In case anyone is interested I have placed three photos
of a salmon fillet he http://www.rahul.net/spp/salmon/

The first photo is before cooking, a 2.4 lb piece of fresh
California king salmon sitting in its so-called "BBQ wok" insert.
The second photo shows it on the Weber grill, after about 30
minutes of slow indirect smoke-cooking on the covered grill
(which used charcoal plus some plum wood), a few minutes before
removing it. The third photo is the completely cooked salmon.
It was somewhat medium-rare in the very middle, the rest cooked
through an even medium.

Had I gone 28 minutes total instead of 33, it would have
been rare in the entire middle interior -- still fine.

(And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
Possibly due to its freshness, or possibly due to the very
slow cooking method.)

Salmon from Hudson Fish, Berkeley Farmer's Markets.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> In case anyone is interested I have placed three photos
> of a salmon fillet he http://www.rahul.net/spp/salmon/
>
> The first photo is before cooking, a 2.4 lb piece of fresh
> California king salmon sitting in its so-called "BBQ wok" insert.
> The second photo shows it on the Weber grill, after about 30
> minutes of slow indirect smoke-cooking on the covered grill
> (which used charcoal plus some plum wood), a few minutes before
> removing it. The third photo is the completely cooked salmon.
> It was somewhat medium-rare in the very middle, the rest cooked
> through an even medium.
>
> Had I gone 28 minutes total instead of 33, it would have
> been rare in the entire middle interior -- still fine.
>
> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
> Possibly due to its freshness, or possibly due to the very
> slow cooking method.)
>
> Salmon from Hudson Fish, Berkeley Farmer's Markets.
>
> Steve

Very nice. :-)

I really should try smoking some salmon.
Smoked fish is a very special and delicious flavor.
--
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:

> In case anyone is interested I have placed three photos
> of a salmon fillet he http://www.rahul.net/spp/salmon/
>
> The first photo is before cooking, a 2.4 lb piece of fresh
> California king salmon sitting in its so-called "BBQ wok" insert.
> The second photo shows it on the Weber grill, after about 30
> minutes of slow indirect smoke-cooking on the covered grill
> (which used charcoal plus some plum wood), a few minutes before
> removing it. The third photo is the completely cooked salmon.
> It was somewhat medium-rare in the very middle, the rest cooked
> through an even medium.
>
> Had I gone 28 minutes total instead of 33, it would have
> been rare in the entire middle interior -- still fine.
>


Nice. That burnishing is the sign of properly hot smoked
salmon IMO, and it takes some skill. Looks really good.

Did you brine and air dry it first? The surface looks
perfect.

> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
> Possibly due to its freshness, or possibly due to the very
> slow cooking method.)

The latter, I think. I find that too much heat too quickly
will make it ooze. I also find that it's more likely to
ooze if you try and smoke it straight out of the fridge.
I usually let it warm up a little.

--
Reg

Reg > wrote:

>Nice. That burnishing is the sign of properly hot smoked
>salmon IMO, and it takes some skill. Looks really good.

Thanks.

>Did you brine and air dry it first? The surface looks
>perfect.

No, this is a grilled piece of fresh salmon, with a moderate
amount of wood smoke involved. (I have in the past brined/cured
the salmon as well, but salmon prices are just too high to justify
that this season.)

>> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
>> Possibly due to its freshness, or possibly due to the very
>> slow cooking method.)

>The latter, I think. I find that too much heat too quickly
>will make it ooze. I also find that it's more likely to
>ooze if you try and smoke it straight out of the fridge.
>I usually let it warm up a little.

I typically remove the salmon from the fridge one hour before
it goes on the grill.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>
> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.

In all probability that white "Ooze" is called fat and is nothing to be
worried about. Certainly it is not any important indicator as to best
cooking method nor freshness.

,

Gunner > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message

>> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.

>In all probability that white "Ooze" is called fat and is nothing to be
>worried about. Certainly it is not any important indicator as to best
>cooking method nor freshness.

