Salmon vs. Tuna Size

  1. cepheid

    cepheid 5,190
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I tried to make the thread title sound vaguely scientific, but the moderators can move this to General Discussion if they prefer. I didn't know where to put it. It's a dumb question about fish.

    I'm wondering why is that a can of salmon (specifically Sockeye salmon from Alaska) includes a great deal of skin and bones, including vertebrae, whereas a can of tuna (specifically Albacore tuna) includes just the meat and nothing else.

    My working "common-sense" hypothesis has been that since the tuna is a much bigger fish, it's easier to take out a chunk of flesh that's big enough for a can without having to cross any bones or edges of the body. For the salmon, I assume that to get enough meat for a can, you basically have to include an entire cross-section, skin, vertebrae, and all.

    I looked it up, and Albacore tuna have an average length of 1.4 m vs. 0.35 m for Sockeye salmon, so my hypothesis seems plausible. Also the body of the salmon seems much narrower than the tuna. I was wondering if anyone who knows anything about fish could confirm or refute my explanation?

    And don't ask me what my favourite fish is. I'm not falling for that again...:wink:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    Salmon bones become soft when cooked and are delicious. Many people also like the skin.

    You are right that size is also an issue.

    http://chickenofthesea.com/faq.aspx
     
  4. cepheid

    cepheid 5,190
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for taking the time to respond.
     
  5. I would also like to mention the fact that salmon, especially sockeye, is generally more expensive than tuna.
     
  6. Big fish = bigger fillets (although some fish are more bony as you know)

    Size does matter.

    Rich (keen fisher)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?