108 replies to this topic

[shelora]

"Why is Sablefish relatively expensive / commercially rare (at retail) compared to other, less plentiful fish? "


I certainly think that trends have a part to play in the price factor. Sablefish is hot right now and alas, skate is not.
Skate is a true bargain and a tasty one at that.

In terms of making sound food choices, chefs are in a powerful position to educate the public about matters of endangerment.


s

[FaustianBargain]

When you read the list from top top bottom, you can generalize that it starts expensive, and gets progessively cheaper as you move down the list. Why is Sablefish relatively expensive / commercially rare (at retail) compared to other, less plentiful fish?

Most of the sablefish caught is exported to Japan. Alaska has the highest catch of sablefish.

Also, I think sablefish is very rich/oily? It was conveyed to me not too long ago, Americans(dont know if this includes Canadians) prefer non-oily fish(mackarel, a wonderful oily fish, for example, isnt all that popular in America. Lack of demand, so it is cheap. But then again, mackarel is quite plentiful in most of the global waters.

Back to sablefish, even with its relative abundance, it is expensive because the demand comes from Japan. Also, slightly related to the issue of low demand in America, it is my opinion that in America(I plead ignorance about Canada. Information appreciated) fish is consumed as healthy-light-protein-rich food. As a healthful alternative to 'fatty' red meat. Hence it is difficult to sell oily/rich fish to Americans. They would rather have salmon than sablefish. Also, the price factor. Salmon prices are driven down by farming salmon and salmon is way more cheaper(and therefore familiar to the consumer) than the other strangelooking 'exotic' fish. It is funny really. I was speaking to a(British) friend. He said that the same situation seems to be happening in Australia. Awesome catches, but low demand because of consumer culinary ignorance. Salmon is the Golden Arches of the supermarket fish counter. Interestingly, Britain is an island and fish is terribly expensive. Now, that is a puzzle someone should crack!

[jamiemaw]

When you read the list from top top bottom, you can generalize that it starts expensive, and gets progessively cheaper as you move down the list. Why is Sablefish relatively expensive / commercially rare (at retail) compared to other, less plentiful fish?

Most of the sablefish caught is exported to Japan. Alaska has the highest catch of sablefish.

Also, I think sablefish is very rich/oily? It was conveyed to me not too long ago, Americans(dont know if this includes Canadians) prefer non-oily fish(mackarel, a wonderful oily fish, for example, isnt all that popular in America. Lack of demand, so it is cheap. But then again, mackarel is quite plentiful in most of the global waters.

Back to sablefish, even with its relative abundance, it is expensive because the demand comes from Japan. Also, slightly related to the issue of low demand in America, it is my opinion that in America(I plead ignorance about Canada. Information appreciated) fish is consumed as healthy-light-protein-rich food. As a healthful alternative to 'fatty' red meat. Hence it is difficult to sell oily/rich fish to Americans. They would rather have salmon than sablefish. Also, the price factor. Salmon prices are driven down by farming salmon and salmon is way more cheaper(and therefore familiar to the consumer) than the other strangelooking 'exotic' fish. It is funny really. I was speaking to a(British) friend. He said that the same situation seems to be happening in Australia. Awesome catches, but low demand because of consumer culinary ignorance. Salmon is the Golden Arches of the supermarket fish counter. Interestingly, Britain is an island and fish is terribly expensive. Now, that is a puzzle someone should crack!

Thanks for weighing in from across the pond, FB.

Sablefish, which as you identify is the same fish as Alaska black cod, was (chauvinistically) rebranded for the Canadian market a few years ago. That worked--it's also seemingly better managed to wholesale, without the kippering effect of ABC. Sablefish is relatively forgiving and has, like the excellent local albacore, become a very popular restaurant fish, widely replacing Chilean sea bass and ahi. So at least part of its expense has to do with its rapidly rising local popularity. Consumers, once introduced, have found they actually enjoy the relative richness of sablefish, even if they're less likely to prepare it at home.

