always tastes better when you're on holiday.)
We were told the preparation was pretty simple: 'boil in a strong stock until almost fully cooked, then dry and coat in goose fat, and then bake until they look good'.
(Apart from being much faster than conventional baked potatoes, and much much faster & safer than this rosin preparation, there's little risk of getting sick from this method.)
The variety of potatoes used is also a critical factor.
I prefer mealy potatoes, typically almond potatoes[1], but others work fine too.
Add some herbs, salt and pepper while tossing. Super easy, hard to mess up and yum yum.
Yes, they can be hard to find in southern parts because they are harder to grow in warm climate.
Move to a sufficiently deep (steel) baking tray, sprinkle with salt, add a couple of sprigs of fresh rosemary on top, and cook until properly roasted. No need to even turn them around.
> The variety of potatoes used is also a critical factor.
Bingo. The more "floury", the better.
If I ordered a baked potato in a restaurant and did not receive an entire, whole, skin-on potato, optionally sliced open across the top, I would be shocked and would have a negative opinion of the restaurant.
We make roasted potatoes all the time, much like you describe. When we do it at home, we'll frequently use Idaho Gold potatoes that do not need to be peeled, and we'll skip the parboiling step. Plenty of places make this without skipping those steps, and they're delicious, just more labor intensive.
The russet skin would of course not render the dish inedible, but the final result would be much more different than what the recipe was trying to achieve.
"Need" here means "required to yield desired final product" not "necessary or else you'll die".
> [...]
> We were told the preparation was pretty simple: 'boil in a strong stock until almost fully cooked, then dry and coat in goose fat, and then bake until they look good'.
You had roast potatoes.
I won't tell you how to make Buffalo wings or Chicago pizza.
In any case it looks closer to a pie or lasagna style dish than what most people would consider a pizza. I gather it partly gets its name from the cooking tin that's used, which brings us back to an earlier problem.
Anyway, I naturally lean more towards the Napoli style food as being proper pizza - and I'm sure we can all agree on that being a more faithful, accurate, just generally better interpretation.
A modest volume of high quality toppings, on a thin base that's enjoyed a slow-ferment (I invariably do poolish), enough proper / good cheese to taste but not so much as to clog up, and the whole thing is cooked fast.
IIRC, Napoli definition requires less than 90s to cook, but I struggle with getting to, maintaining, and then handling the necessary temperatures (around 450 degrees) so I usually end up cooking around 370 degrees for closer to 2.5 minutes.
Are you arguing that roast ≈ fire/coals, and bake ≠ fire/coals, are not as long established as your preferred meanings?
Baked potatoes are baked skin-on whole in the oven.
I don't think 'mistakenly' is the word you were looking for. Otherwise we can start on a 'who invented English anyway' thread of food naming.
+ crisps that some people mistakenly call chips
+ chips that some people mistakenly call fries
+ biscuits that some people mistakenly call cookies
Etc
In America also, baked potatoes are baked skin-on whole in the oven. Often wrapped in aluminum foil.
Roasted potatoes are cut up, tossed in oil, salt, and sometimes other herbs, and baked that way.
> Baking occurs at a moderate temperature, and is generally used to cook and solidify foods without browning them excessively. This technique creates a consistent, even texture throughout the food.
> Roasting, meanwhile, uses a higher temperature, and focuses on achieving a crispy, browned exterior with a tender interior, enhancing flavors through caramelization and the Maillard reaction.
Anything you put in an oven covered completely in aluminum foil —like a baked potato — is only going to end up baked, not roasted.
Actually, this produces a steamed potato. Covering it in foil is a poor technique for this reason. To properly do this: wash the potato, stab the skin a few times with a fork (failure to do this may produce an exploded potato), sprinkle with salt while still damp so the salt adheres, then roast directly on the oven rack (or in a barbecue) until squeezing it gives a fair bit of give.
This doesn't mean that my chicken and mushroom puffy has transubstantiated into pizza.
Similarly, cooking potatoes in what you call a roasting tin, or calling the meal a Sunday roast, isn't the definition of roasting any more than it's the definition of Sunday.
The distinction I draw is that roasting involves fire, baking does not.
