Edible or not?

Jun 23, 2005 12:32

My mandate coordinator emails us a link from the L.A. Times Food section on Mackerel.

I was obliged to fire back these 70s Weight Watchers recipe cards another biologist had sent to us:

"You get your very own cup!"
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/fluffymackpudding.html

"Four toast points form the hellmouth..."
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/snappymack.html

"Mack on you!"
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/mackerelly.html

(the entire thing is completely disturbing - http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html - I believe people lost weight on this stuff - it's so unappetizing you'd totally avoid eating)

Actually, I like mackerel, if it's very fresh and thoroughly de-parasitized - I've seen the insides of too many of them to have a lot of enthusiasm for mackerel sashimi. But baked or grilled, it's very good. I'm never cared for very mild fish such as orange roughy, because it didn't taste like anything; I like my fish to taste like fish. We nearly killed off a very slow growing, old deepwater fish to try to get people who don't like fish to eat fish. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My dad has a story about bringing a mackerel home from fishing; he wasn't planning to eat it himself, but thought he would give the cat a treat. He baked it, and when he took it out of the oven, the cat just about climbed up his leg to get at it. He thought at the time, "hmm, there must be something to this" and tried it himself. So we've been eating it now and then ever since.

In reference to the article, I did not know sauries were filed under mackerel too, as a market category. They used to serve those for dinner on the Japanese longliner I worked on - a bisected whole fish, so all of the roe it was filled with was visible.

work, eating, fish, disturbing things

Previous post Next post
Up