The Monster Crays Thread

[Witis]

It seems that there is actually some credible scientific evidence that crays/lobsters may be able to live and grow indefinitely due to their genetic makeup, for example they have an abundant and ever replenishing supply of the enzyme telomerase which protects their chromosomes keeping their cells in pristine condition. Moreover they periodically shed their exoskeletons and grow a larger one. To date the record is 44 pounds (20kg) although there does not seem to be anything, other than predators and non age related diseases, stopping them from growing to 440 pounds or more.
Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoo...nd-lobster.htm

So how should these remarkable animals be treated???

[Shaggy Hiker]

I assumed you were talking about the computer. If that is the case, they should be eaten one byte at a time.

However, if by crays you mean crayfish, they don't live all that long. Lobster can live quite a long time, but I hear that they are pretty bad eating once they get to a certain size. I've seen claw shells that could have held a whole chicken inside the shell, so the amount of meat would probably be a meal for four people in that one claw. From what I have heard, though, it would take a saw to cut through that meat, though, and if you started chewing last year you'd still be working on that first bite.

Interestingly, we do a horrible job of catching them, which is probably why they are not overfished and in decline.

Personally, I think you ought to add krill into your considerations, too. For one thing it appears that they can shrink as well as grow, so their age is highly uncertain, but they tend to have toxic levels of flouride, too, so we leave them (mostly) alone.

[Witis]

I assumed you were talking about the computer. If that is the case, they should be eaten one byte at a time.

You make it sound delectable Shaggy! It's one hell of a mad bully of a monster, luckily it dozes quite a bit making it quite easy to catch!!!!!
Then all you have to do is work out how to crack it using the right instruments like so -> http://i00.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/4...ont-font-b.jpg!

Do you prefer to nibble on the claws or the body?

However, if by crays you mean crayfish, they don't live all that long.

As far as I am aware the term cray can be used to refer to both lobsters and crayfish -> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cray, as the term crayfish is often used to refer to clawless saltwater lobsters eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_lobster although I imagine you mean to refer to the freshwater species; how long do they live?

Lobster can live quite a long time, but I hear that they are pretty bad eating once they get to a certain size.

Although that may apply to some creatures due to the aging process I don't imagine the same would apply to lobsters due to their lack of cellular decay, meaning a monster lobster should be an absolutely delectable exception to the rule!

I've seen claw shells that could have held a whole chicken inside the shell, so the amount of meat would probably be a meal for four people in that one claw. From what I have heard, though, it would take a saw to cut through that meat, though, and if you started chewing last year you'd still be working on that first bite.

I felt my stomach rumble just reading that!

Interestingly, we do a horrible job of catching them, which is probably why they are not overfished and in decline.

You must mean catching wild lobsters like on lobster wars -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_Wars. Lobster farms make the harvest a lot easier!

Personally, I think you ought to add krill into your considerations, too.

Why so???

[Shaggy Hiker]

Do you prefer to nibble on the claws or the body?

I think I prefer the body. The claws are exceedingly rich. Interestingly, lobster used to be considered something of a trash food. There was one a regulation that prisoners couldn't be required to have lobster more than something like once a week in New England prisons. Kind of funny, these days.

As far as I am aware the term cray can be used to refer to both lobsters and crayfish -> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cray,

When it comes to common names, there isn't any real law about it. Crayfish have all kinds of regional names. The most official name for the freshwater decapod is crayfish, and lobsters are not crayfish. However, it's not like the police will come after you if you call a lobster a crayfish, or even a bug.

as the term crayfish is often used to refer to clawless saltwater lobsters eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_lobster

That would be even more incorrect, but still not against the law. However, in the years I lived in South Florida, I never heard of anybody call a spiny lobster anything other than a spiny lobster. I certainly have never heard anybody call a lobster a crayfish, though I have heard LOTS of people call crayfish lobsters. They are also called crabs, too. I guess any decapod name will do.

although I imagine you mean to refer to the freshwater species; how long do they live?

