Swans are kind of assholes in my experience and the "mute swan"(the one most people think of) has become a massive pest among the fisheries/parks/etc crowd.
I'm generally a pretty adventurous cook/eater and did a goose for christmas last year(geese are a hella pest but somehow the dead one I bought was $70 or something) and probably wouldn't do a swan if it's similar. Geese are almost "beefy"
Are geese adventurous? Where I’m from (north-eastern Bavaria) roasted goose breast with potato dumplings are a a common Sunday dinner meal (duck breast is less common, at least in restaurants, but my grandparents and parents often made it). Pork is obviously the standard thing to roast and consequently more common overall, but I would argue that at least where I’m from this roasted geese breast is a bigger deal than chicken based meals. Especially if it’s a Sunday dinner.
Goose is also popular for Christmas, turkey not really. Actually, goose is probably the thing to make for Christmas where I’m from.
Goose is obviously not chicken or turkey, but I really love it with very fatty gravy, a crispy, salty crust, and quite dry meat. I love fried chicken, too, I think everyone does, plus turkey, but that’s not what I’m looking for when eating roasted goose breast.
Oddly enough, goose isn't particularly common as a food in the U.S., even at Christmas. And this is in spite of the fact that we've had goose drilled into our collective consciousness as a traditional Christmas main course (and they're a very common nuisance animal).
We eat tons of turkey in the U.S., but usually sliced. Most people only roast a whole turkey at Thanksgiving, but it's not uncommon to make it at Christmas. In the U.S., if you're cooking a bird, it's probably a chicken. Duck is more of a restaurant thing, particularly at slightly nicer Chinese restaurants.
This story has got me really thinking. I made a fig pudding (adapted from a 120-year-old British recipe) at Christmas two years ago. It was OK. I think I overdid it with the amaretto. Maybe my next Christmas cooking adventure will be goose.
We do a four-pound roast chicken almost every week—it's a big yummy meal with lots of leftovers to become sandwiches, pasta, casserole, etc, plus making stock for soup or rice later in the week.
Good luck with the goose! I've only made it a few times and it's been a few years, but from what I recall...
Goose is very fatty, and goose fat is very flavorful. Find ways to celebrate that, particularly on a cold christmas. Make a gravy, or roast some fruits in it, or potatoes, or... but it's definitely something you should be planning around.
It is not something the average american home cook would attempt, not because it's hard but because they don't tend to be stocked in normal grocery stores, and when they are(around holidays) they're really expensive.
Add to the fact that the pure liquid fattiness of the(even raw) bird in my experience makes it a huge hassle(I was told by my grandmother whose house I cooked it at that her oven smelled strongly of goose/grease until she ran the hardcore clean cycle).
"anecdotally" eating goose is not something that I was exposed to(outside of a "wild game dinner" put on by a hunting club) in my generic(fairly privileged) middle american childhood and I was exposed to a lot of cuisine(adventurous father)
> Add to the fact that the pure liquid fattiness of the(even raw) bird in my experience makes it a huge hassle
Yah. In Grad. school, I once bought a whole duck on a dare. One of those long nights, I decided to stuff it and cook it. The damn tray was swimming in duck oil.
It really depends on the area and age of the people eating. Growing up (way in the country) many of my older family members relished goose and duck. We kept them in a steady supply, but never really enjoyed the flavors ourselves. Now that I live in the city, many people I meet enjoy duck, but its a very different duck then what I grew up with-the duck as I knew it was wild, and very gamey. The duck most people enjoy are farm raised and more fatty and less gamey.
Yep, goose is quite a dark meat, and is easily overcooked to dryness. But potatoes (or anything) roasted in goose-fat should be the highlight of anyone's christmas dinner!
If swan is anything like goose (which I can only imagine it is), it's probably too fussy for the average home meal anyways. Goose can be delicious, but it's not something you'd cook outside of an occasion like Christmas.
That article is .. devoid of new information. It claims that we don't eat swans (maybe? probably? I certainly never did.) but fails to provide even a hint of an answer. Unless I miss a hidden link for a page 2 or 3 that is a very long "So we don't eat a big bird, think about it", which is .. thought provoking if you're feeling nice, lacking content if you're not.
Jumping between vastly different regions doesn't help either ("Swans are the property of the crown in the UK, but a pest in Michigan." What??).
