I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
down on it.

Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

Smitty Two > wrote:

>I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
>prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
>sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
>terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
>down on it.
>
>Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
>time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
>species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
>that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

I suspect the high oil content of most salmon prevents it from
flaking in the way you describe (which I associate with cod).
Chum salmon has lower oil than most, so you may want to give
it a try.

Steve

Smitty Two wrote:
>
> I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> down on it.
>
> Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?


A good indication that a Salmon fillet is cooked is to see that whitish fat
on top. Once that starts to appear it is almost cooked. But don't cook it
too long or it dries out, toughens up and loses its flavour.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>A good indication that a Salmon fillet is cooked is to see that whitish fat
>on top. Once that starts to appear it is almost cooked.

That might work except some salmon whitish stuff doesn't ever come
out. I typically buy king salmon and I only see the whitish
stuff about 1/4 of the time, even if I accidentally overcook it.

I do not know what substance the white stuff is anyways, but
a salmon goes through a lot of different metabolism changes
in its life and I'm guessing it's present in a transition phase.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Smitty Two > wrote:
>
>>I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
>>prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
>>sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
>>terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
>>down on it.

I assume you mean that it comes apart in slices when you push a fork down on
it -- after it's cooked?

If so, try poaching your filet. When I've picked up a already cooked piece
at Whole Foods that is poached, this is how it is.
DeeDee

Smitty Two wrote:

> I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> down on it.
>
> Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

Avoid buying tail meat. It contains the most connective
tissue, which is the least tender and won't flake
as well.

With any kind of muscle meat, the more it gets
used by the animal the more connective tissue
it contains and the least tender it will be.

Don't let them sell you tail meat.

--
Reg

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:25:39 -0700, Reg wrote:
>
>
>>Don't let them sell you tail meat.
>
>
> Yeah - good advice. I didn't think about that. It also cooks up
> the least evenly.


Yep. His description as "stringy" made me think that was
his main problem.

--
Reg

Smitty Two > wrote:
>I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
>prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
>sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
>terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
>down on it.

That's a matter of what temperature it reaches in cooking.

129-131F seems to be the key.

So a probe thermometer is key.

You can use one that stays in the meat, or an instant-read
that you use when you think it's near done.

I have an instant-read gadget that consists of two
liquid-crystal patches on a pointed paddle. When inserted,
one patch says "almost" when it's a few degrees low and
the other says "ready" when it's just right.

In fact, it's exactly like this:

http://easycookin.com/catalog/images..._fish_temp.jpg

Cheap and it works. Just figure 350F for 1 minute per
1/10th-inch of fish, then check it, and leave it in for
another minute or three if it's "almost".

>Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
>time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
>species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
>that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

Fattier fish do it easier. If you see a salmon with those
nice white lines between the flakes, it will practically
fall apart in big flakes when cooked right.

--Blair

Reg > wrote:
>Steve Wertz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:25:39 -0700, Reg wrote:
>>>Don't let them sell you tail meat.

Sell it to me.

>> Yeah - good advice. I didn't think about that. It also cooks up
>> the least evenly.
>
>Yep. His description as "stringy" made me think that was
>his main problem.

I like the unevenness. I get tail fillets and cook
until the thick end is just flaky and the thin end will
be a bit dry and crusty around the edges.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> I like the unevenness. I get tail fillets and cook
> until the thick end is just flaky and the thin end will
> be a bit dry and crusty around the edges.
>

I can dig it. The thing is, there's more than one way
to prepare salmon. You don't get a good result smoking
tail meat at low temps. Gnarly, lousy texture. And
the yield isn't as good. You definetely wouldn't
like the result making gravlax with tail meat, either.

--
Reg

In article >,
Reg > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> I like the unevenness. I get tail fillets and cook
>> until the thick end is just flaky and the thin end will
>> be a bit dry and crusty around the edges.
>>
>
>I can dig it. The thing is, there's more than one way
>to prepare salmon. You don't get a good result smoking
>tail meat at low temps. Gnarly, lousy texture. And
>the yield isn't as good. You definetely wouldn't
>like the result making gravlax with tail meat, either.