Consumer attitudes here are slowly changing and gummable salmon fillets are being replaced with more flavousome, on-the-bone remedies, drawing from the 82 species of fish available from the coastal fishery. Pioneering restaurants such as C lead with dishes like lightly smoked sablefish with miso-maple syrup glaze; smoked octopus bacon encircling king scallops; pink salmon (it used to go straight to the canning line) spare-ribs; and simply grilled Vancouver Island sardines.

At Hapa Izakaya, mackeral is flamed tableside with a butane blowtorch, while at Phnom Penh, baby squid tubes are cross-hatched and coated in a gossamer coating of rice flour and quickly deep-fried then served with a lemon-pepper dip as astringent as bleach. Adesso serves whole sea bream in the Ligurian style with an intense, olive-led pomade.

Octopus, which until recently was unseen in Occidental restaurants--now shows up every night in carpaccios, at Latin American restaurants such as Baru or Mediterranean rooms such as Cioppino's, and also in fish stews.

Halibut is in season right now--its cheeks, whether spicily wok-fried or braised, and steaks and fillets are also popular. Salmon does remain the default fish of summer and in many restaurants is still tortured on the grill. But at restaurants such as West, chef David Hawksworth turns out a much more elegant treatment in a poached galatine that draws flavour just between innuendo and inflection. At Bacchus, chef Lee Parsons Dodd slowly oil-poaches wild Spring salmon fillets for 45 minutes until barely done.

Of the many fish used in Japanese restaurants (of which there are 315 in Vancouver), uni is one of the greatest. Last week we enjoyed it two ways: chef Yoshi Tabo's unfettered, barely-there nori-wrapped version atop sushi at Bluewater; then David Hawksworth's sea urchin soup, with cardamom and fennel underwriting the broth and uni, and served in its shell for effect.

Slowly, slowly, the tide doth turn, much aided by the extraordinary range of Asian restaurants here, and abetted by young Canadian chefs now reaching deeper into our coastal larder.

Edited by jamiemaw, 05 April 2005 - 01:04 AM.

[Stigand]

Interestingly, Britain is an island and fish is terribly expensive. Now, that is a puzzle someone should crack!

As Aneurin Bevan once said about Britain, "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time."

[cubilularis]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

[jamiemaw]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

Actually, we ran out of oil last week. And Jim Morrison doesn't live in Paris anymore, he's lives inside my dashboard. About the vanishing hitch-hiker thing, well you're on your own there.

Edited by jamiemaw, 05 April 2005 - 05:40 AM.

[chef koo]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

i understand your point but in the case of realistic threat to our planet such as the example of the oil don't you find it better to take the side of caution? things like cell phones we accept the consequences of. people tell me they won't live in paranoia without good cause or reason. i think the risk of extinction is a very good casue and reason.

[Ducky]

i think the risk of extinction is a very good casue and reason.

Well I think that settles that!

[*Deborah*]

I don't have empirical evidence, but I'm fairly sure microwaving your pet will cause some sort of mess, depending on the species of pet.

[Keith Talent]

We need the same proviso that applies to almost every thread here. The motto should be changed from; "Eat, Chew, Discuss" to "The truth lies somewhere in the Middle."

Some David Suzuki worshipping tree sitting hippy says *NEVER* eat farmed salmon/whatever, the government scientist/industry insider says *ALWAYS* eat farmed salmon/whatever. Truthfully, the real deal is somewhere between the extremsist's positions,as it is for almost everything in life.

And I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for the Sablefish diachotomy. Plenty of waaaaayyy funkier fish are for sale, particularly to the asian community. Yet sablefish at retail is quite rare. There's probably a story there should some enterprisisng person care to uncover the truth.

And smoked Alaskan Black Cod poached in milk, mashed potatoes on the side was a staple of my childhood, sadly I need to sell a few pints of blood to afford it today, and generally my BAC is too high to make my blood commercially viable.

