I was given a beautiful 18 pound salmon yesterday, I either BBQ it poach it in white wine boullion, does anyone have any other ideas for cooking it whole XX Jeannine
XX Jeannine
Not for whole salmon but I do have a great recipe for the tail of the salmon should you decide to skin and fillet it and cut steaks from the upper end. It involves a pastry case and a stuffing made from chopped stem ginger and raisins - based on a medieval recipe. Absolutely delicious served hot, warm or cold.
Then, of course, there's gravadlax which is easy and very tasty.
Every time I hear word 'salmon'...this is what comes into my mind and I start craving after it.. http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/loimu/Interesting ..it is called 'loimu lohi'.
Basically it is salmon barbequed on blank of wood..'nailed' on with wooden pegs. I prefer just plain salt as 'flavouring' but if you google loimu lohi several interesting options will pop up...some that I've eaten before had juniper berries crushed on.
Salmon and smokey flavour from real wood is marriage made in heaven..so simple and hard to beat. Serve that with new potatoes and bit of salad and Finnish summer time favourite is served :icon_cheers:
OHHHHHHH....I got it 'in' me now...I just HAVE TO go and get some salmon and as soon as we get dry weather, I shall barbeque going on allotment and cook some :toothy10: :toothy10: :toothy10: I'm drooling already
I once worked, for a season, in a salmon-processing factory in Shetland.
Twenty years later and I still can't eat the stuff.
Now then. Knowing which side of the continent you are on Jeannine, I'm assuming that is one of Canada's super-beautiful Pacific Salmon that was caught returning to the Fraser River to breed.
(I also spent a summer very close to where you live too, as I recall) Maple Ridge.
So. What is worrying me now is this:
Unprecedented: Sockeye salmon at dire historic low on Canada's Pacific coast — "We think something happened in the ocean" — "The elders have never seen anything like this at all" — Alaska and Russia also affected (MAP) (http://enenews.com/unprecedented-sockeye-salmon-at-dire-historic-low-may-entirely-shut-down-fishery-on-canadas-west-coast-we-think-something-happened-in-the-ocean-the-elders-have-never-seen-anything-like)
Is Fukushima Radiation Contaminating Tuna, Salmon and Herring On the West Coast of North America? (http://enenews.com/unprecedented-sockeye-salmon-at-dire-historic-low-may-entirely-shut-down-fishery-on-canadas-west-coast-we-think-something-happened-in-the-ocean-the-elders-have-never-seen-anything-like)
Salmon Says: Should you Worry about Radiation in your Wild Pacific Fish? (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/harriet-sugarmiller/radiation-pacific-fish_b_1553537.html)
Harriet Sugar-MillerFreelance Health Journalist
Buck and Upton (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41751.pdf) warned us. They're the two U.S. scientists who told the U.S. government early this year that there might be a problem with some migratory fish. Possible culprits: your salmon and tuna.
How correct were they? How will history's largest accidental deposit of radiation in the ocean affect our Pacific fish?
Despite the decades of nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, most experts agree that up to now, Pacific fish have been quite clean, when it comes to radiation. The reason: Pacific Ocean currents are so strong and waters so vast that radiation gets extremely diluted.
What are researchers finding post-Fukushima?
Dr. Ken Buesseler (http://www.whoi.edu/profile/kbuesseler/) , a world expert in marine radioactivity with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, is leading an international research team tracking Fukushima's trails in the Pacific. He -- and other scientists -- have found radiation up to 600 km off Japan's coast. The amount they've found thus far does not pose a risk to humans or marine life, they say, although a few scientific voices are raising doubts. (http://sfbayview.com/2012/the-dangerous-myths-of-fukushima-exposing-the-no-harm-mantra/)
But Buesseler warns there is a problem: The reactors are still leaking, and the radioactivity levels in the ocean at the power plant have not been declining in recent months. "Levels of radioactivity found in fish are not decreasing (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/buesseler-fukushima-ocean/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9) and there appear to be hot spots on the seafloor that are not well mapped," he said. He calls the trend worrisome and is encouraging scientists worldwide to work together in order to understand Fukushima's full impact.
