Spam Vs Treet Fried Chili

Day 51

I fry Spam to take the gamy taste out of it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not naïve enough to believe Spam presently exists as a game animal. I, however, fully recognize that big Spam safaris encapsulated the zeitgeist of the late-1930s. If I understand correctly, back in the day, an accomplished hunter could gun down 5 or 6 spam on a productive afternoon. It was profitable too, as you could sell the pelts to Urban Outfitter and make a small fortune peddling the rest of the carcass to Hormel. These days, all spam is farm raised. Cute little devils, they are.

While I have some familiarity with spam, I had not yet encountered Treet, which Armour should tout as “the other pink meat.” Too bad salmon already trumped them. Any way you slice it, we are in for a malodorous kitchen this morning as we are frying the two leading brands of meat by-product side-by-side.

Naturally, since this is a chili-a-day blog, I have meticulously configured a spam chili rub expressly for today. Odds are good that there are few, if any, references to ”rubbing the spam” to be found on the internet. To be safe, I would not google it to find out.
One concern I have, apart from unintentionally inventing salacious euphemisms, is the chili seasonings may not “take,” as there appears to be some sort of undulating ectoplasm surrounding the meat. We’ll give it a shot.

Initial observations:

Both are 12 oz cans (like beer, eh?)
Spam is lighter in color and has more odor.
Spam is shorter and fatter.
The ITP thinks Spam smells like cat food.
Spam is made of pork (and ham) while Treet consists of pork and chicken.

1T chili powder
1T dried onion flakes
½ t cumin
1 t mural of flavor (Penzey’s)
1t sugar
½ t coriander
½ t Mitchell Street seasoning (Penzey’s).

Rub the meat and refrigerate overnight.
Fry, baby, fry.

Spam Vs. Treet.  This one's for all the marbles

Spam Vs. Treet. This one’s for all the marbles

Rubbing the meat.

Rubbing the meat.

L= Spam R= Treet

L= Spam R= Treet

Tasting notes.

At 5:30 in the morning, the sound of cracking chili Spam and chili Treet emanated from our tiny kitchen. The coffee was black and strong, as was my iron resolve. We had to determine which canned “delicacy” tasted better with chili glaze. The results? It was a slaughter. Hands down (and unanimously) Spam carried the day. The chili rub (a dub) enhanced the Spam in a way that only Spam can be enhanced. Conversely, the Treet appears to be “flavor black hole,” as the flavor of the chili rub could not be discerned AT ALL in the Treet offering. Remarkably, Treet has no detectable flavor with chili rub or with no chili rub. Weird, but Treet’s ability to negate all flavor may come in handy. I could hand out slices of Treet to the ITP next time I make a bad chili.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in competition chili, sausage, strange chili and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Spam Vs Treet Fried Chili

  1. Leif Stennes says:

    “The results? It was a slaughter.” Another Spam Slaughter. This is why they no longer frolic on our vast western prairies.

  2. Pingback: Meatless Chili Meatballs | chili365

  3. Pingback: Sustainable Spam Chili | chili365

  4. I thought I saw a breeding pair near the nature center by my house in the Twin Cities. Upon further inspection with my binoculars, it turned out to be a couple Four Loco cans crushed and left by the marauding teenagers in my area. *sighs*

    Perhaps better luck with sightings would be had closer to the south, near their native habitat of Austin, Mn. I’ve heard the native Spam tends to be larger and more aggressive, though. On NPR I once heard a story related by a nature photography who had a pair in site. He clicked off several shots, but the camera was on automatic rewind. He and his camera were trampled by the male of the pair.

    • spasture says:

      The photographer probably found the pair engaged in the spam mating ritual. As incredibly intricate as it is macabre, it (allegedly) IS a sight to behold. Too bad the Spam are reticent in revealing the nuts and bolts of the exercise. They can get down-right nasty when confronted in the boudoir.

      It is a good thing Hamms has taken pains to make their cans NOT look like wild Spam. It has us “nature-freaks” feeling pretty spry.

  5. A_Boleyn says:

    I don’t know how Spam was first introduced into our household. As non-English speaking immigrants, my parents must have been deceived into believing that the contents of the cans were actually pork. However, after about 40 yrs of not eating this unique product, I was struck by a wave of nostalgia and brought a can home a couple of years ago. I ate 2/3 of it but the last third of the can ended up in the freezer and became a victim of freezer-burn and had to be discarded. I was relieved. 🙂

    The tags will take you to my experiments in cooking with Spam. No chili though.

    http://a-boleyn.livejournal.com/tag/spam

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s