From my point of view, any white ooze from salmon is unattractive,
so for me the best method would avoid this. YMMV.

Steve

Gunner wrote:

> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>(And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
>
>
> In all probability that white "Ooze" is called fat and is nothing to be
> worried about. Certainly it is not any important indicator as to best
> cooking method nor freshness.


While that's all true, there are times when I prefer
the texture of a smooth, burnished exterior. It depends
on how I'm serving it.

But more importantly, a lot of people are put off by it.
I once brought a few vac packs to my MIL and she pointed
to the fat and asked "What's that??" with a slightly
bemused look on her face. I explained to her everything
just as you said it. That seemed to calm her down but I'd
have preferred not having to explain it.

With food, perception is often reality.

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote in message
...
> Gunner wrote:
>
>> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>(And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
>>
>>
>> In all probability that white "Ooze" is called fat and is nothing to be
>> worried about. Certainly it is not any important indicator as to best
>> cooking method nor freshness.
>
>
> While that's all true, there are times when I prefer
> the texture of a smooth, burnished exterior. It depends
> on how I'm serving it.
>
> But more importantly, a lot of people are put off by it.
> I once brought a few vac packs to my MIL and she pointed
> to the fat and asked "What's that??" with a slightly
> bemused look on her face. I explained to her everything
> just as you said it. That seemed to calm her down but I'd
> have preferred not having to explain it.
>
> With food, perception is often reality.
>
> --
> Reg

Gentlemen, it is not really difficult to wipe any accumulated white ooze off
the salmon as it cooks and apply your glaze, or let it smoke/cook to get
your beautiful burnished look. it really isn't.

Gunner wrote:

> Gentlemen, it is not really difficult to wipe any accumulated white ooze off
> the salmon as it cooks and apply your glaze, or let it smoke/cook to get
> your beautiful burnished look. it really isn't.


You're missing the point. Salmon that has cooked fast enough to
exude fat will have a different texture than if it's cooked
slower and ends up with a smooth, dry surface.

--
Reg

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> In case anyone is interested I have placed three photos
>> of a salmon fillet he http://www.rahul.net/spp/salmon/
>>
>> The first photo is before cooking, a 2.4 lb piece of fresh
>> California king salmon sitting in its so-called "BBQ wok" insert.
>> The second photo shows it on the Weber grill, after about 30
>> minutes of slow indirect smoke-cooking on the covered grill
>> (which used charcoal plus some plum wood), a few minutes before
>> removing it. The third photo is the completely cooked salmon.
>> It was somewhat medium-rare in the very middle, the rest cooked
>> through an even medium.
>>
>> Had I gone 28 minutes total instead of 33, it would have
>> been rare in the entire middle interior -- still fine.
>>
>> (And no, no white liquid stuff ever oozed out during cooking.
>> Possibly due to its freshness, or possibly due to the very
>> slow cooking method.)
>>
>> Salmon from Hudson Fish, Berkeley Farmer's Markets.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Very nice. :-)
>
> I really should try smoking some salmon.
> Smoked fish is a very special and delicious flavor.
> --
> Peace, Om
>
The best I ever tasted was home smoked with alder wood. Was better than the
hickory or apple even. Being a smoke newbie sort of, I'm still working on
controlling heat.
Edrena

In article > ,
"The Joneses" > wrote:

> >> Salmon from Hudson Fish, Berkeley Farmer's Markets.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > Very nice. :-)
> >
> > I really should try smoking some salmon.
> > Smoked fish is a very special and delicious flavor.
> > --
> > Peace, Om
> >
> The best I ever tasted was home smoked with alder wood. Was better than the
> hickory or apple even. Being a smoke newbie sort of, I'm still working on
> controlling heat.
> Edrena

No access to Alder wood, but I should have no trouble getting pecan.
--
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:


> No access to Alder wood, but I should have no trouble getting pecan.


BBQs Galore in Austin has alder. They carry a nice selection of different
woods.

