What's new
By:
Filters
Cooking Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Announcing A Contest

K

KYHeirloomer

Guest
There are no prizes. No rewards. And the answer could be slippery. But hee goes:

Who can tell me what the filets from 50 bluegill weigh?

This isn't a random question.

Once a month the local lake has a bluegill fishing tournament. I usually go down, help with the weigh in, etc. I have selfish reasons for helping out: a least one team usually doesn't wan't their fish, and I get to bring them home. :)

Today was a little different. Several teams didn't want their fish. I wound up with something on the order of 130 or so. I don't have an exact count yet, as I've just finished fileting the first half century of them. And definately needed a break.

But on a whim I weighed the filets. So, just for fun, let's see who can come close to guessing the weight while I go back to fileting the rest of them.
 
Khrist, Brook... unless you got some saquatch-blue-gill down your way that are unlike the ones we got here, I'd guess you'd need at least a dozen decent fillets to make a whole pound of them rascals! Tiny fish anyway- but then the waste and such. Dang, you're gonna have carpal tunnel syndrome before you get those puppies finished! But... good eatin'!

(and you had the nerve to comment on my "chicken" halibut avatar a few days back! Hee-Hee!)
 
Try again, Cathy.

50 whole bluegill won't tip the scales at 12+ pounds.
 
I stand by my original thought of barely an ounce-and-a-half to a single fillet...

...or 50 fish, @ a pair of fillets each for a total of just over 9# of fillets from the 50 fish.

And to take it a step further, in order to get good and filled-up at a bluegill-feed, one would need another 9# of cornmeal and tarter! (YUM!)
 
Well, now, I reckon it's time for an ecology lesson.

Probably the most popular panfish in the U.S., bluegill have been recorded at more than 15 inches and weighing more than 4 pounds.

The average bluegill, however, comes in at 4-6 inches, and weighs less than 4 oz. In most places, a one-pound bluegill gets your picture in the local newspaper.

Most of the time when folks catch those larger bluegill they've actually caught a shellcracker, which is a different species.

The rules of the tournament are this: Up to 30 fish can be weighed per boat, with a minimum size of 5". It's not uncommon for boats to bring in more than 30, and then cull to get the biggest. And there's an occasional disqualifier that's less than 5".

So, what we're talking about are fish in the round averaging 5" and weighing 4 ounces or less.

I haven't weighed individual filets. But I can say, without fear of contradiction, that 1 1/2 ounces per is way to high.
 
Bluegill On The Table

In most places, bluegill are fileted and either batter fried (in cornmeal beer batter), or breaded and fried using a standard two- or three-dish method.

In the upper Mid-west, however, it's more popular to cook them in the semi-round. The fish are scaled, gutted, and the heads cut off just behind the gills. What's lefts is breaded and fried.

People who grew up eating them that way hold the fish in their hands, belly up. Using their thumbs they split the fish apart. What you get is a clean, breaded half fish, with no bones. You then lift the bones from the second half in one piece and discard them.

The key words there are "people who grew up eating them that way." I've seen it done over and over. But it doesn't work for me.

Bluegill meat is also excellent for dishes that call for ground fish, such as fish balls, and poached or pickled to use in salads, and so forth. I often use them as the fish component in Kedgaree Covington. And, if you have the patience, the filets can sometimes be used in recipes that actually call for larger pieces. For instance, I'll sometimes fit several bluegill filets together in a variation of Musky Turbans.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Brook... I've only ever eaten them the way you describe- whole, much like smelt. When you first described actually going to the toturous trouble of filleting them, my eyes crossed and my head spun! I think if I ever ended up in helll that's the job ole Satan his-self would assign me for eternity- filleting a dump-truck a'bluegill! Yikes!
 
It's a job for sure, Kevin. But then, so too is shelling shrimp, shucking oysters, and mincing mushrooms for duxelles.

To paraphrase the Duke: A cook's gotta do what a cook's gotta do.
 
You must be thinking bluefin tuna, Mama. For bluegill you're going in the wrong direction.

We're talking about fish that are 4 ounces live weight. Cut off the filets from 50 of them, and you're talking something that can be measured easier in ounces than pounds.
 
By the way I eat bluegill just as you described, and I was wondering why you would filet them.

Another thing I have been wondering about (sort of related but not) is I always skin my Catfish. Do you also skin yours? The other day I bought some frozen catfish from the store that still had the skin on, Yuck pewwie I hated it! I figure if ya' want something done right do it yourself!!! Got to go fishing for my own Catfish now, no more store bought!
 
Y'all know why we're all such great cooks? Because we suck as mathamaticians

I'm gonna let this go overnight to see if anybody comes even close. And then I'll reveal the answer.
 
:mad: YA' MEAN TO TELL ME 1 LB. 4 OZ. IS WRONG :(

DARN I MUST REALLY SUCK AT MATH:D YOU GOTTA BE RIGHT & THAT IS WHY WE ARE SUCH GOOD COOKS, I HAD BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THAT FOR YEARS:eek:

IS IT MORE LIKE 50 BLUEGILL FILETS = 1 LOUSY POUND OF MEAT!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top