flaky salmon texture?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Blair P. Houghton said:

Smitty Two said:

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/burton_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".

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

Dee Dee said:

"Steve Pope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Smitty Two said:

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 said:

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

Quoted message said:

Smitty Two said:

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.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Smitty Two said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Omelet said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Smitty Two said:

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 [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Steve Pope said:

Dave Smith said:

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 said:

Steve Pope wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Pope said:

Dave Smith said:

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 said:

Quoted message said:

Smitty Two said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

We know all about your inability to cook decent fish.

--Blair

Quoted message said:

tert in seattle said:

Quoted message said:

Smitty Two <[email hidden]> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

tert in seattle said:

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 [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

tert in seattle said:

Quoted message said:

tert in seattle said:

[email hidden] writes:
>Smitty Two <[email hidden]> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

nice save

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

Cindy Hamilton said:

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 [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Cindy Hamilton said:

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/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.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.

Kathleen said:

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.

Heck, I probably even ate a few hundred acres of fruit and
vegetables, too.

Thanks for making me feel so guilty.

-sw

Steve Wertz said:

Kathleen said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for making me feel so guilty.

De nada.

tert in seattle said:

Quoted message said:

tert in seattle said:

[email hidden] writes:
>Smitty Two <[email hidden]> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Kathleen said:

Steve Wertz said:

Kathleen said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

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

"Omelet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Cindy Hamilton said:

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