Foods of the World Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > The US and Canada > New England and the Northeast
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Name Game
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

This site is completely supported by donations; there are no corporate sponsors. We would be honoured if you would consider a small donation, to be used exclusively for forum expenses.



Thank you, from the Foods of the World Forums!

The Name Game

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
HistoricFoodie View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 21 February 2012
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HistoricFoodie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Name Game
    Posted: 27 February 2012 at 18:06

 Ever have a recipe that you couldn’t name? That’s the case with this particular dish. I’ve been making it for many years, and there’s a really great story connected to it. But I haven’t been able to name it appropriately.

This is more a technique that a specific recipe. Here’s the story:

When I lived in the Midwest I was an avid steelhead and salmon fishermen. Around this time of year I spent a lot of time fishing a particular hot-water discharge stream, from a power plant. Sometimes we regulars would prepare lunch right there, using fresh-caught fish.

Comes a time I had just published a story about that hot water discharge fishery, so there were a lot of newbies trying their luck. Meanwhile, I’d brought all the fixings for this dish, expecting to make it using steelhead. I got the fire going, laid out my ingredients, and, half kidding, yelled to a buddy, “ok, Dave, get me a small one. Something around four pounds.”

Dave casts his salmon roe quartering upstream and starts to bounce it on the bottom. Bounce…bounce….bounce….strike. And a few minutes later there’s a fresh-run steelie on the beach, coming in at---are you ready---an ounce more than four pounds.

“Oh, my God!,” exclaimed one of the newbies to his partner. “These guys are so good they catch ‘em to order!”

I’ve thought of calling this “catch ‘em to order steelhead” but that doesn’t seem catchy enough. Anyway, here is the technique. It works with any trout or salmon. Warning: The final dish doesn’t taste anything like it sounds. The salt and sugar act as foils to each other. So give this a try before you say “ugh.”

Filets of any salmonid, all bones removed

Brown sugar

Salt

Sliced onions

Butter

Foil

 

Rub a sheet of foil large enough to contain the filet with butter. Center a filet on the foil.

 

Cover the filet with a generous layer of brown sugar. I mean a thick layer. On a large fish, a full quarter inch layer or more is none too much. Cover the brown sugar with a layer of salt. It should be at least as thick as the sugar layer, with no sugar showing though. But a layer of sliced onions over the salt, and dot with butter.

 

Wrap the fish in the foil, sealing all seams well. Lay the package on hot coals and cook, turning once, ten minutes per inch of thickness. Unwrap and serve hot.

Although I haven’t tried it, this would probably be an ideal approach for many stronger salt water fish, such as bluefish and mackerel.

 

And, if anyone has what they think is a good name…….

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Hoser View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 06 February 2010
Location: Cumberland, RI
Status: Offline
Points: 3454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hoser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 02:50
Being an avid trout fisherman myself I loved the story with the recipe Brook, but I'll have to pass on making it. I'm on a somewhat reduced sodium program, and this thing would be a time bomb for me.
Go ahead...play with your food!
Back to Top
HistoricFoodie View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 21 February 2012
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HistoricFoodie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 05:17
Well, Dave, there are trout and there are trout.
 
I grew up fishing the confluence area of the Catskills. So had a particular view of what fishing was all about, and the size fish ran, etc. To this day I carry far more flies than I need. I know better, in my head. But in my gut, where it really matters, I've never left the Beaverkill.
 
When I started fishing the Rocky Mountain west, some things changed. But you never get over your roots. I remember one time being on a busman's holiday with a guide from Hamilton, MT. We were exploring a particular way of fishing the Salmon River. Anyway, one night over post-dinner drinks, he described a certain river as being hard. "Say what?," I exclaimed. "It's still in the west, ain't it?" He allowed that it was a western stream. "Then it can't be hard," I said. "There are no hard rivers in the west; just some less easy than others."  He insisted there were hard rivers in the west. Uh, huh. But next morning,  between us, we landed 35 fish in about two hours.
 
Perhaps my biggest faux pas, however, came when I made a presentation before the Chicago chapter of Trout Unlimited. Keep in mind I'd been fishing the Great Lakes and coastal rivers for a number of years, and was used to that trout and salmon fishery. At one point the conversation turned to trout on the table, and the best ways of cooking them.
 
I said, "for me, the best is to take a small brown, oh, say, no bigger than five pounds....." There was silence and a lot of strange looks. I asked what was wrong. One of them said, "You said "small" right? There's nothing small about a five pound trout."
 
I guess when you're used to fishing the spring creeks of Wisconsin, and a ten-inch brookie is a monster, then, yeah, five pounds is a big fish. But when you're used to a fishery where you measure fish by weight rather than length (my eldest's first trout---he was 11 at the time--ran a smidge over 8 pounds, for instance), it's kind of average.
 
All that aside, it's too bad about the sodium thing. Fortunately, there are so many hundreds of ways of preparing trout that you can skip this one with no great loss. And the truth is, this one adctually works better with larger fish, so there's a decent sized filet. If I were going to make it with "normal" trout, I would butterfly them instead of fileting.
Back to Top
TasunkaWitko View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2010
Location: Chinook, MT
Status: Offline
Points: 9389
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TasunkaWitko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 March 2012 at 12:50
brook, your "shore lunch" looks excellent - i'd love to give it a try with some of our local trout, although they would have to be smaller trout, since ours are considered "pretty good" at most local spots if they are over 2 pounds. but, with my blood pressure, i would definitely have to being the salt level down a bit - i could get away with a healthy dusting of it, but that night be all. hopefully such a modification wouldn't throw it too far out of balance.
as far as a name, i am afraid i can't be much help - the only thing i could come up with is "brook's brownies," kind of a play on the brown sugar, and also on the idea of brown trout and brook trout, and also, the name of the inventor of the dish.Wink
 
if you don't mind, i thought i might move this to the "southeastern u.s." section, since you live there. to me, it gives it a kind of home-spun, personal touch to find members' favourite "improvised" recipes in the area where they live!Thumbs Up
If you are a visitor and like what you see, please click here and join the discussions in our community!
Back to Top
HistoricFoodie View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 21 February 2012
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HistoricFoodie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 March 2012 at 07:34
Makes no matter to me where you post it, Ron. I figured it fit better in the area it came from, rather than where I live now. But it's all good.
 
Frankly, I'd be reluctant to cut back on either the salt or sugar. Thick layers are what make this particular dish what it is. I also wonder what it would be like on smaller fish---I've never done it with them.
 
I've a fair acquaintance with Montana trout, having fished over most of the state. There are, I believe, better ways of preparing them than this one. But, hey, give it a try and see what happens.
Back to Top
TasunkaWitko View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2010
Location: Chinook, MT
Status: Offline
Points: 9389
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TasunkaWitko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 March 2012 at 08:43
>>>I figured it fit better in the area it came from, rather than where I live now.<<<
 
great idea ~ i'll do that! Clap
 
what might do is wait until i get one on the largish side, then prepare it as written ~ i like the flavours going on here, and it looks like a winner ~
If you are a visitor and like what you see, please click here and join the discussions in our community!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.139 seconds.