[FaustianBargain]

And I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for the Sablefish diachotomy. Plenty of waaaaayyy funkier fish are for sale, particularly to the asian community. Yet sablefish at retail is quite rare. There's probably a story there should some enterprisisng person care to uncover the truth.

Sablefish along with Pacific Halibut is managed by a fishery management tool called IFQ(Individual Fishing Quota). I think I wrote something about the original Japanese idea for their fisheries that was later adopted by Maine fishermen to manage their lobsters. I dont remember where it resides on egullet. I will try to dig it up.

IFQ hands out quotas to individuals and the whole idea is to protect fish stock. These quotas are transferable, the total catch is divided among the quota holders. There is increasing demand for sablefish, especially from Japan. Almost 90% of sablefish caught in Alaska/B.C goes to Japan. The supply has a ceiling thanks to the IFQ program. And this was implemented around 1996ish(altho' trials began as early as 1993). This probably explains why sablefish used to be abundant when you were younger and is rarer now. After exports, restaurant supplies, very little sablefish probably reaches the retail market. While it is quite abundant, IFQs allows time for the overfished stocks to recover.

Does this help?

[Daddy-A]

Really enjoying this thread, and it got me to thinking ...

Wouldn't this make a great eGullet gathering? I for one would like to hear more about Ocean Wise and what restaurants like C are doing to participate. And if it means a good meal and a couple bottles of BC grape, so be it!

Jamie and I are willing to organize. Leonard, would you and Harry be willing to host?

If anyone is interested in something like this, please PM me (not in forum please) and we'll see what we can set up.

A.

[cubilularis]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

i understand your point but in the case of realistic threat to our planet such as the example of the oil don't you find it better to take the side of caution? things like cell phones we accept the consequences of. people tell me they won't live in paranoia without good cause or reason. i think the risk of extinction is a very good casue and reason.

...a world without 'point and counterpoint' wouldn't it be nice to live in such ignorant bliss.

This thread scares me with its borderline fundamentalist views. It is easy to latch onto 'things that feel good' and protect the underdog. All I am looking for is the flip side. Can you guarantee that someone/some group is not profiteering from this hype about our fisheries?

[paul mitchell]

I'm a little late on this discussion but.......maybe people here would like to support the Pacific Stream Keepers - I took one of the most informative weekend workshops using this groups text here in Tofino - all about what you can do in your own backyard to help fish - You can find them at www.pskf.ca - it's all about building relationships with what you eat folks.

[Hugh]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

i understand your point but in the case of realistic threat to our planet such as the example of the oil don't you find it better to take the side of caution? things like cell phones we accept the consequences of. people tell me they won't live in paranoia without good cause or reason. i think the risk of extinction is a very good casue and reason.

...a world without 'point and counterpoint' wouldn't it be nice to live in such ignorant bliss.

This thread scares me with its borderline fundamentalist views. It is easy to latch onto 'things that feel good' and protect the underdog. All I am looking for is the flip side. Can you guarantee that someone/some group is not profiteering from this hype about our fisheries?

Of course someone will profit from an attack on farmed salmon. The fishermen who fish wildstocks will. The output from salmon farms has drastically reduced the world market price for salmon and made it very difficult for fisherman to make a go of their small enterprises (Forcing Alaskan Fisherman to launch a marketing campaign that distinguishes "Wild" salmon from the farmed stuff produced to the south). Having the salmon farms shutdown would probably return the price of salmon to a level that makes salmon fishing a profitable way to make a living.
Beyond 'fundamentalist' environmentalist views from the birkenstock brigade, this is an issue of who you wish to see benefit from this collective resource. Under Canadian law we all own the oceans. Do you wish to see large international food conglomerates dirtying our waters (and there is empirical evidence showing that salmon farms are damaging to the ecological systems that surround them, its not just propaganda) and making a profit, or (in a perfect world) we could manage our streams and rivers(which means forests too) in such manner that wild fish stocks continue to be abundant into the future, and our local fishermen can make a living out on the waters. The second, and unfortunately less probable scenario seems to benefit the greatest number of people and to me makes the most sense.

