Why Do Salmon Cans Include Bones and Skin While Tuna Cans Don’t?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences in canning practices for salmon and tuna, specifically focusing on why canned salmon includes bones and skin while canned tuna does not. Participants explore hypotheses related to fish size, processing methods, and consumer preferences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant hypothesizes that the size difference between tuna and salmon affects the canning process, suggesting that larger tuna allow for larger fillets without bones, while smaller salmon require including bones and skin to obtain enough meat.
  • Another participant notes that salmon bones become soft when cooked and are considered delicious, indicating a preference for including them in traditional canning practices.
  • It is mentioned that "Traditional" salmon canning includes the whole body of the fish, which contributes to the presence of bones and skin in the can.
  • A participant points out that salmon, particularly sockeye, tends to be more expensive than tuna, which may influence consumer choices regarding canned products.
  • Another comment reinforces the idea that size matters in the context of fish fillets and canning practices, acknowledging that some fish are more bony than others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying viewpoints on the reasons for the differences in canning practices, with some agreeing on the influence of fish size while others introduce additional factors such as processing methods and consumer preferences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the primary reasons for these differences.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the cooking process and its effects on the texture of bones and skin, but do not provide detailed explanations of the canning methods or consumer trends. There is also a lack of consensus on the significance of price differences between salmon and tuna.

cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
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:
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Salmon bones become soft when cooked and are delicious. Many people also like the skin.

Why are there bones & skin in my can of Traditional Salmon?

"Traditional" refers to the process by which salmon has been packed for many years, that is the whole body of the fish including the bones and skin is placed in the can. The high heat sterilization process softens the bones and skin to the point where they can be easily mashed and blended into salads, casseroles and other delicious dishes. Chicken of the Sea also produces salmon in a skinless and boneless pack for those consumers who prefer it without the skin and bones.

You are right that size is also an issue.

http://chickenofthesea.com/faq.aspx
 
Evo said:
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

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

Size does matter.

Rich (keen fisher)
 

Similar threads

Why Does Viewing Animal Cruelty Invoke Deep Emotional Responses?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
How Do Everyday Concepts Become Mind-Boggling When We Think Deeply About Them?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K