I like the largest possible full-side-of-the-fish
fillet for grill-smoking. Usually they have removed
the tail fillet; I think they sell those to brew-pubs
for salmon burgers. But it works best, one BIG fillet,
2 lbs or even 3 lbs or more, and it smokes to perfection.
It is so easy, once you develop a method of knowing
when it's ready. I do that by timing these days.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> I like the largest possible full-side-of-the-fish
> fillet for grill-smoking. Usually they have removed
> the tail fillet; I think they sell those to brew-pubs
> for salmon burgers. But it works best, one BIG fillet,
> 2 lbs or even 3 lbs or more, and it smokes to perfection.
> It is so easy, once you develop a method of knowing
> when it's ready. I do that by timing these days.

Yeah, I used to smoke grill whole fillets but not
so much lately. Now I normally do 8 oz pieces in the
smoker oven, vac pack then into the freezer. Normally I
only do whole fillets every now and then when there's
a crowd. It's fun cooking such a big hunk of fish.

When I do I like to use this recipe. Posted by
Jim Minion to the cookshack forum a few years
back. He cooks it more than I like, though.
I agree with Blair that the best internal temp
is around 130 F in the thickest part.

Cardog's BBQ Salmon

Dry Rub
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1 cup light brown sugar, packed
1 cup non-iodized table salt
3 TBSP granulated garlic
3 TBSP granulated onion 1 TBSP dried dill weed
1 TBSP dried savory
2 tsp dried tarragon
Mix all ingredients thoroughly. Turbinado sugar may be substituted for
brown sugar. To substitute garlic salt and onion salt, reduce table salt
to 1/2 cup and double garlic salt and onion salt to 6 TBSP.

Finishing Rub
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1/4 cup light brown sugar, packed
1 TBSP granulated garlic
1 TBSP granulated onion 1 tsp dried savory
1 tsp dried tarragon
Mix all ingredients thoroughly. Turbinado sugar may be substituted for
brown sugar.

Buy a fresh, 3-pound salmon fillet, preferably Sockeye or King. Remove the
pin bones using tweezers or needle nose pliers. Do not remove the skin.
Place skin-side down in a glass or stainless steel pan.

Pack the dry rub on the flesh side of the fillet, approximately 1/4" thick.
Let the fillet rest in the refrigerator for 2 to 3 hours (the longer you
leave the rub on, the stronger the salt flavor). Rinse the fillet in
cool, clean water to remove the dry rub, then pat dry. Allow to dry for
about 30 minutes, until the flesh becomes tacky.

Heat a barbecue grill to medium to medium-high. Sprinkle finishing rub
on the fillet (twice what you would use as if you were heavy salt and
peppering). Cook with the lid closed to an internal temp of 140-155*F
(your preference) measured in the center of the thickest part of the
fillet.

We recommend using wood to produce smoke while cooking. On a charcoal
grill, just sprinkle a few wood chips on the coals. On a gas grill,
place wood chips in a pouch made of aluminum foil. Poke holes in the
top of the pouch and place it on the hottest spot under the grill.
Alder is our wood of choice, but fruitwoods are a wonderful substitute.

You can also smoke it at lower temps of 225-250*F; this allows for
more smoke on the fillets.

Jim


--
Reg

In article
>,
Smitty Two > wrote:

> I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> down on it.
>
> Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

The way it's cooked.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:25:39 -0700, Reg wrote:
>
> > Don't let them sell you tail meat.
>
> Yeah - good advice. I didn't think about that. It also cooks up
> the least evenly.
>
> -sw

Try folding it.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Smitty Two > wrote:
>
> > I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> > prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> > sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> > terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> > down on it.
> >
> > Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> > time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> > species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> > that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
>
> The way it's cooked.

elaboration?

In article >,
Reg > wrote:

> Smitty Two wrote:
>
> > I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> > prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> > sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> > terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> > down on it.
> >
> > Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> > time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> > species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> > that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
>
> Avoid buying tail meat. It contains the most connective
> tissue, which is the least tender and won't flake
> as well.
>
> With any kind of muscle meat, the more it gets
> used by the animal the more connective tissue
> it contains and the least tender it will be.
>
> Don't let them sell you tail meat.

hmm, good idea. seems like i've been getting the tail more frequently
lately now that you mention it.

