Is wild alaskan smoked salmon ok?

About (not) consuming fresh raw fish and fresh raw egg yolks
goodfella333
Posts: 23
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Mon 18 Jun 2007 22:13

Is wild alaskan smoked salmon ok?

Post by goodfella333 »

Is wild alaskan smoked salmon ok?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

"Smoked" = not good.
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

But all in all i think that smoking could be the less damaging of any heating processes, seeing that it hardly changes the color of the fish.

As in the case of any other cooking processes the fish turns into a color of white.

I hope im not talking out of my a$$... :oops:
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

Look what i found!

Cold smoking happens only at 80F° (28C°).

If we could find cold smoked fish that would be totally safe.

What a pity that the process used never stated on the package.

http://bbq.about.com/cs/fish/a/aa030400a.htm
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

Sorry for the repeated posting. No edit button.

"Cold smoked fish is preserved and will usually keep for several months in the refrigerator. Hot smoked fish is cooked and will only keep about a week in the refrigerator."

So this is a good indicator.

http://www.mexican-barbecue-recipes.com ... h-hot.html
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Personally I think it's still not OK. The Maillard reaction can already happen at room temperature, if you wait long enough. Basically the reaction in relation to time is a hyperbola (X and Y are temperature and time):

Image

This means a higher temperature requires less time to produce a Maillard reaction and vice versa.

A typical sign of the Maillard reaction is the so-called 'browning' of food.
On the site I read under the cold smoking section:
Smoke the fish until it achieves a uniform brown color.
This means that the Maillard reaction does happen, and that it is required to smoke the fish.
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

Yes i think you're right.

Thanks for the explanation.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Smoked salmon ALWAYS gives me acne
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

This is the ultimate proof! :-)

Its great to have you RRM.

You are our perfect guinea-pig. :)
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Ducky wrote:This is the ultimate proof! :-)

Its great to have you RRM.

You are our perfect guinea-pig. :)
Actually, this one case doesn't prove anything. You can't learn much about general effects of things by having one guinea-pig. There are probably things that would make some people here break out and others not. Some people can take higher levels of things than others.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

dehydrator

Post by summerwave »

RRM, would you talk about dehydrating fish again in a low-temp. dehydrator?

(Or if someone would post a link to this thread-- I cannot see where it is).

You spoke about making a soft, chewy salmon 'jerky' which lasted 2-3 weeks and was portable without refrigeration. Thank you...
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

viewtopic.php?t=1817&highlight=

"Actually, this one case doesn't prove anything."

Just because you dont break out because you are stronger it doesnt mean
that it is good for you.
Other than its not an allergie, you can judge it by someone who is more sensible than you if its good or not for you.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Ducky wrote:viewtopic.php?t=1817&highlight=

"Actually, this one case doesn't prove anything."

Just because you dont break out because you are stronger it doesnt mean
that it is good for you.
Other than its not an allergie, you can judge it by someone who is more sensible than you if its good or not for you.
I'm not saying that either. I am probably not being clear. You can't judge much of anything from a single person's experience. If some single person breaks out it doesn't mean it will cause most people to breakout, even if they are as you put it 'strong' or not. The same on the other side, if something doesn't make an individual break out you can't assume it is safe.

There is science then there are beliefs, I assume most of us here are interested in the former and would avoid using a sample size of one to use as evidence for anything.
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

Well while you are right that we can't judge much of anything from a single person's experience but since we cant afford to hire 100 people
and as far as we know there havent been done any experience of that sort yet, our best bet is to go with what we have right now.

I myself doesnt break out easily so i cant really judge by this way what's good for me.
So my best bet is to take one sensible person's experience and follow that person.
Because we learned that bad protein not only causes you to break out but does other harmful things to you also...

...but this im sure that you know even better than me. :)
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I wonder if it is accurate to assume that food that makes people break out (in general) is detrimental to health.
Post Reply