Peter wrote:
>Here is a dialogue I got from another list. I find it quite interesting
>especially as I understand wild salmon is an endangered spieces in many
>parts of the world:

I'm pretty baffled by the wild salmon depletion stuff. In Seattle, during
the summer wild salmon is cheaper than farmed! A friend in the wholesale
fish industry (Milwaukee) has told me that the trend is towards farmed:
consumers prefer it because it is fattier and more consistently fatty.
Luckily, many of the Japanese /sashimi folks feel the same way. It may be
that farmed salmon will take over the market in the coming decades, and
perhaps not just because the wild populations are depleted. I don't mean to
minimize the troubles of the world's fish supplies, but it seems that
unless there is some global regulation, it is in evitable that the world's
fisheries will collapse to a large degree. I almost welcome this; the big
money folks can lose their shirts (esp the frickin Tawainese) and the fish
stocks will recover after a time. And after the collapse you can bet there
will be more respect for sustainability and global regulation. I think :/

In any case the pacific NW salmon industry is well-regualted already; the
big trouble being the loss of fresh-water stream reproduction grounds...bla
bla, all of which I'm sure you've heard before...

On the other hand, mackerel, sardines, etc are staple fishes used in the
fish meal industry!!!! They are as fine as or superior to salmon in every
way and end up in fertilizer and chicken feed! Urrggg. And then there's
herring, which I've never seen fresh. :(

>>>I was under the impression that farmed salmon fish contains less
>>>omega 3 fatty acids compared to their wild (not farmed) counterparts.
>>>I checked the USDA Nutrient Database and discovered that the reverse
>>>is true. For instance, 100 grams of raw wild Atlantic salmon contains
>>>1.115 DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), while the farmed version contains
>>>1.293.  Also, 100 grams of raw wild Coho salmon contains .656 DHA
>>>while the farmed version contains .821. So, are we truly better off
>>>eating the farmed version if we're after more DHA?

>>It might depend on the time of year the wild salmon is caught. There
>>is a substaintial seasonal variation in fatty acid content. The
>>typical quoted value in the literature is that farmed fish have about
>>1/3 the fatty acid content compared to their wild counterparts.
>>Perhaps, the fish farmers have altered the feed to increase the fatty
>>acid content?

>>> As regards salmon as king (or queen) of omega 3's, the USDA Nutrient
>>> Database reports that raw Atlantic mackerel contains more DHA (1.401
>>>g) per 100 grams than either farmed or raw wild Atlantic salmon! So,
>>>is Atlantic mackerel the true monarch?

>>Mackerel is always the highest in tables of values.

>>> Lastly, does anyone know why the USDA Nutrient Database does not
>>>include EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) values?

>>I've found the USDA database to be spotty on some foods. Tuna, I know
>>includes EPA. Oats on the other hand, is very sparse for fatty acids.

The USDA nutrient stuff can only be a rough/crude guide concerning wild
seafoods. Seafood, esp fatty fish, are _extremely_ seasonal. Farmed fish
are overfed and pen-raised (often identifyable by their weak-looking and
under-developed tails relative to their wild brethren). The salmon feeds
are getting more and more like chicken feeds, and the industry is probably
soon going to be embracing the "medication route" to deal with the
inevitable problems found in their more and more "domesticated" salmon. I'm
thrilled that consumers are going for the _incredibly_ fatty farmed
stuff--keeps the price pressure off the wild. If nutritional analysis finds
more of the currently favored nutrients (EPA, etc) in farmed salmon, all
the better, but I would not easily be convinced that farmed is better in
any way. I wouldn't be surprised if EPA more or less disappeared from
farmed fish down the line (as feeds get worse and worse), just as seems to
have happened in commercial dry-lot beef (as Schmid reports).

Note that the fat in farmed salmon goes rancid (or very off-flavored at
least!) almost immediately and gets worse and worse, whereas, even the
fattiest of wild salmon last for many days before developing off flavors,
and even then the rancidity is limited to the fat/oil exposed to the
atmosphere. Of course, from my POV, I put a much higher standard on flavor
than nutritional charts, but it is interesting that instinctos favor the
fishes which max out on oil content, and thus DHEA, EPA, etc. Still, the
farmed stuff tastes funny and often one tastes the funny flavor the next
morning on their tongue, notices pimples (which carry the off odor), eye
crud, ear wax, etc etc. I don't trust it at all. Wild salmon, except for
the "Eskimo farts" and cheesy shits, seems to digest really cleanly.

An interesting contrast is the Japanese farmed yellowtail (YT) (found
thawed at high-brow sushi bars): the YT is fed almost exclusively sardines
(and similar) fish, often frozen/thawed. The fat content of these YT is
very high (very tasty!) and has only a slightly off-flavor (which I am
unable to guess whether due to the YT itself being frozen/thawed or because
it is farmed per say). Contrast this with the wild yellowtail found on SCal
and Baja seafood markets, which is always a crap shoot of flavors and fat
content, but when you hit, it is lovelier than any farmed yellowtail. Oh,
of course, frozen/thawed fish goes bad really fast too.)

Having eaten wild ten-day-ripened salmon (svereal ounces before the stop)
for dinner tonight, my take on these matters cannot be entirely trusted :)
esp my lack of concern about the endangered species stuff... :(

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]