AUSTIN II (24mi.)
5601 Brodie Ln.
Suite 1200
Austin, TX 78745
512-899-9516
Sunset Valley- On Brodie Lane one block South of 290 in the Sunset
Valley Shopping Center

--
Reg

In article >,
Reg > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
>
> > No access to Alder wood, but I should have no trouble getting pecan.
>
>
> BBQs Galore in Austin has alder. They carry a nice selection of different
> woods.
>
> AUSTIN II (24mi.)
> 5601 Brodie Ln.
> Suite 1200
> Austin, TX 78745
> 512-899-9516
> Sunset Valley- On Brodie Lane one block South of 290 in the Sunset
> Valley Shopping Center

Okay. :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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

"Reg" > wrote in message
t...
> Gunner wrote:
>
>> Gentlemen, it is not really difficult to wipe any accumulated white ooze
>> off the salmon as it cooks and apply your glaze, or let it smoke/cook to
>> get your beautiful burnished look. it really isn't.
>
>
> You're missing the point. Salmon that has cooked fast enough to
> exude fat will have a different texture than if it's cooked
> slower and ends up with a smooth, dry surface.
>
> --
> Reg

This is not to denigrate Steve's pics or his fish..... As a Photog I
appreciate people's pics and as a cook I appreciate reading his methods, but
your comment "Salmon that has cooked fast enough to
exude fat will have a different texture than if it's cooked slower and ends
up with a smooth, dry surface" definatively means nothing to me. So no, I
really do not think I missed "the point" at all. Am I to understand that
30 minute
indirect slow cooking in a grill wok will not extrude fat in a "California"
King Salmon purchased from Hudson's Berkely Market and will ensure a smooth
dry surface and a different texture? I do not believe that encapulation is
out of context to what you said but I am not going to argue semantics with
you. Just do not assume I missed "the point" as you know it.

Salmon Fat is a good thing, that is why ya eat it but it can percolate to
the surface in the many salmon vatieties by many, many methods to include
slow, slow cooking and even smoking for long times (well in excess of 30
minutes indirect wok cooking). Reg, I am not unfamiliar with salmon. Each
fish, each day and everybody is different.

My point, my friend, was and still is the white ooze is called fat, it can
and
will percolate to the surface of many salmoniods under many and varied
conditions yet it can be
easily wiped, blotted or brushed off for your final plate presentation and
does not
have to affect your texture nor taste one bit.

Gunner wrote:

> This is not to denigrate Steve's pics or his fish..... As a Photog I
> appreciate people's pics and as a cook I appreciate reading his methods, but
> your comment "Salmon that has cooked fast enough to
> exude fat will have a different texture than if it's cooked slower and ends
> up with a smooth, dry surface" definatively means nothing to me. So no, I
> really do not think I missed "the point" at all.

It's a cooking thing, not a photographer thing.

Cooking too fast or at too high heat melts the fat and causes
it to seep out. The same is true for other products like smoked
sausage. If it ends up on the exterior, or sitting at the bottom of
your cooker, it's not in the interior. Less fat and moisture
in the interior results in a different texture and mouthfeel.

That's not to say that one way is better than the other. That's
subjective, and I like it all ways depending on my mood and
what it's being used for. But it definitely changes the result.

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote in message
. net...
> Gunner wrote:
>
>> This is not to denigrate Steve's pics or his fish..... As a Photog I
>> appreciate people's pics and as a cook I appreciate reading his methods,
>> but
>> your comment "Salmon that has cooked fast enough to
>> exude fat will have a different texture than if it's cooked slower and
>> ends
>> up with a smooth, dry surface" definatively means nothing to me. So no,
>> I
>> really do not think I missed "the point" at all.
>
> It's a cooking thing, not a photographer thing.
>
> Cooking too fast or at too high heat melts the fat and causes
> it to seep out. The same is true for other products like smoked
> sausage. If it ends up on the exterior, or sitting at the bottom of
> your cooker, it's not in the interior. Less fat and moisture
> in the interior results in a different texture and mouthfeel.
>
> That's not to say that one way is better than the other. That's
> subjective, and I like it all ways depending on my mood and
> what it's being used for. But it definitely changes the result.
>
> --
> Reg

So if I cook a sockeye salmon the same way as this "Calfornia" King it will
be the same? No and you know it.

