SC - In re ears vs kidneys

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Mordonna22 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Ras Wrote
> <<
>  > << The definitive explanation, IMO, would be the actual production of
>  > the recipe using both interpretations and see which one 'works'. When I
>  > have gathered the ingredients together, I will report back. :-) >>
> 
> Actually, probably not.  In my opinion, they'd both "work".  You'd wind up
> with slightly different dishes, but they'd both be quite tasty.  If I were
> making the dish, I'd probably use BOTH kidneys and ears in it.

I agree; you can't always assume that just because something tastes good
to you, and therefore "works", that it adds significantly or decisively
to the odds that that is what was done historically. I also agree that
either would work, but would produce slightly different product. Either
way, considering the other ingredients, the pork version of the dish is
going to have the rich flavor of organ meats; using ears instead of
kidneys isn't going to prevent that, while kidneys instead of ears isn't
going to significantly add to it.

You might, on the other hand, find it interesting to see what happens
when the entire dish is cooked for a suitable period of time to cook
ears versus kidneys. Or perhaps this is all a part of whether it works.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com