|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 04:08:53 -0800, (EmmaG) wrote:
>Apparently fish cooked on the bone is far tastier, even if it looks
>horrible on my plate and I leave far more of it for fear of digging
>out a bit that I'm not supposed to.
>So my question is can you cook it on the bone and then take off the
>fillet once cooked without just flaking it off and if so which species
>is best, something firm like monk ?
The easiest to fillet after cooking are not readily available
everywhere, unfortunately. The prototype is Dover Sole, which has a
simple heavy-boned flat skeleton. Any waiter with even limited
experience can fillet it in front of you at table. By the same token
it is easy to eat without the waiter's help.
Folks who live in the Bay area can enjoy a local miracle, the Sand
Dab, endemic to Monterey Bay. It has a similar structure to the Dover
Sole and is easy to eat served whole, the only proper way. Yummy! And,
last I heard, it is not endangered, so eat without guilt. 4 makes a
nice serving.
In the East, the grey sole can be eaten whole, although its skeleton
is not quite as heavy as the above. Vladimir Hrowitz was said to eat
11 of them before a recital. They do slide down very easily, but not
that easily for a non-pianist.
Once you get used to it, fish with much more delicate bones are less
frightening. Flounder, fluke, weakfish, striper, petrale in the West.
The most difficult is the herring family, which has tiny forked bones.
Shad, a large herring, is usually filleted and boned (by a highly paid
pro) before you get it. Smaller herring are usually pickeled, which
must dissolve the bones. They are delicious fresh, but hard to eat.
I think the "green herring" served as raw fillets in Holland must be
filleted in a way that discards large parts of the fish. I don't know
the process, but you get tail-end fillets, each with half the tail
atached as a handle. If anyone knows more about how they do this, I
would like to read about it.
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
MOM CASTS TOT IN CEMENT
Most experts voice cautious optimism
|