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:02:31 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:
>
> > I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> > prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> > sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> > terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> > down on it.
> >
> > Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> > time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> > species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> > that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
>
> The flaking is mostly a product of proper cooking, not the
> quality or type of the salmon. All salmon will flake when cooked
> properly.
>
> You can look for whiter streaks between the grain - these
> indicate fat. Copper River salmon, for example, is pretty lean
> in this respect (but will still flake).
>
> If you really want a good flake, Steelhead Trout is usually a
> sure bet and tastes/acts much like salmon.
>
> -sw

Thanks, I'll try the Steelhead. But when you say proper cooking, are you
referring to method, speed, final temp as others suggest?

In article >,
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

> Smitty Two > wrote:
> >I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> >prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> >sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> >terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> >down on it.
>
> That's a matter of what temperature it reaches in cooking.
>
> 129-131F seems to be the key.
>
> So a probe thermometer is key.
>
> You can use one that stays in the meat, or an instant-read
> that you use when you think it's near done.
>
> I have an instant-read gadget that consists of two
> liquid-crystal patches on a pointed paddle. When inserted,
> one patch says "almost" when it's a few degrees low and
> the other says "ready" when it's just right.
>
> In fact, it's exactly like this:
>
> http://easycookin.com/catalog/images..._fish_temp.jpg
>
> Cheap and it works. Just figure 350F for 1 minute per
> 1/10th-inch of fish, then check it, and leave it in for
> another minute or three if it's "almost".
>
> >Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> >time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> >species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> >that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
>
> Fattier fish do it easier. If you see a salmon with those
> nice white lines between the flakes, it will practically
> fall apart in big flakes when cooked right.
>
> --Blair

I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.

In article >,
"Dee Dee" > wrote:

> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Smitty Two > wrote:
> >
> >>I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> >>prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> >>sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> >>terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> >>down on it.
>
> I assume you mean that it comes apart in slices when you push a fork down on
> it -- after it's cooked?
>
> If so, try poaching your filet. When I've picked up a already cooked piece
> at Whole Foods that is poached, this is how it is.
> DeeDee

Yes, I'm talking post-cooking. But since I like a crisp outside and a
rarish inside, I'm not sure that poached would suit my personal tastes...

Smitty Two > wrote:
>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.

Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.

But the thermometer really tightens up your game.

I haven't done a fish wrong in months if not years.

--Blair

writes:
>Smitty Two > wrote:
>>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
>>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
>>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.
>
>Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
>too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
>after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
>done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.

I eat a lot of wild caught sockeye and it never turns to mush -- it firms
up if I overcook it.

All farmed salmon tastes mushy to me no matter how it's cooked.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:02:31 -0700, Smitty Two
> wrote:

>I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
>prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
>sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
>terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
>down on it.
>
>Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
>time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
>species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
>that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?

My wife and I have salmon with fettucini and pesto every Sunday night.
It is our staple meal. At our local seafood store I buy fresh
"Pacific" salmon which is wild and expensive or "Atlantic" which is
farm-raised and cheaper. I get whichever looks best to me. If it has
been out a while it will have a deeper orange color than if it has
just been filleted, so I get whichever is lighter in color. That
translates to fresher to me. Old salmon will always turn out mushy.
This simple test has never failed me.

In summer I grill it, in winter I make a splash of orange juice and
ginger juice and broil it. I cook by feel, which means I screwed up a
lot at first, but not so much any more. Salmon is not very forgiving,
and there is a fine line between done and mushy.

