# why do they put oil in batter for batter fried foods?



## siduri (Aug 13, 2006)

This may be an idle question, but i always wondered why they put oil in a batter that will be used to deep fry foods.  It seems redundant to me - the food will take in some oil from the frying, even if minimum if you use a really good technique. 

While I'm at it, i;ve tried many batters that either have baking powder or beaten egg whites, and my experience has always been that these batters, with all their air holes, function just like sponges, and soak up all the oil.  I keep a hot temp for the oil, fry a few things at a time, but never could really keep these batters from absorbing way too much oil.  When i make another kind of batter, they don;t come out greasy after frying, so i must be doing something right.

thanks


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

That's a good question but I don't know the answer.  Along the same lines I recently discovered a recipe for breaded chicken cutlet and the bread crumbs were made in a FP with crackers, a little garlic, and butter.  I thought to myself, why the butter in the breading if I'm just going to cook it in olive oil?  But I tried it and what do you know, best breaded chicken cutlet I ever made.


----------



## highlander01 (Apr 30, 2010)

Oil in the batter instead of water to keep the moisture levels down and promote safer frying maybe?

Other than that I'm not sure

Maybe a difference in texture?


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Posted by *Highlander01* 


> Oil in the batter instead of water to keep the moisture levels down and promote safer frying maybe?
> 
> Other than that I'm not sure


No to the first sentence, and first three words of the second. Yes to the last three words of the second.

Water, beer, and other watery liquids convert from liquid to steam, expand the crust, and make it puffy and light. Oil goes for a tighter, richer crust. It also keeps the crust closer to the food which is being battered; but that's better controlled by having the food dry before battering.

A typical egg batter which used to be frequently employed with sea food is egg, oil, (maybe a few herbs) and very little flour -- with a light flour or starch dredge before battering; usually pan fried or sauteed. The resulting crust is rich, soft, holds the fish together, but is not at all crisp -- almost as though you've wrapped the fish in an omelet.

The style might be considered old fashioned; at least I'm not seeing it lately. It used to be quite popular with thin fillets like trout and sole, or pounded shellfish like abalone.

BDL


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

boar_d_laze said:


> Water, beer, and other watery liquids convert from liquid to steam, expand the crust, and make it puffy and light. Oil goes for a tighter, richer crust. It also keeps the crust closer to the food which is being battered; but that's better controlled by having the food dry before battering.
> 
> A typical egg batter which used to be frequently employed with sea food is egg, oil, (maybe a few herbs) and very little flour -- with a light flour or starch dredge before battering; usually pan fried or sauteed. The resulting crust is rich, soft, holds the fish together, but is not at all crisp -- almost as though you've wrapped the fish in an omelet.
> 
> The style might be considered old fashioned; at least I'm not seeing it lately. It used to be quite popular with thin fillets like trout and sole, or pounded shellfish like abalone.


That type of info is worth its weight in gold to me BDL. Thanks so much for sharing. I don't know why I can't find a culinary book that has that type of info in it, rather than a list of recipes.


----------



## highlander01 (Apr 30, 2010)

French Fries said:


> That type of info is worth its weight in gold to me BDL. Thanks so much for sharing. I don't know why I can't find a culinary book that has that type of info in it, rather than a list of recipes.


I'm guessing your not finding it due to the fact that it would be considered insider trading or a trade secret 

Or it could be something as simple as the professionals take it for granted that this is common knowledge and that anyone that cooks on a regular basis knows about it


----------



## benway (May 24, 2009)

I can't be sure but my initial thought was for improved heat transfer.

Water boils at 212 degrees and not a degree higher.  Once the water becomes steam it can get hotter but its shortlived anyways as steam will escape and book it out of the oil in the form of bubbles. Fat however can get much hotter than that, hot enough to produce the Maillard reactions needed for browning.  It makes sense to me at least that having fat already in the batter displaces liquid that otherwise would be water allowing the batter to brown faster and maybe even a little more evenly due to more penetrating conduction.  Is that convincing anyone?


----------



## siduri (Aug 13, 2006)

Interesting BDL, but fish wrapped in an omelette has about as much attraction for me as pickle cheesecake, so i'll stick to batter without oil!


