I have heard all sorts of dire tales about spiny backs. This is another fish in roughly the same league as red cod ... or so it would seem. Today, along with my son-in-law, we hit the beach with a torpedo and spiny backs made up the larger proportion of our catch. Most were quite small and they swam away albeit a little the wiser for their brush with my 5/0 recurve hooks.
I have never been able to pin down an exact reason as to why this fish, according to popular opinion, has no culinary value. With three fish on the beach in the two kilo mark, we decided to find out.
I treated the fish as I would a nice tope or lemon, the fins, tail, gut cavity and head were all removed soon after landing and the trunks were kept in sea water. Once home the backbone and the cartilage plates that support the vicious spines were removed, then the trunk was skinned and filleted.
This was one time when I was quite wasteful with the filleting knife, as I was dealing with the unknown I only wanted what looked like prime meat. I ended up with a dinner plate full of lovely, very pale fish pieces that by sight alone looked more than interesting.
My son-in-law called the barbecue to duty and quite soon, with the aid of some of the latest non stick tinfoil, the fish fillets were gently brought to a favourable cooking temperature, it didn't take long before they were ready to accompany some garlic chips and a hunk of fresh, generously buttered bread.
There were six of us involved in the testing party. We all took just one piece and then gave an independent opinion on the culinary value. It's always difficult to fault fresh fish and this is probably why we take up the sport in the first place. Six people indulged and six people gave the fillets a well deserved pass mark, they were bloody delicious.
I can't see this opinion changing when the fish is cooked in a standard frying pan. It is a lovely soft consistency, a good flavour without a hint of ammonia. The general consensus was one that only questioned when are we going fishing again? Everyone wanted more.
I am sure the answer is quite simple: it's how you look after the fish you catch at the time they are landed. They were not thrown on the beach or simply bagged for a couple of hours until I could get around to dealing with them. They were unhooked, de-finned, gutted and beheaded within minutes of being landed, they were treated properly and this paid a dividend in spades. I would recommend the next time you land a spiny back, and it's big enough to keep, treat it with the same respect you would give a prime table fish and you will be delighted when it's served up at dinner time.
Re: What's the truth?
Posted by Phill on 2/6/2013, 9:46 pm, in reply to "What's the truth?" Tackle Tactics
I think it's called Snowflake or Pearl fish in the supermarket . A lot of people will not eat Trevally either ,they think its only good for bait . Dumb asses
Re: What's the truth?
Posted by racepics on 3/6/2013, 7:09 am, in reply to "What's the truth?"
Some of my non-fishing friends are amazed when I tell them rig/lemonfish/ssh is lovely to eat. They all complain it tastes of ammonia. This is because they have only ever eaten commercially caught stuff which is dead for quite a while before being processed. I'm sure most sharks, shellfish eaters or not, would be much better eating if treated properly as soon as landed.http://www.paniasurfcasting.org http://www.surfcaster.co.nz
Find that very interesting, going to give it a try again never stop learning, whats the word on chinamen ? (carpet sharks)
Re: What's the truth?
Posted by EditB on 6/6/2013, 4:06 pm, in reply to "What's the truth?"
Mate, when I was kid down in Chch I was reliably informed by my Grandfather & Father that Kahawai were only good for a bit of sport when the Salmon weren't running and only fit for the cat to eat.
Was pleasantly surprised when I discovered just how delicious they were as an adult!Brenton Cumberpatch North Shore Surfcasting Club, 2012 Treasurer.
on 2/6/2013, 7:57 pm