You want your salmon to flake. I do, too. Salmon is "layered" into
what I would call slabs and slices. A section of salmon consists of a
thick slab of flesh, a thin slice of fat, a thick slab of flesh, a
thin slice of fat, and so on. No matter what piece of salmon you buy
if you analyze it carefully you will see that it looks like this.
Here's the point. The slices of fat bind the slabs of flesh together.
If you want the salmon to flake, then you want to cook the salmon so
that the fat slices JUST SOFTEN all the way through to the center AND
NO MORE. Notice I said soften and not melt. If you cook your salmon
like that then when you press on it with a fork each section of flesh
will slide apart from the others because the fat has softened and can
no longer hold the slabs together. If you overcook it, then two things
happen, first the slabs of flesh turn to mush, and second, the fat
melts and runs out and takes along with it a tremendous amount of
flavor and beneficial omega 3 fatty acids. Undercooking is better than
overcooking. The rule for most fish is 10 minutes per inch. For
salmon, cut it in half, then watch it. On my Weber grill, my salmon is
done in four to five minutes at 600 degrees, and under my oven broiler
about five to seven minutes at 500.

Hope this helps.

In article
>,
Smitty Two > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Smitty Two > wrote:
> >
> > > I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> > > prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> > > sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> > > terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> > > down on it.
> > >
> > > Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> > > time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> > > species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> > > that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
> >
> > The way it's cooked.
>
> elaboration?

I've just never had salmon fillet turn out other than flaky.

I generally use the foreman grill and time a good sized fillet (1" thick
in the middle) for 6 minutes.

Undercooked, it's gooey.
Overcooked, it's dry as ashes.

Baking it works rather well too. Just cover it in lemon slices and fresh
herbs.

Lean towards the side of caution. Undercooked fish can always be cooked
a little longer. Overcook it and it's ruined beyond recovery.

Poaching is a very good method of cooking it also.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >A good indication that a Salmon fillet is cooked is to see that whitish fat
> >on top. Once that starts to appear it is almost cooked.
>
> That might work except some salmon whitish stuff doesn't ever come
> out. I typically buy king salmon and I only see the whitish
> stuff about 1/4 of the time, even if I accidentally overcook it.

What do I know? I only cook salmon 3-4 times per month, and that is what I
always look for, except when I bake in it phyllo. Not seeing any of that
goop is a good sign it is not yet cooked and salmon IMO is better a little
underdone than overcooked.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Dave Smith > wrote:

>>> A good indication that a Salmon fillet is cooked is to see that whitish fat
>>> on top. Once that starts to appear it is almost cooked.

>> That might work except some salmon whitish stuff doesn't ever come
>> out. I typically buy king salmon and I only see the whitish
>> stuff about 1/4 of the time, even if I accidentally overcook it.

> What do I know? I only cook salmon 3-4 times per month,
> and that is what I always look for, except when I bake in it
> phyllo. Not seeing any of that goop is a good sign it is not
> yet cooked and salmon IMO is better a little underdone than
> overcooked.

Interesting. I almost always cook salmon on the Weber (indirect,
woodsmoke method, covered) and it usually gradually develops
a nice brick-red smooth outer cooked looking surface without the white
stuff oozing out. If the latter happens it looks awful to me,
I consider it a sign something went wrong. I associate it in
my mind with the salmon not being absolutely fresh, but I don't
know that for certain.

Steve

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>> >A good indication that a Salmon fillet is cooked is to see that whitish
>> >fat
>> >on top. Once that starts to appear it is almost cooked.
>>
>> That might work except some salmon whitish stuff doesn't ever come
>> out. I typically buy king salmon and I only see the whitish
>> stuff about 1/4 of the time, even if I accidentally overcook it.
>
> What do I know? I only cook salmon 3-4 times per month, and that is what I
> always look for, except when I bake in it phyllo. Not seeing any of that
> goop is a good sign it is not yet cooked and salmon IMO is better a little
> underdone than overcooked.

I'm different - I prefer mine a little dry. I cannot stand the texture
otherwise. Gag reflex/reflux.
Dee Dee

tert in seattle > wrote:
writes:
>>Smitty Two > wrote:
>>>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
>>>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
>>>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.
>>
>>Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
>>too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
>>after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
>>done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.
>
>I eat a lot of wild caught sockeye and it never turns to mush -- it firms
>up if I overcook it.

Not mush but mush when it falls apart. Little bitty fibery
bits rather than flakes.

