I inquired of the manager if there was fresh Snapper on the menu. He told me yes. Instead, I got a filet of Swai. Now, I have eaten plenty of Tilapia and Swai in my time. I have eaten even more Snapper than Swai. I know the difference.
After Merchant’s Market started importing Swai two or three years ago, Scott Hauser was, I believe, the first restauranteur to start offering it on the menu of his now-closed Valley Bistro. But, Scott never claimed it was anything but Swai. If you wanted fish at Valley Bistro, there was no point in asking for Snapper. The waitress politely told you the only fish they had was Swai. Whenever I felt like ordering fish at Valley Bistro, I took the Swai. The choice was mine. I was perfectly comfortable with that.
Swai is a freshwater mudfish native to the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. It is now extensively farmed in the Mississippi Delta. Tilapia is an African mud-fish that has for decades been farmed and eaten in the West Indies. Swai is relatively new to our kitchens. While Tilapia delivers a very thin filet, Swai is bulkier. But, the two share the same fresh-water, mudfish texture and flavour.
In addition to the difference from Snapper in texture, Swai is completely without any taste. It has neither the texture nor the taste of Snapper, which is a sea-water fish with a real flavour. Swai is so soft and texture-less that you can chew it between your tongue and the top of your mouth. Snapper, no matter how fresh it is, needs to be chewed with the teeth before it can be swallowed. A fried egg has more texture than Swai. Snapper easily divides into separate flakes under your fork. The flakes of Swai are glued together in a porridge-like mess. Additionally, Snapper almost invariably comes on your plate with the skin on the outside. Swai is served without the skin, and bears the identical porridge-like appearance on both sides. It is quite easy to distinguish Swai from Snapper on your plate.
The advantage of Swai to our local restaurants is clear. It comes in a tower of easily separated filets. It stacks snugly in the freezer. It takes up much less room in the freezer than Snapper. It comes without the labour of fileting the fish yourself, as you must do with fresh Snapper. It costs a fraction of the price, and if charged as Snapper produces a greater profit for the unscrupulous restaurant. I suspect that most tourists don’t know the difference, and will cheerfully swallow the Swai, believing it is Snapper. No Anguillian fish-lover will be easily fooled.
On this occasion, since I had been promised fresh Snapper, I unsuspectingly assumed a simple error had been made. I asked the waitress to take it back to the kitchen and to bring me instead the promised fresh Snapper. She took the plate off the table and went off to the kitchen. Some minutes later she came back with a second dish. She assured me that she had checked the refrigerator herself and could promise me that it was Snapper. But to my mortification it was a different plate of the same Swai. I asked her to take it back and left the restaurant, paying only for the two beers I had consumed while waiting. I felt cheated and disappointed.
Let me make it clear that, save for the points I have made about Swai above, I have no objection to Swai being served in restaurants. But, it is important for restaurateurs to be honest with the customer. The customer may quite happily accept Swai if told that is what it is. Or, the customer has the option to request a different dish. This shows honesty and integrity. You are happy to come back again. A restaurant dishonestly serving Swai in place of Snapper is, in my view, in the same category as a restaurant serving cat and calling it lamb. You probably won’t want to go back to it again.