The rest of the responses in this thread variously assert that the distinction:
- depends on temperature - there's a threshold above which you are now roasting not baking. This probably has roots in the cook by open flame / fire etymology, given that's usually warmer and harder to control accurately. (I will occasionally do a slow cook 'the next day' in my pizza oven using residual heat, and resurrect a small fire for the final smoking & crisping stage - though I am delighted to report that I have never pondered whether I'm then serving baked or roasted food.)
- depends on whether you peel your potatoes, which I'm struggling to reconcile given a) how does this distinction apply for non-potato and/or non-peelable foods, and b) if you peeled only half your potato and then cooked the whole thing - do you now possess a frankenstein potato, half roasted, half baked?
- depends whether the potatoes are cut - evidently once they are cut they can no longer be baked, only roasted. This is obviously at odds with the temperature crowd, and might (or might not) contradict the peeling-defines-state crowd too. They can work it out between themselves.
Anyway, I've had cooked potatoes in all kinds of forms, and I'm quite happy if people have their own local definitions for the two adjectives - so long as they're happy that I have mine.
Or rather, lots of people have come up with definitions, but they're all different.
We're not, because you're being pointlessly tedious about it. Things have names, they can't necessarily be logically explained.
Temperature is what I would have said though. Aga for example (long established cast iron range manufacturer) names its ovens like 'simmering oven', 'baking oven', 'roasting oven' on a 3 door, according to their approximate temperature. Roast potatoes would absolutely be produced from the roasting, not baking, oven.
The roast potatoes you ate in Cornwall were definitely cooked above a circa 160-180C baking temperature.
It's not infallible though, I 'bake' bread at 230C (at least outside the casserole).
The main thing is that things have names and the thing called 'baked potato' is not what you ate in Cornwall, it's an entirely different potato thing that also exists.
I did mention etymology, and appreciate that you cited a british white goods manufacturer's oven-door-naming system as a counterpoint.
I'm wondering if I were to note my tour guide at Hampton Court in 2010 shared my definition, if we could call this a draw?
Anyway, good to hear that you believe the distinction is sometimes temperature based, but sometimes not.
Roast potatoes could easily be basted, baked potatoes definitely wouldn't be, basting bread seems absurd but basting a joint is obvious.
Regardless I think it should be obvious to all that a terminology that assigns the name "baked beef" to a joint done in a conventional oven is totally insane and nonsense.
Is beef wellington baked or roasted, by your definition?
I've never cooked beef wellington so I don't really know, but it seems like it's baked and I imagine you're saying it's basted? As far as I can tell it's an egg glaze, which is not basting. Anyway, worst case scenario, my definition has some edge cases or needs nitpicking over the definition of a baste. This is nothing next to your insistence that a Sunday dinner includes baked beef.
It sounds like you're saying that if you think something could be basted, then it's a roast, but if it couldn't, then it's baked.
If that's your intent, then it feels like the can's been kicked down the road to the comparably confusing definition of a 'bastable food', yes?
(To clarify -- this is because I'm assuming, per previous response, that it's not so much if something was actually basted, but whether it should / could be.)
'New potatoes', the thin skinned spring type, usually eaten boiled with the skin on, come first from Jersey (Jersey Royals). Then Cornwall, but more commonly Pembrokeshire (just over the Bristol Channel from Cornwall). The thick skinned general purpose types come later from places with deep stone free soils. I think more of Lincolnshire, although they are grown in pockets all over. I like the ones from the localised sandy soils in mid Shropshire, but I grew up on them so I'm probably biased. Those are the ones I would roast.
Most likely they were maris pipers (actually a post war invention), maybe king edwards
Rest of the year we can only really roast stir-frys, roti, and crème brûlée.
"This is the best way to cook potatoes. Everything about it is difficult and dangerous. You have to try it!"
I suspect it's hardening around the skin of the potato (hence can't eat the skin) and essentially letting the potato steam itself?
Kind of like if you deep-fried it submerged in oil, but with even less ingress, and much less than boiling.
I commented this elsewhere and someone suggested sous vide ought to be very similar then, of course. (Added benefit perhaps: you can eat the skin!) Only difference might be that the rosin can get hotter, more like oil, than boiling water circa 100C.
