297128 Sun May 16 23:37:41 -0700 2004 18 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1638707 I've been insisting on wild salmon for a while but is all wild reliably better than all farmed? The other night a waiter responded to my question about whether the salmon on the menu was wild or farmed with 'farmed, but from Scotland'. Does this make a difference and what kind? Recently read that Atlantic salmon is all farmed (Russ Parsons, LAT, I believe) but know I've been offered the dual assurance about salmon that it is both Atlantic and wild. Sun May 16 23:37:41 -0700 2004 0 Dbird 1 1638730 The wild vs. farmed salmon thing has been tossed around here a few times, so you may want to try doing a search for past threads. Farmed salmon is the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. I am not aware of any wild Atlantic salmon available commercially, but I suspect anything can be had for a price. Commercial salmon fishing in maritime Canada, at one time the principal source of wild Atlantic salmon, was ended some years ago when they figured out that a pound of netted salmon in a fish case brought a few dollars into the local economy but a pound of live salmon in a stream made available to flyfisherman brought several hundred dollars (or more). Smart decision - good for them, at least in the big picture, and good for the salmon. I'm a flyfisherman and have fished for Atlantics in Maine, Quebec, and New Brunswick. I've eaten plenty of wild Atlantic salmon and I doubt I could distinguish it from farmed salmon. The wild salmon you see is Pacific salmon, one of five species (typically only three are marketed as fresh fish) of genus Oncorhynchus. There are noticeable differences between the species, with king (Chinook) regarded by many as the best. Coho (silver) and sockeye (red) are also highly regarded, while chum (dog) and pink (humpies) are less so. The knock on farmed Atlantic salmon basically comes down to three things: (1) the waste products from the farming operation damage both the environment and natural stocks; (2) the farmed salmon can escape and damage the wild gene pool; and (3) farmed salmon contain harmful amounts of PCBs. I think the first is true but somewhat limited in area of impact (any farming operation involves significant environmental change/damage), the second is arguable but possibly true, and the third is not true unless you eat truly prodigious quantities of farmed salmon. With regard to the latter issue, I make my living as a consultant to EPA doing, among other things, human health risk assessment for consumption of fish contaminated with PCBs. I've done the calculations, and the 50 part-per-billion level of PCB contamination that is usually quoted for farmed salmon does not result in the level of risk that most risk managers would get concerned about. Not that there's no risk, just that the risk is small compared to the risks that everything else, including getting out of bed in the morning, pose to us all. (Just in case there's someone else out there who understands this stuff and is wondering - I'm well aware that the percentage of coplanar congeners can affect the calculation, particularly if you accept the World Health Organization TEF numbers and especially if EPA prevails on the dioxin reassessment). Mon May 17 09:59:29 -0700 2004 1638707 0 FlyFish 2 1638731 I've read of another concern, which in my overall ignorance, I may mis-state. But it has something to do with our simply over-fishing the seas. While you would think that farming might help the situation, it actually worsens it since we're feeding the Salmon the lower order sea life that it normally eats in the food chain anyway. So just the fact that we're eating mass quantities of Salmon, farmed or not - but in this case, as a direct result of the success of farming - will change the availability of the lower and more basic parts of the food chain in the sea. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can elaborate. To some degree, this falls under your statement that any farming changes the environment, which is true throughout history. But the scale of the changes today - based ultimately on mass consumption - can lead to ecological damage that could never have been imagined before. What to do... hmmm... smoke the darn thing, or poach it, or grill it... hmmm... Mon May 17 10:13:33 -0700 2004 1638730 0 applehome 3 1638741 You picked up an additional issue that I missed, and I think you stated it very well. I'm honestly not sure if the concept of depleting fish stocks elsewhere to produce salmon food is of real concern. The whole salmon farming thing has become so politically charged that it's difficult to get any objective information. A National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Memo (here: www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/ techmemos/tm49/TM49.htm), probably as objective and authoritative a source as any, doesn't even list the fish stock depletion