248 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
personal experience, but there is abundant testimony that it is good. The 
Commissioners on Fisheries and Game of Massachusetts have personally reported 
its palatability, the lack of odor or ‘‘strength,” and the good consistency when 
cooked or canned. They say it closely resembles halibut. The horned dogfish 
has in recent years been exploited in England as a valuable cheap food. A 
writer in a London paper states that the Plymouth council engaged an expert 
cook to prepare dogfish for the table with and without sauce, and that the pub- 
lished opinions of those who partook were excellent as to the color, flavor, and 
firmness of the food. Both species are nutritious and boneless and are there- 
fore a safe food for both the young and the aged. 
The dogfishes are not only palatable in the fresh condition, but are as good 
as many other fishes when preserved by the standard methods. The horned dog- 
fish being in composition most like the salmon is best adapted for canning and is 
considered as good as the medium grades of salmon. A packer in Petit de 
Grat, Cape Breton, in 1904 sent me a dozen cans of dogfish he had packed. I 
passed them around to my friends, who prepared the contents in different ways 
(fried, scalloped, creamed, etc.). In these forms the canned article was highly 
praised for flavor and palatability. Samples were also sent to several hotels, 
where the fish was served to the guests as “‘ Japanese halibut,” and was pro- 
nounced most acceptable. An establishment at Halifax has been canning large 
quantities and putting them on the market labeled ‘‘ocean whitefish.”’ A firm 
at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, has been successful in selling the 
canned article as ‘‘sea bass.”’ 
The smooth dogfish found south of Cape Cod is preserved best by salting and 
drying according to the same method employed for preparing dry salt cod. The 
product very much resembles cod, but has the advantage of being boneless. I 
have had creamed salt dogfish served in the mess hall of the Marine Biological 
Laboratory to a score or more of persons. They all reported that they could 
detect little or no difference between it and the ordinary salt codfish. 
The flesh of the dogfish is apparently just as digestible as that of other fishes, 
is palatable, nutritious, and easily preserved. The fish are so abundant and 
easily obtained that they are ridiculously cheap. But prejudice is barring 
this wholesome food from our menus. People seem more willing to starve than 
to eat this fish, just because it bears the name “dog.” The problem now is how 
to put the fish on the market without an offensive label and at the same time 
meet the spirit and letter of our pure-food law. 
The packing of both mussels and dogfish ought to become a large industry. 
Conditions are good for creating a market for them. They are a cheap, whole- 
some food for the masses and constitute a field of opportunity for the fisherman, 
the packer, and the merchant. 