>All farmed salmon tastes mushy to me no matter how it's cooked.

We know all about your inability to cook decent fish.

--Blair

writes:
>tert in seattle > wrote:
writes:
>>>Smitty Two > wrote:
>>>>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
>>>>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
>>>>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.
>>>
>>>Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
>>>too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
>>>after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
>>>done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.
>>
>>I eat a lot of wild caught sockeye and it never turns to mush -- it firms
>>up if I overcook it.
>
>Not mush but mush when it falls apart. Little bitty fibery
>bits rather than flakes.

nice save

>>All farmed salmon tastes mushy to me no matter how it's cooked.
>
>We know all about your inability to cook decent fish.

Farmed salmon is not decent fish and I never cook it anyway -- why
would I? Wild caught salmon is superior and it's abundant and cheap
where I live. Anyhow you've never tasted my cooking so as usual you're
talking out your ass.

tert in seattle wrote:

> Farmed salmon is not decent fish and I never cook it anyway -- why
> would I? Wild caught salmon is superior and it's abundant and cheap
> where I live. Anyhow you've never tasted my cooking so as usual you're
> talking out your ass.

If I lived in a place where wild salmon was abundant and cheap I would
likely buy a lot more of it, but I live in an area where it is hard to find
and expensive when it is available. While farmed salmon is not as good as
wild, it is still IMO quite decent.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> tert in seattle wrote:
>
> > Farmed salmon is not decent fish and I never cook it anyway -- why
> > would I? Wild caught salmon is superior and it's abundant and cheap
> > where I live. Anyhow you've never tasted my cooking so as usual you're
> > talking out your ass.
>
> If I lived in a place where wild salmon was abundant and cheap I would
> likely buy a lot more of it, but I live in an area where it is hard to find
> and expensive when it is available. While farmed salmon is not as good as
> wild, it is still IMO quite decent.

Yes.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Aug 1, 11:10 am, tert in seattle > wrote:
> writes:
> >tert in seattle > wrote:
> writes:
> >>>Smitty Two > wrote:
> >>>>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
> >>>>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
> >>>>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.
>
> >>>Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
> >>>too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
> >>>after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
> >>>done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.
>
> >>I eat a lot of wild caught sockeye and it never turns to mush -- it firms
> >>up if I overcook it.
>
> >Not mush but mush when it falls apart. Little bitty fibery
> >bits rather than flakes.
>
> nice save
>
> >>All farmed salmon tastes mushy to me no matter how it's cooked.
>
> >We know all about your inability to cook decent fish.
>
> Farmed salmon is not decent fish and I never cook it anyway -- why
> would I? Wild caught salmon is superior and it's abundant and cheap
> where I live. Anyhow you've never tasted my cooking so as usual you're
> talking out your ass.-

I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's
what I
like. And here in the Midwest, it's half the price of wild. A win-
win for me.

Cindy Hamilton

In article .com>,
Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

> I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's
> what I
> like. And here in the Midwest, it's half the price of wild. A win-
> win for me.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Finally... Someone that feels the same way I do. :-)

I never have liked the taste of "wild" Salmon!

It seems harsh and Metallic.

Probably all that lead.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:

> In article .com>,
> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>
>
>>I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's
>>what I
>>like. And here in the Midwest, it's half the price of wild. A win-
>>win for me.
>>
>>Cindy Hamilton
>
>
> Finally... Someone that feels the same way I do. :-)
>
> I never have liked the taste of "wild" Salmon!
>
> It seems harsh and Metallic.
>
> Probably all that lead.


http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatc...et.aspx?gid=17

I don't buy farm-raised salmon at all any more. Do you realize that
they're fed on wild fish? It takes three pounds of wild fish to grow a
pound of farmed salmon.

Also, I don't remember who mentioned using the color of the salmon to
judge its' freshness, but "farm raised" salmon are fed supplements to
enhance the color of the flesh.

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:39:36 -0500, Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>>I don't buy farm-raised salmon at all any more. Do you realize that
>>they're fed on wild fish? It takes three pounds of wild fish to grow a
>>pound of farmed salmon.
>
>
> And I've eaten ten thousand pounds of beef, pork, chicken, and
> seafood to make 200 pounds of human.