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

siduri said:


> Interesting BDL, but fish wrapped in an omelette has about as much attraction for me as pickle cheesecake, so i'll stick to batter without oil!


Fuzzy logic. The batter that tasted like an omelet had oil in it, but that doesn't mean that oil makes batters taste like omelet. That particular batter also had egg (hint, hint....) and barely any starch. FWIW fish wrapped in omelette doesn't sound very attractive to me either. Neither does pickle cheesecake for that matter.


----------



## phreon (Dec 20, 2010)

Highlander01 said:


> I'm guessing your not finding it due to the fact that it would be considered insider trading or a trade secret
> 
> Or it could be something as simple as the professionals take it for granted that this is common knowledge and that anyone that cooks on a regular basis knows about it


What you're saying is everyone knows it, it's a secret and therefore unshared OR everyone who knows it already knows it and therefore it's unshared. Where in this description is the path from unknowing to knowing?

Doug


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

Phreon said:


> What you're saying is everyone knows it, it's a secret and therefore unshared OR everyone who knows it already knows it and therefore it's unshared. Where in this description is the path from unknowing to knowing?
> 
> Doug


Ouch. Now I have a headache. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

It's not a secret.  It's a texture.  Many things go unexplained because, it seems, it's assumed the cook who found the recipe knew what (s)he wanted.  That's why a few of us try to use technique explanations rather than simply provide recipes.  I.e., if you want "a," do "b;"  instead of, "to make 'Crapaud Parisienne,' follow this recipe."  

Getting down to cases, this type of batter does not make an omelet wrapped fish.  "Omelet" was simile only.  The crust is is not an omelet; it's a rich, eggy, thin, batter coating which doesn't puff -- with just a little more substance than an egg wash; much as though you were doing a three stage breading (flour, egg, crumbs), but omitted the breadcrumbs.  You're not required to like it, but you probably would.    

If I'm not mistaken, at one time this treatment was one of many, many things called "Frenching."  But the term is well before my time and I might very well be wrong.

BDL


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

boar_d_laze said:


> If I'm not mistaken, at one time this treatment was one of many, many things called "Frenching."


I wonder how you'd translate that in French? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Anyway I hate that assumption that cooks just want to do one thing quickly. I feel like all the cookbooks out there are simply giving me fish, when I want to be taught to fish.

But thank god there's this forum, and people like you, Chris Lehrer, and a few others to help me go beyond my cookbook collection. Thanks again.


----------



## pohaku (Jul 11, 2011)

Fish wrapped in omelet? What's not to like? Fish or meat, thinly sliced, seasoned and coated in egg and pan fried is a standard Korean food - called meat or fish Jun. Commonly made with beef and fish. Pork and chicken work well too. Every Korean restaurant and take out place I've ever been in has it on the menu. Easy to make at home. My kids love it. Of course, everyone has their own take on this. Here's a pretty basic recipe, adjust as you see fit.

*Meat Jun*

2 lbs. sirloin or sirloin tip
1/2 cup soy sauce (Yamasa is good and commonly available)
2 Tbs sesame oil

2 Tsp sesame seeds - roasted
3 stalks green onion, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
4 eggs, beaten
Flour

Oil for frying

*Directions:*

Trim meat well and cut into thin wide slices (1/4 inch thick like for teriyaki). Place in a bowl - add soy sauce, sesame oil, sesame seeds, green onion, and garlic, mix well. Marinate for 1 hour. Pour flour into a flat pan. Dip marinated meat pieces in flour. Transfer meat into beaten eggs. Drip off excess. Fry in pan at med-hi heat until golden brown. Drain on paper towels.

*Sauce:*

1/2 cup soy sauce
2 Tsp rice vinegar

2 Tsp sugar
2 stalks green onion, finely chopped
1 clove garlic, minced
2 Tsp sesame seeds, roasted

Chili pepper chopped (optional)


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

French Fries said:


> Anyway I hate that assumption that cooks just want to do one thing quickly. I feel like all the cookbooks out there are simply giving me fish, when I want to be taught to fish.


