Every now and again in spite of our best efforts we end up with an occasional meal with that trademark unpleasantly strong fish taste.

Fillet them as quick as we can; try to keep the skin on fillets out of the mess until we skin them; not including any of the white belly stuff  / portion on any of the fillets. Wash throughly when done and drop in some salt water. Not a consitent thing; just every now and again. Seems to happen more often with the ones we freeze for later use.

Any input on how to make our fish meals less of a chance? Thanks.

mastertangler wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:


Quality Fillets / Diet: all are taken from the same body of water on the border of the BW. Walleye; SMB; and Northern.

Lateral Line: An area that could use attention. All the way from tip to tail; right?

Freeze in water: already being done; zero air exposure.

Thaw in cold water: Check; already being done. outside of the occasional full thaw in the fridge.

Soak in milk: did that with the last meal; but not overnight. No italian dressing though. dogs ended up getting most of that meal.

Seems that lateral line could be the worst offender. But why on some and not others; even of the same species?

mastertangler wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:


I wouldn't neccesarily say dismissing it; kind of hard to do without having prior knowledge isn't it? We'll give it a shot; along with doing the vanishing dark meat trick.

Care to share the proportions? want to give it the best shot..

Thanks.

Quote:


I've never had fresh fish that tasted to "fishy/strong". Some fish do have a stronger natural flavor than others, but don't you want your fish of choice to taste like "fish", and not have the flavor hidden under to much breading/seasoning?

Most of the type of fish that are mild, like Cod/Tilapia are the ones that assume the flavor of whatever you prepare them with.

There the kinds of fish, people who "hate" fish will eat, because they're often served with a tasty breading or sauce.

It's like eating Venison/any wild game, compared to beef/chicken.

I don't get the idea that wild fish/game should taste like farm raised so people that don't like "wild" can be made to eat it because the chef has hidden it's natural taste.

IF it smells "fishy", then it's going/gone bad and shouldn't be eaten period.

Not to sidetrack this great discussion of culinary art (which should probably be in the cooking forum), I'll share my favorite recipe for cooking carp. After proper cleaning, throwing out the unusable and undesirable parts, take what's left (if any) and bake it on a cedar  plank. When thoroughly cooked, remove the carp, and serve the plank.

Old Salt wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 11:18pm:

I could really go for a few spring bullheads right now. When people say fish and mention a delicate flavor, that's what comes to mind for me. Lightly floured. Mom probably cooked 'em in lard. Can you still buy lard?

I too agree - - the strong fish taste usually is related to not removing the fat from the fish.  As stated above, the dark looking red stuff is fat and one should strive to remove all of it from the fillet.

Just like people, you can see differences in the amount of fat on fish of the same species.  If one just does the standard fillet & skin job, there can be quite a bit of difference in how much red fat is present right along the lateral line of the fish.  As MT suggested, take the extra time to cut out this section of red meat and you will definitely notice the difference in taste.

db wrote on Apr 12^th, 2014 at 5:56am:


good point and the answer is yes and no.......... or perhaps the best answer is "it depends".

Part of the reason that smaller fish seem to taste better is their fat deposits are usually quite minimal, in small walleyes it is often non existent. The bigger the fish the more likely some additional knife strokes will be required.

here is a story that might illustrate my point (not another story)

I became interested in fishing the overnight salt water charter boats some 20 years ago. That first trip results for my Dad and I were rather slim but we did manage a twin pair of 40lb Amberjacks (if you think your tough you don't know Jack). I asked a handful of guys on the boat if they were good to eat and to a man they replied that "they're good smoked". Whenever I hear that a fish is only good smoked the impression I am left with is the fish isn't fit for a dog.

Nevertheless we kept the mid size jacks. One we left with an artist friend (Bruce) who had let me park my rig at their place. He actually seemed quite pleased to have it. Hmmmm.

We got the fish home and put a knife to it. These fish have a deposit of fat and blood and their sides like nothing I had seen before. The whole side of the fish was layered in about 1/2" of yuk. I carefully trimmed it away and cut the plentiful meat into cubes and proceeded to fry up a batch.

I will never forget what happened next. My Dad and I were seated across from each other with a big pile of fish between us. We each grabbed a piece and as is my custom I broke a steaming piece open and gave it a whiff. "Doesn't smell bad" I quizzically commented. We each took a bite, there was a long pause, and then our eyes lock simultaneously.........My Dad shot one of his all time best lines......"We have to go back to Bruces and get our other fish"

To this day Amberjack get a bad rap. I believe it is because of a lousy cleaning job. I have served Amberjack on many an occasion including to large groups of over 20 and more often than not I am asked what kind of fish they are eating (Jack has a texture much like chicken).

Bottom line? Small fish don't worry about it but on the bigger fish take the time to remove the fatty deposits, it is easy enough to do.