I'd way rather eat the wild fish myself and skip the middle man. So to
speak.
>
> Heck, I probably even ate a few hundred acres of fruit and
> vegetables, too.
>
Me, too. But when I ate/eat them I was aware of their cost in soil
depletion, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., as well as the benefits of
eating lower on the food chain.

But I actually felt vaguely virtuous when I consumed "farm raised"
salmon, thinking somehow that it left less of a foot print on the
ocean's ecology. Heh. Whoops.

> Thanks for making me feel so guilty.

De nada.

tert in seattle > wrote:
writes:
>>tert in seattle > wrote:
writes:
>>>>Smitty Two > wrote:
>>>>>I'll try the thermometer, but I do like fish (and other things) on the
>>>>>rarish side. Have a hard time believing that it's temp alone that's the
>>>>>problem, although I admit I overcook it sometimes inadvertently.
>>>>
>>>>Fish is tetchy on the rarish side. If it's just a little
>>>>too rare, it doesn't flake at all. There are a few degrees
>>>>after that where it makes whole flakes, then it goes well
>>>>done and falls apart as mush instead of flaking.
>>>
>>>I eat a lot of wild caught sockeye and it never turns to mush -- it firms
>>>up if I overcook it.
>>
>>Not mush but mush when it falls apart. Little bitty fibery
>>bits rather than flakes.
>
>nice save
>
>>>All farmed salmon tastes mushy to me no matter how it's cooked.
>>
>>We know all about your inability to cook decent fish.
>
>Farmed salmon is not decent fish and I never cook it anyway -- why

Then how would you know it's being cooked right?

>would I? Wild caught salmon is superior and it's abundant and cheap

Except when it's mushy and flavorless, which it is everywhere
except within ten minutes of the docks.

>where I live. Anyhow you've never tasted my cooking so as usual you're
>talking out your ass.

You're the one talking about fish prep he's never performed.

--Blair

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article .com>,
> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>
>> I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's
>> what I
>> like. And here in the Midwest, it's half the price of wild. A win-
>> win for me.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Finally... Someone that feels the same way I do. :-)
>
> I never have liked the taste of "wild" Salmon!
>
> It seems harsh and Metallic.
>
> Probably all that lead.
> --
> Peace, Om

Of all the salmon species, sockeye range the furthest in their migration
(see map), overlapping the migration pattern of other sockeye that originate
in both the U.S. and Asia. Most sockeye (regardless of their country of
origin) spend about half their lives in the large pasture of open ocean
south of the Aleutian Islands where they develop the rich flavour and bright
orangey-red flesh so characteristic of this species.