Stop buying cook books and start buying reference books and text on technique instead. They dont give you nearly as many recipes but all the info to make the food you want to eat and how/why you have the out come when completed


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

chefhow said:


> Stop buying cook books and start buying reference books and text on technique instead. They dont give you nearly as many recipes but all the info to make the food you want to eat and how/why you have the out come when completed


Please, if you know of any good ones, that would contain the kind of info BDL just shared with us, let me know! I mean I have quite a few books on technique already, the best one being the following one: http://www.editions-bpi.fr/livres-pdf/cuisine/e1760-la-cuisine-de-référence-édition-complète.pdf (that pdf is just an extract, the book is 600 pages long or so...) It's great at telling you exactly what to do, but only sometimes does it tell you why. For example it'll tell you not to use a whisk for a brown sauce because it incorporates too much air and lightens the color. That's the kind of info I love to have.

I hate, with a passion, any cookbook that makes statements, like "Never, ever chop cilantro too finely." or "always start potatoes in cold water." but doesn't tell you why.

Maybe I should get a book on food science instead? Anyway sorry to derail this thread.


----------



## siduri (Aug 13, 2006)

Don't worry about derailing, FF, that's what's so nice about these forums.

My comment on omelette-wrapped fish was a joke, BDL (as i think you know) and Pohaku - though i don;t much like omelettes that are not creamy, and don't much like egg on my fish in general. ( I prefer cheese /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif ) (not to bring up THAT discussion again!)

I agree with FF that an explanation is worth a hundred recipes. For which we have some good explainers here. I do read lots of cookbooks, and the good ones do explain things. Yes to julia child, no to joy of cooking, (i rarely use joy of cooking, due to the lack of explanations). Yes to the time life series for the most part, and to many other little-known cookbooks. . And if you tell me to start my potatoes in cold water, you'd dxxxn well better tell me why or i will never do it. I never have that much time anyway, so I probably won't do it anyway, and will cut my potatoes up to make them cook faster. (then the "insides" will be outside and will cook at the same time as the outside!)

Anyway, about the thin and crispy batter and the thicker and more dense batter, *i have another question*

Why do some batter recipes call for beaten egg whites or baking powder, when my experience with these is that they create a spongelike texture for the batter which acts exactly like that, like a sponge, and gives me soggy and greasy fried food.

I use egg with a little water in it as a way to coat the food to protect it from absorbing fat (egg cooks quickly if it's thinly coating the food so, i presume, seals out the oil), and it also helps stick bread crumbs so they don;t fall off. If i want the crust a little more substantial i use flour under the egg.

If i want a very thin crisp crust, i coat in thick greek yoghurt and then flour. It tenderizes the food under it and makes a wonderful crispy crust that stays crispy. If i want to make a nice thick batter that gets crisp, i mix egg and yoghurt and flour, and then roll in bread crumbs.

But while i get good results frying (and i don;t have a deep frier, just a frying pan - i put a good amount of oil in it and just fry a few things at a time, trying to keep the oil to a point of vigorously sizzling the food as it drops in but not burning) - i ALWAYS got lousy sodden results when adding any sort of bubble-making substance, beaten eggwhites or baking powder. For me it's a recipe for disaster and I don't understand if i'm doing something wrong or it's the leavening itself that's wrong.

And again, the oil. I still don't fully understand - tighter and richer crust, you say, BDL. closer to the food you say. Better done by drying the food first. Yes, for sure. Even flouring it, perhaps. Richer crust? maybe egg would be a richer crust. I'm thinking of the sodden fish filets in that egg and oil omelette "crust" - not appealing. But i;ve also seen oil in other eggless batters.

tell me more. Why, why, WHY....


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

I find it helps the crust stay on better and does not promote puffing. I also add a bit of cornstarch to all my fry batters . I have found the starch cooks right away and in my opinion retards the product from absorbing a lot of oil. . Drop a little starch slurry on a hot surfce and see what happens right away . Works for me.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

Siduri......many recipes that call for beaten egg white or baking soda do come out quite crispy and puffy but after just a few minutes sitting time they go south. These types of fried things need to be eaten asap.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

Is there an English version to what you posted?