Perhaps you didn't, but I learned much from the article. I didn't know that swans are crown property in England [1], that only the royal family and the fellows of St. John’s College of Cambridge (!) are allowed to eat them, or that they have become pests in Michigan (which of course is relevant; the post is not about a region, but about swans). I didn't even realize that there was a taboo against eating swans, though it seems obvious now.
There once was a man from St John's
Who coveted one of the swans,
"Oh no" said the Porter,
Please take my daughter,
The swans are reserved for the dons.
There was also an interesting link about why we should consider eating invasive (non-native) species. Personally I think the Canadian Geese around Oracle HQ in Redwood City could use a good thinning.
In the Chicago area, there are two populations of Canada Goose, one migratory. There was a concern that their population was going to grow substantially, but it was discovered that it had flattened out.
Someone then discovered that the growing population of coyotes in the area were going after the eggs, and the population as a result has stablized.
No, because they cause economic harm. Both in damage to aircraft coming into and out of San Mateo airport, damage to cars which are involved in goose related accidents, damage to property in the form of plant destruction and defecation. Without natural predators they have become a nuisance.
Much like kangaroos in rural Australia. With fewer predators and enormous amounts of native bushland cleared for farming, they have multiplied to the point that they've become a pest.
If you can get your hands on that sort of things, I really recommend trying
- a steak from a horse
- sausages, barbecued (hey, I'm German. Let's play the stereotype card) => Bratwurst
- as pointed out elsewhere in this thread: Sauerbraten (although that's somewhat 'special'. I'd say everyone eating meat should try the first two, the last one is really weird and a dish that is both savory and sweet)
> I didn't like it, it tasted a lot like rabbit to me, and sourness in a meat is just weird to me.
Odd. I have had both Rabbit and Kangaroo. Both were lean flavorful, the Kangaroo more close to a lean beef than anything. But I wouldn't associate "sour" with both meats. Could you have sampled a bad batch?
I'm not used to rabbit or roo, and how I characterize the taste is probably not very sophisticated. I thought it felt sour, but there were lots of other tastes going on that I wasn't able to process very well, and...I'm very familiar with east, south, southeast asian food...Europe is just weird to me in comparison.
I too wouldn't use the word sour, though I will say kangaroo is definitely gamey compared to beef, and somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not a meat I would choose to eat without accompaniments.
(Whereas a tender sous vide steak of beef can be utterly scrumptious on its own, even unseasoned.)
Like sibling poster I encourage you to try horse. If you ever end up in Parma (Italy) or surroundings try pesto di cavallo, which raw minced horse meat, not unlike a steak tartare.
Apparently the SQL airport had its code decades prior to Oracle moving in next door. Co-incidence? All I know is the Oracle buildings are just barely outside the flight path, and every time I land on Rwy 12 I feel like I have to maneuver around them. We're supposed to avoid flying directly overhead, but they're directly where the base leg is supposed to be!
Yeah, the instructions are a bit tricky, especially since SFO Class B (to the floor) is just up ahead as well, an invisible wall you better not run into. Friendly controllers, though, in my experience :-)
And yet, this could be turned to another point of view: that human activity has caused environmental harm, with too many dangerous and polluting aircraft and cars, an airport in the birds' natural habitat, and the destruction of natural predators, with all the accompanying ecological side-effects...
Hey.
I certainly don't want to ruin that article for you. For me (German, haven't left the country except for random vacations to France, NL, CH, IT or something and a year in IL) that was well-known. I've been in the UK once, in London, for two days. Guess that's a matter of which trivia based games you play or something.. ;-)
Michigan: No idea about that, that WAS news to me. But the article is about "Why don't we eat swans" and the Michigan part is really a bad example. So ... it's a pest? No hunting season though? And no explanation?
Frankly, I like swans. I regularly met and fed a couple of swans in Cologne in Germany here, checking on the young ones if the season was right.
I'd love to eat them though.
The article, for me at least, fails to deliver at least a hint of an answer to the question it proposed. That's just a bad format for me. If your main subject is a question, you need to at least try to answer it (and "yeah, they might be cute" isn't it).
What I got from it, while not a conclusive answer, was that because of the historical ban for anyone but the royal to eat swan, there is no tradition anywhere in the western world for it. Also people don't like to eat "cute" animals, like seals or squirrels. And lastly, when something is classified as a pest, people don't want to think of it on their dining room table.