I will not allow myself to purchase a deep fat fryer because it's not healthy to live exclusively off of fried potatoes and associated toppings.
Why? Boiling water won't go above boiling point because it quickly looses energy with freely departing vapor. In a viscous environment energy removal may not be as quick, and thus temperature may rise above 100⁰C.
There seems to be a lack of literature regarding the internal temperature of potatoes, to the point that this thread itself is now one of the search results, so unfortunately I could not find further references!
You need a dedicated setup to cook your potatoes and you can't even eat the skin. That for me is an instant disqualifier.
That said, the Wikipedia page for rosin says it is "an FDA approved food additive".
(But I know it is not healthy to inhale it)
In case it’s not clear from the description, after removing the potato from the rosin, and wrapping in paper, the thin layer of remaining rosin quickly solidifies into a hard shell, so you can then cut through it to get access to the flesh of the potato without accidentally eating rosin.
The article is admittedly tare on the _differences in outcome_, over and against more conventional methods, which I think drives a lot of the speculation here, but approached with curiosity, this becomes, "hmm, I wonder what, if any, the benefits might be?" instead of, "you could definitely replicate this with canola and also btw I solder with rosin"
This was linked by Gemini, which happily chirped that rosin potatoes can be great!
And I was surprised they served them at Cracker Barrel.
I would imagine the same is true for cooking. Our ingredients, equipment (such as temperature control), and techniques are so much better than these old ways of doing things, they just can't compare when it comes to taste and quality. Cooking and baking are sciences that have come a long way and are remarkably better than they have ever been. There is no reason to cook with poisons or questionable practices just for nostalgia's sake.
It might have been that book that talked about untapped potential for better flavors by making certain sauces in a microwave oven. The basic theory (as I recall) was that the microwaves would selectively heat oil droplets suspended in a watery sauce, and this would better extract flavor compounds into the oil while not heating the overall sauce enough to damage flavors.
I think it would be the opposite. It would selectively heat the water, because water is polar. That would still be consistent with the effect.
Source: I have ruined a few plastic containers by heating greasy food in the microwave, because the fat easily gets hot enough to melt the plastic. Homemade Bolognese sauce seems particularly dangerous in this regard, because it is both acidic and greasy, and that will absolutely EAT plastic.
P. S. Even if you don't damage the plastic per-se, heating oily food in the microwave in a plastic container isn't a good idea, quite a few nasty compounds will leach into the oil more readily than into water.
You also can't go years with it at home even with few uses. After you've fried in it once the oxidation goes much faster even if you don't use it again. Maybe if you freeze it between uses but I've never heard of that.
I'll admit that I pretty much deserve this, because pointing out that cooking oil can also be reused, was itself a pretty pedantic and pointless thing to mention.
When they switched from beef tallow to vegetable oil, it seemed like they needed to be changed a little more often.
Jim: "No thanks."
Be careful out there
Why would anyone eat fugu or collect wild mushrooms?
It's fun and interesting. That's why. Danger be damned.
I can't speak to fugu, but collecting wild mushrooms is statistically one of the safest hobbies in existence.
Some comments suggest it's because it's cooked at a higher temperature than boiling. That doesn't matter because the inside of the potato obviously never goes above boiling, since it continues to have lots of water inside after being cooked. The same exact effect should be achievable simply with deep-frying the potato at the same temperature.
Other comments suggest something somehow preserves the potato's flavor more than other methods. But that's not how cooking/flavor works. If the rosin (or boiling water or frying oil) were seeping into the inside of a potato then sure any or all of them could be leaching out flavor compounds, or reacting with existing compounds... but they're not.
All this is doing is heating the inside of the potato, where literally the only variables are the amount of heat being applied and the moisture escaping at the surface. If you were eating the skin then yes there's a massive difference between boiling vs. frying vs. roasting. But not on the inside (except for how much water vapor escapes which is a question of temperature and wrapping). And this article is literally about eating only the inside of the potato, since the rosin itself is apparently not fit for consumption.
Best I can guess, this is just a novelty thing about eating potatoes encased in newspaper that has wound up essentially glued to a hard potato shell? Seems like it's more about the experience, and nothing whatsoever to do with flavor or taste.