I have always found that Larouse's books are very good references as well as the CIA book.  Also look into Laverne Culinare, and the Johnson and Wales study guides.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

Heston Blumenthal has a fish and chips chapter in "In Search of Perfection". His batter has no oil, no eggs. Equal parts plain flour and rice flour, some baking powder, and equal parts vodka and lager for liquid. Batter aeration is achieved with the use of a soda siphon (CO2), as well as with the baking powder (and the beer, of course). Vodka is used because it doesn't develop the gluten as much as water, and because it's more volatile, evaporating faster during the frying, and allowing for faster browning/crisping of the batter.

Heston Blumenthal is my favorite food geek, and he's very good at explaining the science and the process by which he develops both recipes and methods. I haven't taken this particular recipe for a test drive yet, though.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Posted by *SherBel* 


> Heston Blumenthal has a fish and chips chapter in "In Search of Perfection". His batter has no oil, no eggs. Equal parts plain flour and rice flour, some baking powder, and equal parts vodka and lager for liquid.


I'm not sure what your point is... or if the thread's drifted to "fish and chips "from "why oil in batter?" Not that there's anything wrong with thread drift.

If you're looking for a light, crisp, tempura-like breading, the most important things are using a carbonated liquid like beer or fizzy water, using it cold, and using the batter cold. The combination of carbonation and a cold start cause a controlled expansion which progresses in stages, creates a lot of craggy surface area, and that makes for extra crispness. Vodka, glutens, rice flour, all that stuff is way down the list, and borders on the obsessive -- not that there's anything wrong attention to detail, either.

On the other hand, oil in batter helps prevent both lightness and crispness. It's used when a sleeker, softer coating is desired. For instance, if you wanted to make calamari steaks sauced with a "mojo de ajo" or a lemon caper beurre blanc, you'd most likely choose an oil batter over one that was fish and chips style in order to harmonize the seafood with the sauce.

There are a lot of right ways to do things.

BDL


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

chefhow said:


> Is there an English version to what you posted?


Not that I know of I'm afraid.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

boar_d_laze said:


> Posted by *SherBel*
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is... or if the thread's drifted to "fish and chips "from "why oil in batter?" Not that there's anything wrong with thread drift.


I thought it was an interesting batter, one with no oil, which I though was relevant to the OP's first post regarding deep fried foods and batter composition. Evidently it didn't meet your criteria for this thread.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

If I had the power to limit or control thread drift, I wouldn't use it. The question wasn't value loaded, rather an attempt to find out how we got from "why do some batters have oil?" to "this is a good, no-oil, fish and chips batter."  The recipe came from the opposite direction of the question in a thread which hewed close to the original topic.

But as already said there's nothing wrong with thread drift.  I asked about your motivation because I think the reasons people have for posting are often as interesting as the posts.  You were under no obligation to answer.

I apologize for any bruised feelings my clumsy writing engendered,

BDL


----------



## nadeest (Nov 6, 2010)

Try the book:
[product="6283"]On Food And Cooking The Science And Lore Of The Kitchen [/product]
if you would like to know the hows and whys of things. Honestly, I don't think that the book contains a single recipe, but it sure tells you a lot of stuff. This book is required reading for the introductory class that in the school that I am attending.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

Nadeest said:


> Try the book: "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" by Harold McGhee if you would like to know the hows and whys of things. Honestly, I don't think that the book contains a single recipe, but it sure tells you a lot of stuff. This book is required reading for the introductory class that in the school that I am attending.


Yes, that's a book I've been contemplating for a while, I should just get it already. Thank you for reminding it to me.

Another one I'd looooove to get is Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking, but I can't find anyone to buy it for me for Xmas (it's a $450 book!). http://modernistcuisine.com/


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

Harold McGhee books ar  very good. They tell you why you are doing what your doing. The man really researches his topics and explains them easily for all to understand.


----------



## nadeest (Nov 6, 2010)

That set of books sounds awfully interesting to me too, French Fries.  Maybe I can get someone to buy it for me, someday, or when I start getting a bit ahead, invest in it for myself.


----------



## petalsandcoco (Aug 25, 2009)

Nadeest,

The shame is that its being sold "used" at Amazon for  $ 832 and new is half price.....