That depends on species and water temperature...along with one other imponderable. Southern species appear to rarely make it to three years, but northern species routinely live several more years. This may well be due to the fact that the northern species, which live in colder water, can't grow to reproducing size in just a year. However, they don't tend to die of old age, so it may well be that they live until they can't find a hide large enough to conceal them from predators. Early on, they might be eaten by fish, but can hide under a pebble. Later, they are too large to be eaten by fish, but are now large enough to attract mink and otter, and can only hide in particular areas. So, the maximum possible age is probably quite a bit larger than the normal lifespan. We appear to have some crayfish in a tank that have lived for 6-8 years (I don't think anybody paid any attention to when they were put into the tank, or how old they were at the time, so all the ages are speculation), though their wild brethren seem to rarely make it five years.

Although that may apply to some creatures due to the aging process I don't imagine the same would apply to lobsters due to their lack of cellular decay,
meaning a monster lobster should be an absolutely delectable exception to the rule!

I've never tried an outsized lobster, I just have always heard from lobstermen in New England that the big ones were inedible. There may be a considerable amount of politics in that statement, but I'd be surprised if nobody had first-hand experience.

You must mean catching wild lobsters like on lobster wars -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_Wars
Lobster farms make the harvest a lot easier!

I didn't know that anybody farmed lobster. I would expect them to be cannibalistic like crayfish are, and the wild stocks are in fine shape. What I was refering to was some recent video footage that show that lobsters freely enter and leave lobster traps. The traps are highly inefficient for the size range they are intended to catch, and totally exclude larger animals (which are the most productive breeders), so the net impact of trapping has not collapsed the population, unlike so many wild-caught species.

As for krill, it just seems to be something you ought to look at. They are truly bizarre animals when it comes to growth and age. For a long time they were assumed to be pretty much like shrimp. When it was found that they can shrink as well as grow, it meant that their ages were not related to their size, so their total age potential became just a guess. I don't know whether further research has changed that estimate.

[Witis]

I think I prefer the body. The claws are exceedingly rich.

I actually prefer the body too, which is good if the clawless varieties are the only species on the menu, and I have to add that it is right up there as one of the tastiest treats available. It might even be the tastiest food I can recall trying, although smoked and seasoned "hot" salmon is also right up there!

Interestingly, lobster used to be considered something of a trash food. There was one a regulation that prisoners couldn't be required to have lobster more than something like once a week in New England prisons. Kind of funny, these days.

I thought the prisoners were the Krays -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kray_twins!
Also one of the convicted English gangster Kray twins, Ronald "Ronnie" Kray, went completely crazy (suffered from paranoid schizophrenia) and was consequently "certified insane and lived the remainder of his life in Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne, dying on 17 March 1995"!!!

When it comes to common names, there isn't any real law about it. Crayfish have all kinds of regional names. The most official name for the freshwater decapod is crayfish, and lobsters are not crayfish. However, it's not like the police will come after you if you call a lobster a crayfish, or even a bug. [...] in the years I lived in South Florida, I never heard of anybody call a spiny lobster anything other than a spiny lobster. I certainly have never heard anybody call a lobster a crayfish, though I have heard LOTS of people call crayfish lobsters. They are also called crabs, too. I guess any decapod name will do.

I imagine that the physical similarities of the salt and freshwater varieties inevitably results in a single word being used to describe the entire group, and because the term crayfish is applied to salt and freshwater varieties in some parts of the world the term cray is often used for such a purpose hence the wiktionary definition: "cray (plural crays) - A crayfish or lobster". I am sure that lobster could also be used interchangeably in the same manner and for the same reasons, as you have described. I prefer the term cray from an architectural point of view as it highlights the clawless saltwater species such as the rock/spiny lobster.

That depends on species and water temperature...along with one other imponderable. Southern species appear to rarely make it to three years, but northern species routinely live several more years. This may well be due to the fact that the northern species, which live in colder water, can't grow to reproducing size in just a year. However, they don't tend to die of old age, so it may well be that they live until they can't find a hide large enough to conceal them from predators. Early on, they might be eaten by fish, but can hide under a pebble. Later, they are too large to be eaten by fish, but are now large enough to attract mink and otter, and can only hide in particular areas. So, the maximum possible age is probably quite a bit larger than the normal lifespan. We appear to have some crayfish in a tank that have lived for 6-8 years (I don't think anybody paid any attention to when they were put into the tank, or how old they were at the time, so all the ages are speculation), though their wild brethren seem to rarely make it five years.

