On Fish as Food 



177 



ON FISH AS FOOD. 



Speaking in general terms, there can be no hesitation in 

 saying that most sea-fish afford nutritious, easily digestible, 

 and thoroughly wholesome food. It matters little to assert 

 that fish contains less nutriment than beefsteak. This only 

 concerns the housewife in making her purchases. If the 

 chemists have convinced her that it takes a pound and a 

 half of cod to equal a pound of steak, and if the cost of the 

 two is the same, let her choose the steak. At table all that 

 it is needful to remember is, that if you had intended to eat 

 half a pound of steak, you must take rather more of cod to 

 obtain its equivalent. The most concentrated foods are, how- 

 ever, by no means always the most suitable. 



Of all fish the herring is the one most to be commended. 

 It is good in all forms, fresh, lightly salted, or kippered, 

 and it disagrees with no one. It is said that Amsterdam was 

 built on herring bones, and the Dutch at the time of its 

 building were an energetic, vigorous, and intellectual race. 



Between the "fat fish" and the "dry fish" the herring 

 stands midway. It is not like eels and salmon, too fat, nor 

 like haddock, cod, and whiting, too dry and insipid. 



Although chemistry gives no support to the popular creed 

 that fish more than other foods supplies phosphorus to the 

 brain, yet it has been the testimony of not a few brain- 

 workers that a fish diet seemed to suit them. This may be 

 because fresh fish, properly cooked and taken in moderation, 

 is digested more quickly than meat. Such fish is said not 

 to require three hours for complete digestion, whilst beef 

 requires nearly four. If, however, fish is over-boiled, it 

 becomes stringy and hard, and is difficult and slow of diges- 

 tion. Salted fish is also slower of digestion, but nowise 

 unwholesome. 



It is, we believe, a general observation that those who keep 