Gunner wrote:

> "Reg" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>
>>>I
>>>really do not think I missed "the point" at all.
>>
>>It's a cooking thing, not a photographer thing.
>>
>>Cooking too fast or at too high heat melts the fat and causes
>>it to seep out. The same is true for other products like smoked
>>sausage. If it ends up on the exterior, or sitting at the bottom of
>>your cooker, it's not in the interior. Less fat and moisture
>>in the interior results in a different texture and mouthfeel.
>>
>>That's not to say that one way is better than the other. That's
>>subjective, and I like it all ways depending on my mood and
>>what it's being used for. But it definitely changes the result.
>
>
> So if I cook a sockeye salmon the same way as this "Calfornia" King it will
> be the same? No and you know it.
>


Yeah. I think "missed the point" applies once again

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote in message
. net...
> Gunner wrote:
>
>> "Reg" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>
>>>Gunner wrote:
>>>
>>>>I
>>>>really do not think I missed "the point" at all.
>>>
>>>It's a cooking thing, not a photographer thing.
>>>
>>>Cooking too fast or at too high heat melts the fat and causes
>>>it to seep out. The same is true for other products like smoked
>>>sausage. If it ends up on the exterior, or sitting at the bottom of
>>>your cooker, it's not in the interior. Less fat and moisture
>>>in the interior results in a different texture and mouthfeel.
>>>
>>>That's not to say that one way is better than the other. That's
>>>subjective, and I like it all ways depending on my mood and
>>>what it's being used for. But it definitely changes the result.
>>
>>
>> So if I cook a sockeye salmon the same way as this "Calfornia" King it
>> will be the same? No and you know it.
>>
>
>
> Yeah. I think "missed the point" applies once again
>
> --
> Reg


Ya know that was what I was thing exactly!

You do not have a clue as to salmon do ya, Reggie?

Gunner wrote:


> Ya know that was what I was thing exactly!
>

Uh, yeah. That makes perfect sense.

> You do not have a clue as to salmon do ya, Reggie?
>

Hint: It has nothing to do with what kind of salmon you're
cooking. It applies to just about anything with a high
fat content.

But thanks for playing.

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote in message
. net...
> Gunner wrote:
>
>
>> Ya know that was what I was thing exactly!
>>
>
> Uh, yeah. That makes perfect sense.
>
>> You do not have a clue as to salmon do ya, Reggie?
>
> Hint: It has nothing to do with what kind of salmon you're
> cooking. It applies to just about anything with a high
> fat content.
>
> But thanks for playing.
>
> --
> Reg

Thats what I thought, you don't cook a lot of salmon do ya, Reggie. What
part of the PNW aren't ya from?

Enough!!

Next time I see the "white ooze" I'll take some more pics
and we can debate what I did differently!!

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Enough!!
>
> Next time I see the "white ooze" I'll take some more pics
> and we can debate what I did differently!!
>
> Steve

Thank you for the offer Steve, but that is Ok, I will pass. I do not need
to philisophically "debate" ooze or how you may do it different in your next
cooking adventure with someone who doesn't know salmon. In this case I have
to agree listen to Sheldon, learn to cook your fish. Fish is done when it
is done. Presentation is an entirely different matter.

Gunner > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message

>> Enough!!
>>
>> Next time I see the "white ooze" I'll take some more pics
>> and we can debate what I did differently!!

>Thank you for the offer Steve, but that is Ok, I will pass. I do not need
>to philisophically "debate" ooze or how you may do it different in your next
>cooking adventure with someone who doesn't know salmon. In this case I have
>to agree listen to Sheldon, learn to cook your fish. Fish is done when it
>is done. Presentation is an entirely different matter.

What in the HELL are you talking about???

S.