Does that mean that freshwater crays may also live and grow indefinitely leaving to one side predators and non age related diseases?

I've never tried an outsized lobster, I just have always heard from lobstermen in New England that the big ones were inedible. There may be a considerable amount of politics in that statement, but I'd be surprised if nobody had first-hand experience.

It definitely sounds like a myth to me, a brief search of the net confirmed that most thought the large ones taste just as good, while some even have very fond memories of catching monster crays, letting them walk around the campfire a few times before plopping them into the pot! Some even indicated the giants sell for more per kilo and I'd definitely pay a lot more for a monster cray!

I didn't know that anybody farmed lobster.

Apparently "Lobster farming is a method that has been used since the early 20th century to meet the high demand for meat from these crustaceans."
Source: http://www.wikihow.com/Create-Lobster-Farms

I would expect them to be cannibalistic like crayfish are

Yep, the article I just referenced indicates that having enough space when farming them is essential otherwise the "Lobsters will eat each other before they develop their shells if they feel crowded".

What I was refering to was some recent video footage that show that lobsters freely enter and leave lobster traps. The traps are highly inefficient for the size range they are intended to catch, and totally exclude larger animals (which are the most productive breeders), so the net impact of trapping has not collapsed the population, unlike so many wild-caught species.

I imagine it depends on the fishing location as some states prevent undersized and oversized fish including crays from being taken, although such laws are probably only enforced in commercial situations and there definitely seems to be a market for oversized crays in some parts of the world. There are also many other ways to catch wild lobsters, my favourite would have to be spear fishing!

As for krill, it just seems to be something you ought to look at. They are truly bizarre animals when it comes to growth and age. For a long time they were assumed to be pretty much like shrimp. When it was found that they can shrink as well as grow, it meant that their ages were not related to their size, so their total age potential became just a guess. I don't know whether further research has changed that estimate.

Really??? Do you mean like getting thinner and fatter or something else?

[FunkyDexter]

I thought the prisoners were the Krays

Oddly, that's what I thought you referring to as well. BTW Ronnie Kray was "carrying on" with Barbera Windsor for while.

[Witis]

Oddly, that's what I thought you referring to as well. BTW Ronnie Kray was "carrying on" with Barbera Windsor for while.

"carrying on" heh heh. Do you think Ridley Scott's Alien "face huggers" look anything like salt water crayfish -> http://media.theiapolis.com/d4/hMO/i...facehugger.jpg?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Does that mean that freshwater crays may also live and grow indefinitely leaving to one side predators and non age related diseases?

I doubt it, frankly, but since they tend to become food so readily, and can be pretty odd to raise in captivity (I had some for a few years, and they kept getting out of the tank and wandering around the house scaring the cats). The tendency towards eating each other and escaping captivity makes them a challenge to maintain for any long period of time. There may be an aquarium here that has had some on hand for many years. I'll have to ask around and see if anybody can say how long those crayfish have been living in there. Even if somebody knows, it won't really mean much, though, since they were not put in the tank with the intention of seeing how long they would live.

It definitely sounds like a myth to me, a brief search of the net confirmed that most thought the large ones taste just as good, while some even have very fond memories of catching monster crays, letting them walk around the campfire a few times before plopping them into the pot! Some even indicated the giants sell for more per kilo and I'd definitely pay a lot more for a monster cray!

The ones I'm thinking of don't get "plopped into a pot", unless you are in a cartoon. When my mother was a legislator, she told me about a debate over changing the legal size limit by one sixteenth of an inch. As a visual prop, some group brought in a lobster that was so large it took three people to carry it. At that size, cooking in a pot is probably pretty difficult, and wildly inefficient due to the thickness of the meat.

Really??? Do you mean like getting thinner and fatter or something else?

Yes. Crustaceans shed their shells as they outgrow them, and krill are no different. However, they may also be able to molt down in size as well as up. If it starts in their core, it might be considered a nuclear molt down.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Here's a link on eating lobster:

http://www.gma.org/lobsters/eatingetc.html

Note that they say that larger lobster can get stringy. They are talking about greater than 7 lbs.