issue, which strikes me as curious because it sounds like a matter that deserves some consideration. It's of course just another application of the "diet for a small planet" argument that has been used for years against the beef industry, and advocates on both sides are just as emotionally invested. Mon May 17 11:38:28 -0700 2004 1638731 0 FlyFish 4 1638747 with one side more $$$$$ concerned..... Mon May 17 11:48:51 -0700 2004 1638741 0 mb 5 1638766 In this particular issue, I dont think it is entirely accurate to say the money is all lined up on one side. There are lots of moneyed interests who do not want to see farmed fisheries be successful. It is not like the beef industry vs. consumer groups, or megafarms vs. family farms. jake Mon May 17 13:17:07 -0700 2004 1638747 0 jake pine 6 1638772 Nobody said the money was all on one side, but there is quite clearly more private and government money in favor of farmed fish than against. It is very similar to the other examples which you claim are so different-- it just isn't as mature of a rift. Mon May 17 13:34:04 -0700 2004 1638766 0 AlanH™ 7 1638782 a "mature rift"-nice turn of a phrase. I think that describes my marriage. Yikes! maybe she's just returning home to spawn. Bill Mon May 17 14:21:19 -0700 2004 1638772 0 billy52 5 1638794 Everyone:   Please take this public policy/economic portion of this discussion to our Not About Food board. It's easy to do: the next person to reply should do so by starting a new thread over there, then come back here to let everyone know to jump over to catch it.   PLEASE NOTE: we will be deleting further postings that delve into this direction. It's off-topic for this board. Mon May 17 15:12:59 -0700 2004 1638747 2 The Chowhound Team 4 1638785 The NMFS is as far in the pocket of industry as you can get. It is starting to change, but historically nobody cared about fisheries management because there were plenty of fish so the seats on the boards went to industry. Now that it is becoming a political issue people are trying to change the makeup of the councils, but don't be surprised by anything they do that seems 'strange'. On the bright side of salmon farming, practices are improving and they are beginning to develop feeds based on soybeans rather then fish meal and fish oil. Will also take care of their little PCB issue, but unless they genetically engineer the soy beans to produce omega-3 you're getting pink beef. Either that or see if you can get a salmon to eat walnuts. Mon May 17 14:30:55 -0700 2004 1638741 0 muD 3 1638750 Here is more information about the issue of environmental damage to the ocean caused by farmed salmon. (See Link). For the original poster: Note that the site states that wild Atlantic salmon 'is commercially extinct, meaning it's so rare that there is no commercial fishing for it'. Based upon that statement I would be extremely dubious about claims that the salmon is both wild and atlantic. Yes, someone who fishes themselves may have caught and tasted wild Atlantic salmon, but if there is no commercial fishery for it, it is very doubtful that a restaurant would be serving it, unless they bought it from some lucky fisherperson who caught a rare species and then showed up at their back door to sell it. Link: http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_factsheet.asp?gid=17 Mon May 17 11:55:27 -0700 2004 1638731 0 susancinsf 1 1638760 Personally, farmed salmon doesn't interest me at all. Soft, icky texture and lack of fat. That being said Scottish salmon farming has become far more environment friendly and they use no dyes and few drugs. It is generally viewed as cleaner and healthier than American or "Atlantic." They pioneered many of the techniques used worldwide, had the same problems with pollution, and revised their methods. I have been to Scotland numerous times in the past few years and have read quite a lot about the local industry in the Scotsman. Mon May 17 12:45:39 -0700 2004 1638707 0 JudiAU 2 1638764 Actually, farmed salmon has much more fat because the fish lead a "pampered" life and don't have to use up their energy stores chasing food or avoiding becoming food for other predators (except humans, that is). The USDA database (here: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp) lists 10.85 g fat in a 100-g edible portion of farmed Atlantic salmon, but only 6.34 g fat in wild salmon. Either form has the same amount of protein - a bit less than 20 g. Texture is a much more subjective thing, but as I said earlier, I've had both, and I really don't detect much if any difference. Maybe that's just me, but most people have never tasted wild Atlantic salmon so have no basis for comparison. I think there is a bit of a difference between the Pacific salmons and the Atlantic species, but not farmed vs. wild Atlantics. Mon May 17 13:04:53 -0700 2004 1638760 0 FlyFish 3 1638783 As you point out apples are being compared to oranges, Pacific to Atlantic salmon. I've seen that they are