After a fishing trip, an aging question

[ellandeeranch]

Just back from a fishing trip up in the Sierra Nevada (for you non-Californians, that's the home of Yosemite, Mt. Whitney, and Lake Tahoe.

(For you Californians, we were catching limits up in both Tuttle and Independence Creeks out of Lone Pine during the early opener season. Great fishing, but the snow pack means low creek levels... you earn every fish you catch.)

We are lucky enough to catch very regularly, and toss most of them back. But when camping, we usually keep a few for dinner.

Normally, I've always thought that a freshly cleaned trout five minutes out of a stream was the best trout to eat.

But at the ranch back home, we let our chickens rest until rigor "sets in in and sets out," as my sister used to say. That way, the meat gets more tender.

Has anyone ever checked if a fresh trout is better the next day after a night aging in an ice chest after cleaning? Maybe cook two that night, then cook two more the next from the same stringer? Science marches on!

Oh, by the way. Don't let anyone tell you leghorns aren't good eating! I just had a very nice dinner of half a 10-week old rooster. Sure, it was little. But boy, was it tasty. The end of a Trader Joe's fertile egg experiment.

Richard in Neenach, California

 

[redsoxs]

Well, here in Kansas, where trout are about as common as three-legged unicorns, I'd have to say that fresh fish is the best. I think chickens are aged, nor for flavor, but for tenderizing as you stated...something fish don't need. I can't specifically say the next day's fish are not as tasty, but I sure like catfish, crappie, and walleye fresh from the water to the skillet.