"We still don't know the answers to many important questions concerning the impacts of Fukushima radionuclides on the oceans. For example, we still don't have a good handle on how much radioactivity was released, and we don't fully understand where it has ended up, and that holds for the ocean waters, seafloor sediments, and for marine biota, such as tuna," he explained in an email interview.
And what are the specific concerns?
When it comes to radiation in the waters, cesium- 134 and 137 are among the key elements. They stick around much longer than the short lived radioactive iodine you've heard about -- 134 for about two decades; 137 for about 300 years. (A general rule of thumb: radionuclides remain in the environment for about 10 times their physical half lives.) These elements travel in water, with the currents, and in air, thus getting deposited in rain; and cesium-137, along with strontium-90, can both accumulate in fish.
Then there's plutonium, which can stick to particles that settle on the sea floor or to sediments directly. Plutonium is highly reactive. (Buesseler has also detected (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109.full.pdf+html) radioactive silver from Fukushima. Results of tests for plutonium and strontium are pending.)
Understandably, experts are much more worried about the poor Japanese than those of us sitting comfortably across the Pacific. "I am very concerned...for those Japanese who may consume contaminated food from the areas surrounding Fukushima," said Jarvis Caffrey in an email. Caffrey is a radiation health specialist at the University of Oregon and a member of Buesseler's research team. "I am still not worried about us here in North America."
And what are the Japanese finding?
Fortunately, the Japanese are being somewhat transparent, testing the marine life in the affected area -- both fish life and plants -- and posting results regularly (http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/inspection/index.html)on the Internet. As they readily admit, (http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/q_a/index.html) they've detected levels of radiation higher than their own standards in many seaweed and fish located near the reactor.
The sand lance, for example, which lives on the coastal surface and is used to make fish feed, was among the first organisms in which excess radiation was detected. The seabass -- a species that dwells in the mid-level waters -- also revealed high levels.
Scientists agree, however, and the Japanese numbers suggest, that the biggest concern at this point are the fish that feed on sediments at the bottom of the sea along with filter feeders such as mussels and clams that take in food by filtering water and accumulate toxins.
"Many of the bottom dwelling fish off Fukushima have levels of radioactive cesium that remain above the limits considered safe for seafood consumption in Japan," said Buesseler. "I worry primarily about the near-shore crab, flounder, mussel/clam and seaweed pathways over there," Caffrey added in an email interview.
Will any of these contaminated plants or fish work their way up the food chain or directly onto our North American plates?
What seafoods are the Japanese selling?
Fortunately, the Japanese have shut down fishing in the immediate area and banned the selling of contaminated species. They appear to be engaged in intensive surveillance -- inspecting fish from offshore nearby prefectures as well. And effective April 1, 2012, their standards for acceptable levels of radiation became much stricter -- in the case of cesium-137, 10 times as strict as U.S. and Canadian standards.
But Japan is still exporting some fish. From where? It's hard to know. Japan's ban on fishing only covers an area 30 km from the site, and nobody seems to know much more than that about exactly where the fish are coming from. Both Canada and the U.S. are still importing Japanese foods, including fish from their seas.
What are the U.S. and Canadian governments doing to protect us?
This we know for sure: they're not inspecting all Japanese imports. Right after the incident, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) launched an emergency plan -- a sampling and testing strategy to monitor radiation in Japanese products. All food products they tested were "well below (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/fact-sheets/specific-products-and-risks/eng/1331153404830/1331153569810)Health Canada's actionable levels for radioactive material," they said. In June 2011, they discontinued that plan. Since then, products from Japan have been getting the same scrutiny as products from elsewhere. The government still monitors radiation in imported foods to the same degree it did prior to the disaster; at this point, they have no plans for extensive testing of foods from Japan.........
Continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/harriet-sugarmiller/radiation-pacific-fish_b_1553537.html
Not meaning to frighten you Jeannine, but hey, we are what we eat... :(