Petals.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

petalsandcoco said:


> Nadeest,
> 
> The shame is that its being sold "used" at Amazon for $ 832 and new is half price.....
> 
> Petals.


Hi Petals! If you search Amazon for "cookbooks", then sort your search result by price, highest to lowest, to see the highest prices cookbooks, you'll see that used cookbooks sellers are quite creative in their pricing. I believe some may think that one day maybe, someone will be dumb enough to fork out what they're asking.

Here's the craziest one, a $1,000,000.00 "Stalin-era" cookbook: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003R4UKH4/?tag=cheftalk-sl-20


----------



## petalsandcoco (Aug 25, 2009)

FF,

Obscene !!! That book was first published in 1955  how could they ? And according to the review, it is not even in good shape. My friend and I are trying to get a book, its Australian, and it is about cake decorating. The reason why I would like the book is because it has all the techniques for Royal icing ( layers of mounting techniques  ). The book is over 450.00. I am just so disappointed.

The people that are selling those books for outrageous prices should recongnize the fact that no one will buy at those prices, therefore the contents will never be shared, which to me is a shame.

Petals.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_recongnize the fact that no one will buy at those prices_

You're a great cook, Darlin', and I love you dearly. But you don't know nuthin' bout the book collecting market. Not if you believe that.

It's important to understand that there are users and there are collectors and that these are two different populations. Doesn't only apply to books; go look at used cast iron for another example. Users look for value. Collectors have other criteria, ranging from "I need it" to "What a great investment."

And therein lies the problem. You're looking for a book to use, so $400, or $600, or a $k-note seem exhorbitent. But for a collector, maybe those prices represent a bargain. Or, to use the cast iron example again: I'd love to have some Grizwald, it ranks among the best cast iron cookware ever made. But anyone who think's I'd pay more than a hundred bucks for an 8-inch skillet is crazy. But, on the other hand, to a collector a hundred dollars for that skillit is a steal.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> _recongnize the fact that no one will buy at those prices_
> 
> You're a great cook, Darlin', and I love you dearly. But you don't know nuthin' bout the book collecting market. Not if you believe that.


KYH, are you saying you believe that someone out there will fork out $1,000,000.00 for that book? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/confused.gif


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

I'm saying somebody might.

At that level, however, it's usually an auction or specialized rare book dealer that gets the custom.

Understand that I'm not the slightest bit familiar with that book; how rare it is, how in demand, how it fits in the collector market. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if somebody forked over that kind of money.

Note that the book is listed as a first edition collectible. One of the things that means is that there are all sorts of collecter categories that might have interest in it. Just some of them would include:

1. People who collect rare cookbooks

2. People who collect first editions (and break that down into as many sub-categories as you wish)

3. People who collect Stalinist memorabelia

4. People who collect Russian publications

etc., etc., etc.

The only thing that surprises me is that the book is listed as an open offering, as though it's just another used book. Normally, dealers who handle that sort of thing have lists of potential customers, and it goes out as a private offering.

Although not applicable in this case, another factor effecting book prices is initial printing. Sometimes there is a book published of great importance to the field, but which is incredibly expensive to produce while having a limited sales potential. Many scientific reference books fall in that category. I have one like that, for instance, called _Evolution of Crop Plants _that was issued at $450. I haven't checked, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that it's selling used for two or more times that.


----------



## nadeest (Nov 6, 2010)

French Fries,

   It wouldn't surprise me in the least, for a collector of rare books to do so.  If I had the funds and space to do so, I'd be collecting all of Andre Norton's books, both in paperback and hardcover, and would be willing to pay a goodly amount of money for the right copies that I would need to complete my collection.

   For example, a signed copy of a book that was first published in 1961, by an author that I know of is being advertised for sale at $304.  I purchased my copy of that book sometime during 1984 or later, since that was the 20th edition of that book at the grand price of $5.95 brand spanking new.

   The world of collectors can be a crazy world indeed, to people that are not collectors.  How much, do you think, would a chef that happened to have struck it rich, be willing to pay for a authenticated copy of "Banchetti", "Opera", or one of Escoffier's original books?  It would not surprise me in the least to see them sell for $1mil+ .


----------

