Are younger fish more healthier than older?

[LBC]

Glimpsed the article on here about 507lb prize tuna for sushi.

Got me thinking would I eat that? No. From an ecological standpoint, it is better to catch the bigger fish/seafood so you're not depleting the future food supply of the same. So yea it makes sense to eat the bigger ones.

But personally, I've found smaller fish/younger fish, veggies, fruits just in general tend to taste better. Like in the produce section, the ones that are giant size seem more likely to be GMO varieties, and if not, just overgrown. Ie, eggplant. I find the smaller ones make better babaganoush.

Same with shrimps, lobsters, squid, octo, and occasionally smelts and tilapia, though avoid fish and especially aquacultured fish much as possible. Good tasty things seem to come in small packages. Nope I didnt have the luxury yet to test this out chemically but it just makes sense.

I suppose those of you who eat pigs, cows, rabbits, deer, horse etc, the younger meat tastes tender and richer, no?

With old animals I'm thinking of free radicals, toxin buildup, antibiotic & steroid buildup, PRIONs, etc.

And likewise in the hobby too.

Sorry for the rant, please chime in if ya care! :banghead:

 

[albano]

I suppose those of you who eat pigs, cows, rabbits, deer, horse etc, the younger meat tastes tender and richer, no?

:scratchch Whenever the recipe calls for dogs or cats, I substitute puppies and kittens...everyone loves it!
(Tastes like chicken)

 

[LBC]

Don't have a cow, have a calf!

 

[chris koci]

lol

 

[Custom05Taco]

Makes sense to me I personally don't eat Veal anymore but when I did it did taste better.

I stopped eating it after I found out how they treat the animals. I'm all into eating meat just don't need it to suffer unnecessarily just to taste better.

 

[Zig]

this is funny

 

[edd]

everything young tastes good.
and healthier, the larger the fish the higher the mercury content, and who knows what else from what we dump in the sea. or have dumped in the past.

 

[e.muehlbauer]

It depends. In general, the larger the fish, the more likely the concentration of possible contaminants. With meat and poultry, smaller and younger is definitely better. But when it comes to fish, when I go fishing, I like big and meaty better. While everyone says that only small bluefish are worth eating, I like the big ones best. Much better texture and chew, and, to me, the flavor is exactly the same-mild- as the small blues. (I have to add that I catch my blues on the North Fork, far away from NYC. Near NYC, even small blues taste too strong.) Needless to say, they have to be ultrafresh. I only eat blues I catch myself. With striped bass, they have to be large to be legal...but on the rare times I go on a charter and catch a really big one, I love it. But I like my fish to have a good, firm texture.

 

[cmantis]

Should your title read are younger fish tastier?

By healthier I am not sure what you are implying plus it depends just like with people.

As far as making more sense to eat the older more mature fish not necessarily. Often these are the ones necessary to reproduce and it takes a long time to reach that level so maybe not the best idea.

Again all very subjective.

 

[LBC]

everything young tastes good.
and healthier, the larger the fish the higher the mercury content, and who knows what else from what we dump in the sea. or have dumped in the past.

Exactly. Like MBauer I also prefer firm, flakey fish instead of a mess of mush & bones to choke on, and you get that from freshly mature fish that are still youngs as compared to these 10-100 year old groupers and tunas that are so prized in certain culinary niches.

http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00

How can I avoid consuming mercury in fish?
Options for avoiding the mercury in mercury-contaminated fish are more limited than for fish contaminated with PCBs, dioxins and other organic contaminants. Younger fish tend to have lower concentrations of mercury than older, larger fish within the same waterbody. Mercury concentrates in the muscle tissue of fish. So, unlike PCBs, dioxins and other organic contaminants that concentrate in the skin and fat, mercury cannot be filleted or cooked out of consumable game fish.

Perhaps though, humans evolved to favor health by size, perhaps a trait inherited from mate selection, although for mating, http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html the existence of neoteny (retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles) strongly suggests males simultaneously do look for youthful qualities (while females, mature qualities); a straightforward example would be extreme strong preference of a young-looking female (young face, full hips & breasts) given their narrow window of fertility from teens until mid 30s; whereas preference for males seems more based on signs of fertility (facial hair, muscles, virility, maturity, wealth) likewise in female fish's preference..

http://www.livescience.com/17950-female-fish-attracted-fed-mates.html

What about male fish what do they prefer in their females, wide 'hips' (girth)?

 

[LBC]

PS: The topic is about young fish being healthier or not - not necessarily for eating.

Are we fish-eaters more than we are fish/reef-keepers, or what?!

Sheesh.

 

[duke62]

All I know is I would take the younger deer to eat and the larger deer i would donate. The younger deer taste much better. Im not talking fawns Im talking 1 to 2 year old deer

 

[reefer4eva]

Not too sure where this topic is going(getting kinda hungry now)but I'll try and stay on topic.this year I had my 2 clownfish for 19 years and they been thru hell and back...many tank transfers,endless transfers that sometimes don't go so well,blackouts,brutally hot summers,failed chillers,burnt out return pumps while I'm on vacation for 2 weeks..they been thru a lot and yes I know there clownfish and they can handle a lot but I don't think a younger pair of clownfish could have survived 1/4 of what these 2 that I have

 

[LBC]

Interesting, are all clownfish species as hardy/longlived?