Like you said, the cooking of the inside is a function of the water vapor escape, which is a function of temperature and wrapping.
People elsewhere in this thread have said they have tried both methods, and commented on how when deep frying a whole baked potato, the escaping water vapor causes the oil to visibly, vigorously boil, but this doesn't happen with rosin, suggesting the vapor remains trapped inside.
While liquid water cannot go above 100C, water vapor certainly can. That water remains in the potato after cooking can just be re-condensed vapor. How the expanded gas would remain in the potato I have no idea.
My interpretation is that the difference from deep-frying is that something about the rosin method prevents as much water vapor from escaping. Maybe it's just typical cooking temperatures, and a deep fryer set to the same temperature as the rosin pot would yield a similar result, they just usually aren't set to that temperature.
Some recipies instruct you to wrap the potatoes with aluminium foil. I’ve always thought this is useless, but maybe should give it a try.
Or if the rosin is creating some kind of impermeable seal (unlikely since it's liquid at this temperature, but let's suppose it chemically reacts with the skin somehow) then you achieve the same thing by wrapping the potato in aluminum foil. That's the whole reason for foil around baked potatoes at steakhouses.
The point is, the rosin isn't doing anything special you can't already easily do. There's no special flavor here.
Pure armchair-ism. There's only one way to find out.
And yet even for me, spending 1.5-2 hours to get 3 baked potatoes, which are supposedly just....really nicely baked potatoes?...seems like a lot.
I'm glad that there are people out there preserving weird old historical cooking methods, but I feel no compulsion at all to actually try this myself.
> "Because none of the potato’s flavor or aroma compounds can escape, you get the most intense potato flavor you’ve ever experienced,” Brock says. “And they’re steaming in their own water, which is why you get a totally unique texture."
Sous vide would certainly trap everything, but then again, we want a potato that is ultimately dry on the outside.
What if instead of rosin we used something safer and more available, like a cooking oil? I bet deep fried potatoes would taste quite good! :-P
Again, there's only one way to find out.
Try almond potatoes and you will eat nothing else.
I'd be practically certain that is what is intended. It's possible it means a semi waxy white potato, which would be contemporaneous with the historical setting.
It is very unlikely to mean any of the thousands of more exotic varieties.
For us in New England, I wish there were an easy way to see if the difference is worth the effort.
It was a deep south thing in the US, but even within living memory not very common.
Can I make cannabis rosin potatoes for danksgiving?
But the skin is the best part! Seems lika a stupid cooking method.
I loathe the smell of turps, I wouldn’t eat anything that had any chance of coming into contact with it.
I have a tub of oar lubricant, for rowing. I also cannot find any evidence that it would be dangerous to eat, but I'm not going to fry up my dinner in it. Oar lubricant is traditionally just tallow so maybe that's what this is- but since it wasn't ever intended as food, do they, e.g. make sure it isn't stored and processed with equipment containing high lead concentrations, etc.? Maybe this one company adds something special and toxic that makes it work better that they don't have to disclose because it's not for human consumption?
"apparently, safely eating it" is also still not the standard I want to use for food. The guys down at the fishing docks in SF Bay are "apparently safely eating" all kinds of fish and sharks that there are big warning signs posted all over not to eat.
https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC419175000&...
> But is rosin really that toxic?
The LD50 is pretty high, so it's not likely to kill you, but I don't think you'd want to eat it. "May cause skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation"
Just to clarify, this is not some potentially contaminated crude rock salt product. It's the USP grade of table salt for incorporation into pharmaceutical products, which the MSDS also recommends against.
Like salt, rosin is an approved food additive in the US: https://www.hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?se...
There are toxic plants out there, but pine trees are pretty safe. You can safely chew even raw pine resin, even without boiling out the turpentine. You can make tea from pine needles. Try it, it's good.
Frying in rosin is a somewhat risky, even potentially fatal, form of food preparation, but the risk isn't that the rosin is going to poison you. It's that you'll spill hot rosin on yourself and get badly burned.
Water (stew) is... in every aspect possible a superior cooking medium.
How could this ever have been economical? How hard is it to make a cooking fire, or share a rosin melting fire with a cook pot?
I think it's essentially an old sarcastic joke, that people took too literally?