While the article doesn't explicitly say the exact reason why, I think these were the main points. So I guess that is badly formatting on the article writers side.
But the premise is already weird. Who is "We" as in "Why don't we eat swans"? And who considers swans 'cute'?
I mean, I consider cats cute, lots of people consider dogs cute - and both animals are eaten in this world. Better example: Horses are cherished as companions and pets for some people and I _regularly_ like to eat them. There's even a dish local to the Rhine area in Germany [1] that (used to, it is replaced by beef quite often by now) is based on horse meat.
People tend to love dolphins. Asian cultures eat them. "They are cute" is not an argument here. That might explain a bias, but not why there's (according to the article) no swan to be found on any menu?
"We" would presumably be the types of people who read the magazine. According to the about, that would be:
"window-herb growers, career farmers, people who have chickens, people who want to have chickens and anyone who wants to know more about how food reaches their plate"
and given the staff members are all US oriented, it's most likely assuming a US readership and US food culture.
Thus we, who are random fly-by strangers to the magazine, shouldn't really criticize harshly when they don't take an unexpected audience into account.
This sentence you wrote exonerates the article in it's entirety. You would dearly love to eat a swan, but have not and will not, and you present no compelling reason on why you have not eaten one.
You embody the entire cognitive dissonance around swans.
Being from the UK all I know is that swans belong to my old boss and we teach children that a swan is powerful enough to break your arm if it feels threatened so stay away from them.
I would have no problem cooking and eating a swan but I imagine the majority of UK society would struggle to see the swan as anything other than a majestic, un-eatable animal rather than just an alternative to goose, duck, chicken, turkey or even pigeon.
I felt the same way. It asks "why don't we eat swans any more?" but as far as I can tell in the US we never did, and in fact the closest thing to an answer is just that we never got in the habit. I get the impression the excess swan problem in Michigan is a recent thing, probably a result of a decline of some swaniferous predator.
Heaven forfend the article could be addressed to mankind! Obviously it was addressed to USAians and was given an odd title by mistake. That's definitely the intuitive, obvious, straight-forward possiblity.
Since the article was short on answers, here's one possible answer as to "why we don't eat swans":
Their numbers are too small to get into volume "manufacturing" (CAFO's).
15,000 swans. That's cute.
We harvest 10,000 kiloTonnes of cattle per year in the USA alone. That means, our CAFO'S produce about 2 million pounds of beef for every 1 swan we could harvest.
Our food system loves repeatable processes & volume efficiencies that wild game can't provide.
Note: I may be nearly vegetarian, & eat only local organic meat rarely. But, the facts of CAFO's dominate the market.
If they were really that good they would raise them like turkeys.
My guess is that royalty ate them initially largely because they looked regal. The fact that they redressed them with the feathers before serving lends further credence to this idea.
Geese are pretty awful to eat.. particularly wild geese from what my brother in law says. Swans are probably even worse.
You know the best eggs in the world? Seagull Eggs.
The harvesting of them from the wild is highly protected and I've only ever met a few old boys who used to poach them but I've read a few places (wild cookery and survival books) that the finest omelette you can make is one made from shite-hawk eggs. Guess that's an easier taboo to explain, though. I've had swan and goose and find them both perfectly acceptable meat. The best way I've found so far is to salt cure the breast like pastrami - as the meat is so dark it's very much like a salt cured beef. Very tasty.
Reminds me of Porterhouse Blue, the 1970s satirical novel about life in the fictitious Porterhouse college at Cambridge, where swans were served at massive feasts and "porterhouse blue" became another name for a stroke caused by excessive consumption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porterhouse_Blue
My grandfather told my that during the WW2 occupation, fisherman occasionally used to catch & eat swans. Even during the war, the meat was not socially accepted for human consumption (ie. in western culture would consider it on par with "dog meat"), thus not very popular.
> Even during the war, the meat was not socially accepted for human consumption
For what it's worth, it was a huge scandal in the early 1990s in my country when it was rumored that members of our local gipsy community had eaten swans after they had just arrived in Vienna. It stuck along as a stereotype for at least a decade, if not more. As for the reference, the best I could find was this: http://books.google.ro/books?id=gHKm95EweOwC&pg=PT272&lpg=PT...
, but there was also a Sun story from 2008 about "Eastern" immigrants having eaten swans.