Here's another interesting take on it. For one thing, the author disputes the age of the animal, but also explains why large lobster can be tough, and how to cook them in such a way to avoid that. In other words, both observations are correct: If you cook a large lobster the same way you cook a small lobster, you aren't going to have a very nice meal. However, if you cook a large lobster properly (which sounds like a whole heckuva lot of work, to me), then it will taste good:

http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/07...ild-vegetable/

[Witis]

I doubt it, frankly, but since they tend to become food so readily, and can be pretty odd to raise in captivity (I had some for a few years, and they kept getting out of the tank and wandering around the house scaring the cats). The tendency towards eating each other and escaping captivity makes them a challenge to maintain for any long period of time. There may be an aquarium here that has had some on hand for many years. I'll have to ask around and see if anybody can say how long those crayfish have been living in there. Even if somebody knows, it won't really mean much, though, since they were not put in the tank with the intention of seeing how long they would live.

I agree, if they don't have enough space their cannibalistic tendencies would definitely limit their lifespan!
Even so it seems freshwater crays may have the same genetic advantages as their salt water relatives,
for example the Tasmanian Giant Freshwater Crayfish which is "slow-growing, slow colonising, large-sized, easily caught" grows up to 6kg (13 pounds) and "may live up to 60 years of age (Bryant & Jackson 1999b)"!
source: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bi...taxon_id=64415

The ones I'm thinking of don't get "plopped into a pot", unless you are in a cartoon.

From memory they indicated it was around 13 pounds in size which, I guess, would have resulted in quite a plop!
Is the cartoon you are thinking of Doctor Zoidberg from Futurama?

When my mother was a legislator, she told me about a debate over changing the legal size limit by one sixteenth of an inch. As a visual prop, some group brought in a lobster that was so large it took three people to carry it. At that size, cooking in a pot is probably pretty difficult, and wildly inefficient due to the thickness of the meat.

Do you think you could cook a monster of that size in a hot tub turned up high????

Yes. Crustaceans shed their shells as they outgrow them, and krill are no different. However, they may also be able to molt down in size as well as up. If it starts in their core, it might be considered a nuclear molt down.

I wouldn't go that far, although you are right "When they [Antarctic krill] are not fed in aquaria, they shrink in size after moulting, which is exceptional for animals the size of krill. It is likely that this is an adaptation to the seasonality of their food supply, which is limited in the dark winter months under the ice." However their compound eyes, and most likely their brains, don't shrink in the process. I bet I would get an allergic reaction if I tried to eat one!

[Witis]

Here's a link on eating lobster:
http://www.gma.org/lobsters/eatingetc.html

I enjoyed reading the 11 steps on how to eat a cray, like step 4:
"Step 4 - Using a nutcracker, break off the tip of the large section of claw, revealing the meat."

and that too, as I had no idea it was possible to hypnotize a crayfish!
"They tried hyponotizing the subjects [the crays] (rubbing their backs until they stood on their heads), soaking them in fresh water, heating them slowly from room temperature to boiling"

Note that they say that larger lobster can get stringy. They are talking about greater than 7 lbs.

Ah they just need a bigger pot and know how to do it right!

Here's another interesting take on it. For one thing, the author disputes the age of the animal, but also explains why large lobster can be tough, and how to cook them in such a way to avoid that. In other words, both observations are correct: If you cook a large lobster the same way you cook a small lobster, you aren't going to have a very nice meal. However, if you cook a large lobster properly (which sounds like a whole heckuva lot of work, to me), then it will taste good:
http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/07...ild-vegetable/

I liked the whole article, I salivated quite a lot while reading it, and especially the conclusion -> "Conclusion: Done properly, a large lobster is every bit as good as a small one. Maybe better."

[Witis]

Do you think Ridley Scott's Alien "face huggers" look anything like salt water crayfish -> http://media.theiapolis.com/d4/hMO/i...facehugger.jpg?

Now that exactly fits my definition of an illegal alien, as does that -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_500!!!