[annanstee]

[
[/quote]

...a world without 'point and counterpoint' wouldn't it be nice to live in such ignorant bliss.

[/quote]

I think the point of this discussion is that we ARE living in ignorant bliss.

I think it is more "fundamentalist" to steadfastly ignore the evidence in front our faces-through both personal experience, and the testimony of responsible scientists-because it is inconvenient to do so.

The count/counterpoint always seems to come down to immediate gratification and profit as opposed to long term sustainability and economic stewardship

[chef koo]

Great POST!

But all I read comes from the environmentalist, the oceans are big and deep. Is this factual or just the 'flavour of the week'?

We ran out of oil in the 70's....
Cell phones cause brain tumors....
Morrison is alive and living in Paris…
Pets explode in the microwave…
The vanishing hitchhiker...

I am not saying it is not an issue...I just need more information, and specifically, information from non-fanatics or profiteers.

i understand your point but in the case of realistic threat to our planet such as the example of the oil don't you find it better to take the side of caution? things like cell phones we accept the consequences of. people tell me they won't live in paranoia without good cause or reason. i think the risk of extinction is a very good casue and reason.

...a world without 'point and counterpoint' wouldn't it be nice to live in such ignorant bliss.

This thread scares me with its borderline fundamentalist views. It is easy to latch onto 'things that feel good' and protect the underdog. All I am looking for is the flip side. Can you guarantee that someone/some group is not profiteering from this hype about our fisheries?

true. i wonder, if we do hear the flipside who would we believe?

[butter]

I am also enjoying this thread especially the posts from Sam, Faustian, and Oyster Guy as they are educational more than emotional. I don't lean to either side, am in the middle.

I think it is more "fundamentalist" to steadfastly ignore the evidence in front our faces-through both personal experience, and the testimony of responsible scientists-because it is inconvenient to do so.

Don't you mean "convenient to do so"? Am I not reading this right?

[annanstee]

I am also enjoying this thread especially the posts from Sam, Faustian, and Oyster Guy as they are educational more than emotional. I don't lean to either side, am in the middle.

I think it is more "fundamentalist" to steadfastly ignore the evidence in front our faces-through both personal experience, and the testimony of responsible scientists-because it is inconvenient to do so.

Don't you mean "convenient to do so"? Am I not reading this right?

Hi Butter:

I was quoting Cubularis, who said that it was fundamentalist to conclude that there is a real environmental threat. I agree that it is more convenient to conclude the opposite. I associate fundamentalism with a reactionary attitude, ie opposed to change and refusing to recognize parameter shifts in culture, society, ethics etc.

Sorry for the confusion

Ann
(edited for typos )

Edited by annanstee, 07 April 2005 - 01:27 PM.

[nwyles]

Interesting thread.

I recently had a meeting about Ocean Wise and from where I was at, we really did not need to do anything to comply. I do need to find out a bit more about prawns but that is it. I must say, I do have a friend who gives me shit when I even think about swordfish or Seabass, so that helps.

Interesting finding out who owns the fish farms and where they are from.

Here is a question. It was in a thread quite some time ago but I do not recall the response.

Who is serving farmed salmon ? I mean in town here. Most chefs in town are using wild salmon, either fresh or "refreshed" - the new word for frozen !

Why ?

With the availability of farmed and the cheaper price, why are the local Chefs still using wild ?

I have to go, but I look forward to seeing why ! And who is using farmed !

[Sam Salmon]

Lower end places often feature farmed Salmon-Chinese/Korean run Sushi Bars especially.
The Asian Pacific Post constantly has adds/articles promoting farmed Salmon-scroll down the page.