beginning to farm Pacific salmon. The really important point is the omega-3. Salmon is being recommended for heart health, and without the omega-3 the point is very diminished. I read an article about the Innuit and a Danish doctor was quoted as saying a 70 year old Innuit has the heart and arteries of a 20 year old Dane. Over half the calories in a traditional Innuit diet is saturated fat, but it is marine mammal fat with huge amounts of omega-3. Mon May 17 14:23:24 -0700 2004 1638764 0 muD 2 1638767 I've read actually that the Scots use dyes too. The characteristic pink color of Salmon is from the krill that many eat in the wild. Farmed salmon, even in Scotland, do not get this in their diet and are actually almost white without the dye. An important differentiator between farmed and fresh is not just the quantity of fat but also its makeup. Because wild salmon eat other fish high in omega-3 fatty acids (cholesterol-reducing) they too are high in them. Farmed salmon are generally fed things that they would not necessarily eat in the wild, including non-fish items. They are often lacking in the omega-3 acids, and in fact are no healthier (from a cardiologist's perspective) than beef. Mon May 17 13:20:11 -0700 2004 1638760 0 dude 3 1638790 A review of the USDA database on composition of foods just possibly provides some support for the claims regarding omega-3 fatty acids, but I still think you'd be hard-pressed to find a cardiologist who would tell you to skip the farmed salmon and head straight to the roast beef carving station at the buffet. According to USDA, farmed salmon has nearly 4 g of polyunsaturated fat per 100-g portion. Of that, approximately 50% (1.9 g)is reported as belonging to the omega-3 group. Wild salmon starts with less lipid overall, so also has less polyunsaturated fat (2.5 g) but apparently a higher percentage of it (1.7 g) is omega-3. The wild salmon analysis reports three different types of omega-3. The farmed salmon analysis includes only two - no 20:5 (a 20-carbon chain with 5 double bonds) omega-3 listed, so that may mean there actually is none (unlikely, for a couple of reasons) or that it wasn't differentiated, so the total for farmed may actually be a bit higher. So, it appears based on these data that you get more omega-3 on a weight basis from farmed salmon, but more on a percentage basis from wild salmon. Either way, there doesn't appear to be enough difference to get concerned about. One caveat is that the sample size is small and if the feed used for farmed salmon varies greatly then there could be differences in the composition of the final product and these samples may not be representative. It's also worth noting that the "omega-3" argument and the "depletion of forage fish stocks" argument against farmed salmon are logically inconsistent with each other. Mon May 17 14:47:38 -0700 2004 1638767 0 FlyFish 1 1638771 Here's a link to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that discussed both the Scottish farm-raised salmon and some salmon that's farm-raised in British Columbia and that's being touted as "organic" by a number of SF Bay Area markets. Link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/fish043004.cfm Mon May 17 13:32:31 -0700 2004 1638707 0 Nancy Berry 1 1638786 Frankly, from a gustatory (rather than moral, which a bit beyond this board) perspective, the more salient issue for me is whether it has been previously frozen or merely iced. Frozen fish often is much more likely to get dry when cooked (even when poached gently) and can loose that special texture of fresh fish. I have had wild salmon that was frozen that was fairly miserable (and I have had fresh wild salmon that was wonderful, but it is not as easy to get far from the source) compared to fresh farmed salmon. I've had fresh wild Atlantic salmon (in Ireland) and fresh wild Pacific (Copper River) salmon, and think the former is somewhat more delectable (and, of course, virtually impossible to get in North America unless you have a license to catch it yourself), but that is merely degrees of heaven, as it were. You can eat Arctic char with less worry, btw. The stuff we get in the US tends to be from segregated freshwaters in Iceland (sometimes Canada), and does not raise as many issues that people seem wont to raise re farmed salmon. And char can be a sublime fish, even in its farmed incarnation. Just my tuppence... Mon May 17 14:33:57 -0700 2004 1638707 0 Karl S. 1 1638838 I'm a big fan of salmon. I've had delicious farmed salmon, and mediocre farmed salmon. I've had delicious wild salmon (all Alaskan, except for one Scottish salmon many years ago) and mediocre wild salmon. I buy what looks best and feels best at the grocer's the day I'm buying. I avoid Coho...just too lean for me. Copper River has consistently been delicious at my grocery store. Check out Wine Spectator a couple of issues back for a good discussion of salmon. Mon May 17 23:02:04 -0700 2004 1638707 0 desert rat