Salmon vs. Tuna Size

  1. cepheid

    cepheid 5,189
    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.
  4. cepheid

    cepheid 5,189
    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 this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?