There are a few swan farms in The Netherlands, where swans are grown for consumption. They are considered a delicacy in several European countries, but they don't taste as good as duck or geese in my opinion. Some years ago there were a few incidences of Eastern European migrants taking wild swans for food, including some from protected species.
For one thing, you'll need a larger than normal oven. The largest turkeys at the neighborhood turkey farm are about 30 lbs., the size of a small swan, and, while you might be able to physically stuff a bird that big into a newer oven that has maximal cooking volume, it won't cook very well. Turkeys are lean, but if you tried to roast a swan, your roasting pan might overflow with fat and if that catches fire it will burn like a gallon of liquefied paraffin. That's a pretty good way to burn down the house.
"In Michigan, however, which has the highest population of mute swans in North America, the creatures are considered pests. According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the statewide breeding population increased from about 5,700 to more than 15,000 in just ten years. The birds attack people in the water and on shore, particularly children that wander too close to their nests."
Sometimes when I get excited that an animal population gets to the point of potentially excess, I have to remind myself that it might be that we've adapted our lives to the absence of the animal and can't tolerate its presence even in modest amounts. Yes, swans are aggressive, but just because they are annoying doesn't mean they are overpopulated. Or concerns that some wild cats might take dogs. That sucks for the dog owner if it happens, but is it really okay to have the expectation that your animal can be in nature without any natural repercussions?
That said, once swans become common we shouldn't be afraid to push back against their aggressiveness. Nature does have away to balance behavior, and if humans think they just have to put up with asshole swans or else kill the swans I think we're missing out on some obvious behavior correction opportunities.
If that aggressiveness comes at the cost of other species, especially after humans either artificially introduced them or eliminated their natural predators, it is our responsibility to protect those other species. Conservation doesn't mean every individual of every species gets to live.
People do hunt and eat swans. I'm from North Carolina and have a lifetime sportsman license there. Each year I can apply for two swan tags, I believe the cost is something like $5-$15 for the tags.
What this article doesn't explain is that swan meat isn't actually very good. Goose is better, but duck is the best (in my opinion). Goose is more gamey, tough, and has less meat than a duck. Swan is even more gamey than goose.
I suspect if the author spent more time investigating the "old boys network" he would have realized that hunting and consumption of swan does exist in the US today. Even a simple "hunting swan in america" google search turns up a useful information. Have a look at the aptly named swanhunting.com if you want more info.
Ive found all sorts of meat (22 types from my specialty butcher), yet swan isn't there. Perhaps it's "too beautiful" to eat, or perhaps it has a more visceral "horse meat" kind of feeling to it.
I don't know. And the article is lacking in detail. So, the answer is "it's not sold".
But this leads to the question of "why don't they sell it at the market"?
And the answer to that might be because people wouldn't buy it. Or if they did, only once because it tastes like an old glove that was left in the parrot cage.
I went back and looked and the guy was a professional chef. And probably some sort of esoteric gourmet of the kind that might drink civet poop coffee.
I have to believe if swans were really good people would have started eating them in large numbers a long time ago and they would commercially raise them.
Batali may have weird tastes, maybe (though he's a pretty mainstream food personality not particularly known for crazy stuff), but it remains the case that we have one piece of testimony that it's tasty and none that it isn't. The fact that we don't eat them is arguably some evidence that they aren't but there are other potential explanations for that, so drawing that conclusion seems shakey.
I don't buy the Queen of England explanation. Because there are many other countries besides England. So what other explanation could there be? Given this, along with my poor goose experience, leads to my conclusion that they likely don't have a flavor that appeals to many people.
Maybe I'm wrong. I suppose with current regulations and the fact swans don't live in my area I don't have a way to test my hypothesis.
I've always wondered - when synthetic meat becomes economically viable, and animal rights come even closer to human, will we end up in much greater need systematically controlling most animal populations? What are we going to do with all those caracases? Feed the poor?
Wrong. The queen of england can only lay claim to swans that are in England, and even at that, she only has claim to the "unmarked mute swans in open water".
Same problem with the seals in New England. They are cute and protected and exploding in population with negative effects on the fish stock. Canada restarted seal hunting to protect the cod fishery and it's working for them.
