I just saw a short video of a lobsterman removing a few barnacles from a lobster. Most of one claw was covered. It also had lots of eggs. I don’t recall seeing barnacles on lobsters and that made me wonder “ why not?”
Maybe a sign of a not so healthy lobster?
Question is pretty much obviously for Steve and all the marine biologists who frequent the hangout.
Edited by - Knows Picker on 03/25/2025 14:26:22
In Maine that elderly lobster would go back in the water, barnacles and all.
Eggs make more lobsters.
Maybe this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVy7Wsr7Fk [The lobster did get tossed back in.]
Yes, thats the one.
Spend enough time along the Northeastern Atlantic coastline, and you'll see plenty of lobsters with barnacles on them.
Lobstermen, pounds, retailers and chefs generally remove them, in that the buying public would be displeased to see them.
Hello! Paging captain Steve for the real answer! :)
What I was pondering was "How come everything else gets thoroughly covered in barnacles but not shellfish??"
How about this? Would you eat this one?
Barnacles prefer a stationary life, a wooden pier, or a more or less static mussel or limpet. If they settle in a nice intertidal zone where the water washes lots of food past them twice a day they're in barnacle heaven. But not all barnacles are smart enough to do this. The dumber ones find themselves stuck to moving objects, like boats or lobsters. Charles Darwin was a barnacle expert. He may have mentioned lobsters in his writings on the subject. I'll leave you to do your own research.
quote:
Originally posted by wrench13How about this? Would you eat this one?
Looks ..half baked to me...
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewDBarnacles prefer a stationary life, a wooden pier, or a more or less static mussel or limpet. If they settle in a nice intertidal zone where the water washes lots of food past them twice a day they're in barnacle heaven. But not all barnacles are smart enough to do this. The dumber ones find themselves stuck to moving objects, like boats or lobsters. Charles Darwin was a barnacle expert. He may have mentioned lobsters in his writings on the subject. I'll leave you to do your own research.
Well...
If it is moving..probly gets more n a virieitty of differnt foods...
Not to mention..the scraps from a lobsters meal..
quote:
Originally posted by wrench13How about this? Would you eat this one?
Lobsters like this one are extremely rare, but do come up from time to time. Sometimes they end up in aquariums for the public to see. And if you DID cook a two-tone lobster like this, it would be all red on emergence from the steamer, and it would taste just as good as any other lobster.
At first lobsters shed their old shell once a year as their inner self runs out of room which doesn't leave enough time for a barnacle to build a life.
As the bug gets older he/she sheds less often and I believe spends more time not moving which invites "company".
Old lobsters are tougher than young ones.
New shells (shedders) 6-10 weeks in their new home are my favorites for taste and texture.
No barnacles on these.
quote:
Originally posted by steve davisOld lobsters are tougher than young ones.
New shells (shedders) 6-10 weeks in their new home are my favorites for taste and texture.
No barnacles on these.
True, but not a lot of meat in the claws and lots of liquid, making them rather messy to eat. On the plus side, they're certainly easy to crack!
If eaten too soon they are watery partials.
After some weeks the meat fills the space and dispells the water.Meat firms up,relatively speaking.
I don't eat shedders that are younger than 6 weeks.
How much does the average sailor charge for removing barnacles?
Like in the song about the "BARNACLE BILL, O SAILOR"