map picture for salmon at
http://atn-riae.agr.ca/seafood/chinook_salmon-e.htm

Dee Dee

In article >,
raymond > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:02:31 -0700, Smitty Two
> > wrote:
>
> >I love a good salmon filet, but have trouble picking the texture I
> >prefer. Can't seem to figure out what to look for. Many cuts seem to be
> >sort of stringy and steaky in texture (not sure if those are correct
> >terms) but the stuff I like comes apart in slices when you push a fork
> >down on it.
> >
> >Despite asking at seafood counters, asking friends, and spending some
> >time googling, I've gotten no satisfactory information. Is it the
> >species, the freshness, the part of the fish it's cut from, or what,
> >that gives some salmon that slide apart quality?
>
> My wife and I have salmon with fettucini and pesto every Sunday night.
> It is our staple meal. At our local seafood store I buy fresh
> "Pacific" salmon which is wild and expensive or "Atlantic" which is
> farm-raised and cheaper. I get whichever looks best to me. If it has
> been out a while it will have a deeper orange color than if it has
> just been filleted, so I get whichever is lighter in color. That
> translates to fresher to me. Old salmon will always turn out mushy.
> This simple test has never failed me.
>
> In summer I grill it, in winter I make a splash of orange juice and
> ginger juice and broil it. I cook by feel, which means I screwed up a
> lot at first, but not so much any more. Salmon is not very forgiving,
> and there is a fine line between done and mushy.
>
> You want your salmon to flake. I do, too. Salmon is "layered" into
> what I would call slabs and slices. A section of salmon consists of a
> thick slab of flesh, a thin slice of fat, a thick slab of flesh, a
> thin slice of fat, and so on. No matter what piece of salmon you buy
> if you analyze it carefully you will see that it looks like this.
> Here's the point. The slices of fat bind the slabs of flesh together.
> If you want the salmon to flake, then you want to cook the salmon so
> that the fat slices JUST SOFTEN all the way through to the center AND
> NO MORE. Notice I said soften and not melt. If you cook your salmon
> like that then when you press on it with a fork each section of flesh
> will slide apart from the others because the fat has softened and can
> no longer hold the slabs together. If you overcook it, then two things
> happen, first the slabs of flesh turn to mush, and second, the fat
> melts and runs out and takes along with it a tremendous amount of
> flavor and beneficial omega 3 fatty acids. Undercooking is better than
> overcooking. The rule for most fish is 10 minutes per inch. For
> salmon, cut it in half, then watch it. On my Weber grill, my salmon is
> done in four to five minutes at 600 degrees, and under my oven broiler
> about five to seven minutes at 500.
>
> Hope this helps.

All right then, thanks for the detailed response. Consensus seems to be
that my cooking skills are largely to blame, with other considerations
not totally discounted. I do find it odd that I used to get consistently
good salmon and lately haven't been, but will get the thermometer, shun
the tail meat, and start honing my skills.

Thanks to you and all others for your helpful replies.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is certainly up for debate, but It's not something I want to
> debate. I've learned not to argue politics, religion,
> environmental, or veganism (though I do take pot shots at the
> later ;-)
>
> -sw

I've noticed a lot of people on rfc will get in a one-liner pot-shot on all
of the above subjects; it doesn't matter what the subject is, they'll turn
it to their agenda. I'm surprised there aren't more 'debates.' Many thanks
for not having to listen to your debates on the above. Learning about your
views on sucking dick is quite enough ;-)
Dee Dee

Dee Dee > wrote:
>"Omelet" > wrote in message
>news
>> In article .com>,
>> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's

The farmed ones are all Atlantic salmon. There's a
reason they were chosen for the pens in the Pacific, but
I forget what it was. Yield or temperament or something.
You might still enjoy those if they were wild.

>> I never have liked the taste of "wild" Salmon!
>> It seems harsh and Metallic.
>> Probably all that lead.

Bullets or pencils?

>Of all the salmon species, sockeye range the furthest in their migration
>(see map), overlapping the migration pattern of other sockeye that originate
>in both the U.S. and Asia. Most sockeye (regardless of their country of
>origin) spend about half their lives in the large pasture of open ocean
>south of the Aleutian Islands where they develop the rich flavour and bright
>orangey-red flesh so characteristic of this species.

They get whacked out on krill and then try to swim upstream
past grizzly bears. They're nuts, I tellya!

--Blair

On Aug 1, 6:39 pm, Kathleen > wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>
> >>I prefer farmed to wild salmon. The taste is much milder, and that's
> >>what I
> >>like. And here in the Midwest, it's half the price of wild. A win-
> >>win for me.
>
> >>Cindy Hamilton
>
> > Finally... Someone that feels the same way I do. :-)
>
> > I never have liked the taste of "wild" Salmon!
>
> > It seems harsh and Metallic.
>
> > Probably all that lead.
>
> http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatc...et.aspx?gid=17
>
> I don't buy farm-raised salmon at all any more. Do you realize that
> they're fed on wild fish? It takes three pounds of wild fish to grow a
> pound of farmed salmon.

It probably takes more than three pounds of wild fish to grow a pound
of wild salmon, given that they have to work hard to get it. You
can't
fight thermodynamics.

> Also, I don't remember who mentioned using the color of the salmon to
> judge its' freshness, but "farm raised" salmon are fed supplements to
> enhance the color of the flesh

Fine. So are hens to enhance the color of their eggs.

Cindy Hamilton