The author insists on this, and I guess it is true that this notion is promoted by popular culture. But to me it just seems insane. Have these people ever seen a swan? I mean, whenever I get close to one it is readily apparent that I am dealing with some outgrown aggressive river-beast. The only thing keeping it from biting my head off would seem to be a couple factors of two missing in the volume, which a few thousand years of evolution might have an easy solution to. I see very little cute in swans...
Agreed. A swan is no cuter than a duck, which is a common dish in many menus. Also, we eat a lot of animals which could be considered "cute". A little lamb, for example, or a piglet. So cuteness can't be the answer.
Ducks are still failry rare to be on menus depending on the culture of a restaurant. Some of my friends are still surprised I eat them.
I originally omitted in my comment about thoughts of dogs, cats, and bunnies being taboo as meals in the US. It probably has a lot to do with not only perceived cuteness, but then we have a tendency to make cute things pets, and then they become "part of the family".
You don't usually see piglets or lambs as options in the pet store.
Is duck rare in the US? While not as common as chicken, it's served as food in a lot of Western countries. I've tried it and found it delicious.
Dogs and cats: probably eaten in some cultures, though the thought is shocking to me. But bunny? Not only eaten, but also skinned for their pelts: this is extremely common, to the point I know people who breed them for this exact purpose (and to sell them as pets as well). Rabbit is a common dish in Spanish restaurants, for example.
I'll argue the highly subjective notion that rabbits are cuter than swans, yet we eat and skin rabbits. And they are available in pet stores, unlike... swan!
Rabbits are arguably cuter than swans and yet you can get rabbit to eat quite easily.
In fact they're so cute when the French wanted to boycott the World Cup in 2001 because the Koreans eat dog the Koreans countered with "And you eat those cute bunnies". (or so I was told)
In many of the celtic nations it's for cultural reasons. They are an animal people turn into in myth and "sacred" through custom. No reason however why they are not eaten in countries where they are not native.
What kind of discussions are propping up to #3 on HN front page. There is more general topic discussion than Hacker related discussion (btw I meant hacker in the good sense)
Please reread the Hacker News guidelines. Any articles that gratify intellectual curiosity are on topic. This article may be a bit fluffy, but it fits the bill.
The problem is that ppl like you and me can't downvote. Voting systems without downvotes take the expectation of the half-rectified utility across the readership, not the regular utility. So ridiculous articles like this one can survive in spite of having negative true utility. Also, more sensational articles are naturally at an advantage (expectation scales linearly with standard deviation on half-rectified functions). Just one way of thinking about it.
The article quotes an opinion saying they are delicious:
“We once ate a swan at Christmas nine or ten years ago,” [chef Mario Batali] told Esquire. “It was delicious — deep red, lean, lightly gamey, moist, and succulent… but I’ve never seen swan on a market list.”
But "lightly gamey" doesn't sound very good to me.
I cooked a goose once out of curiosity. As another poster mentions it was very expensive. And, it wasn't very good. An $8 chicken beat it hands down.
If swans were really tasty they would have probably been commercially farmed a long time ago. So I have to believe they really don't.... taste very good. Queen of England aside, there are plenty of other countries that would have raised them commercially.
I have eaten quite a few gamey animals in my life (Gator, Yak, Goat, Bison, Kangaroo and Ostrich). The flavor is something that I find enjoyable. Probably because where I grew up, the beef didn't taste the way it does here. Also, $8 chicken is very different from a well cooked $40 goose.
Having said this as reasons why expense and gameyness are not a discouragement to some people. I would think that the lack of commercial farming is probably a startup idea in waiting. :)
Game is a taste not all people like, but this is not about individual preference. A lot of people eat game. Wild boar, wild duck, deer, and many other "gamey" meats are enjoyed in many countries. Why not swan? Especially if, as the quoted chef claims, it's only lightly gamey.
Maybe swan is the decidedly-not-pork mystery meat that chinese food serves me in their 'special' fried rice? Anyone know what im talking about.. Smokey smell, looks like a fowl in its cooked form.
Kinda off topic, but did anyone catch the comments from "Terrence Andrew Davis"? Google this guy...can't figure out if he's a real, mentally unstable human or a random text generator, but supposedly he wrote an os: http://templeos.org.
I'm generally a pretty adventurous cook/eater and did a goose for christmas last year(geese are a hella pest but somehow the dead one I bought was $70 or something) and probably wouldn't do a swan if it's similar. Geese are almost "beefy"