[Andrew Morrison]

oops, wrong thread. sorry.

Edited by editor@waiterblog, 08 April 2005 - 03:05 PM.

[jamiemaw]

We will have some news next week about a special luncheon in late June to tackle the issue of sustainability, drink sustaining wine and take some sustenance.

Watch this space.

Edited by jamiemaw, 08 April 2005 - 04:09 PM.

[appreciator]

Not to be a big old wet blanket.... but..... what if all the powers that be get the word out, and everyone supposedly knows what they should eat and what they shouldn't.... but still, you have those "fish loving ignorant folk/ restaurateurs /commando chefs" eating/ demanding/ serving fish that's just not on. What then?

I've read a fair bit of this thread and am wondering how, exactly, in a very formulaic way, "we" can get everyone on side.

What will it take? What's the plan?

Massive advertising campaign that scorns endangered fish/ shellfish?

Boycott all restaurants that serve anything other than fish/shellfish from approved list?

International campaign to enlist international consumers in boycotting endangered fish/ shellfish?

Or perhaps, this is something we all do, one consumer (one choice we make) at a time?

Edited by appreciator, 09 April 2005 - 04:28 AM.

[jamiemaw]

Not to be a big old wet blanket.... but..... what if all the powers that be get the word out, and everyone supposedly knows what they should eat and what they shouldn't.... but still, you have those "fish loving ignorant folk/ restaurateurs /commando chefs" eating/ demanding/ serving fish that's just not on.  What then?

I've read a fair bit of this thread and am wondering how, exactly, in a very formulaic way, "we" can get everyone on side. 

What will it take? What's the plan?

Massive advertising campaign that scorns endangered fish/ shellfish?

Boycott all restaurants that serve anything other than fish/shellfish from approved list?

International campaign to enlist international consumers in boycotting endangered fish/ shellfish?

Or perhaps, this is something we all do, one consumer (one choice we make) at a time?

Appreciator,

I think that 'the plan' begins with education--our education. There can be little argument that, by first allowing ourselves to learn more about the inexact science of sustainability, then we can, in turn, elect how to communicate or act.

All ot the actions that you mention lie within the power of any collaborative. But first, I would hope, a little learning. Our luncheon in June is being designed to initiate precisely that.

Thanks for bringing forward these important questions.

Jamie

Edited by jamiemaw, 09 April 2005 - 08:37 AM.

[FaustianBargain]

What will it take? What's the plan?

I think that 'the plan' begins with education--our education. There can be little argument that, by first allowing ourselves to learn more about the inexact science of sustainability, then we can, in turn, elect how to communicate or act.
[..]
Jamie

I have been speaking to someone about creating a new standard combining iso 26000(social responsibility standards) and iso 14000/14001(environmental management) that is specifically designed for how we eat. So far, the response hasnt been very good. Basically, for restaurants it would be a completely new standard as a combination of HACCAP, social responsibility and environmental management all brought together. Although, it sounds like a far fetched concept, I think the idea itself has some merit.

Edited by FaustianBargain, 09 April 2005 - 11:35 AM.

[cubilularis]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

[jamiemaw]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

With respect, I have collanders that hold more water than your argument and think perhaps that you're putting us on.
To test its validity, one must only exaggerate it slightly: Extinct species do not adapt, they disappear. Don't believe me? Ask a dodo.

Simply put, Man is the only species that has the power to eliminate all of the other species and in the process himself. We have already been successful in doing that one species at a time. This does not, however, make other species inferior, just different. The reason is that when are no other species, there will be no Man.

It's misleading to think in terms of a 'food chain'--it's not. The ecology that supports our nervous little band of brothers and sisters looks much more like a web. Begin removing components of that web and . . .

But Man is also the only species that can save himself from himself. That's called responsibilty, and it's a useful antidote to greed.

Edited by jamiemaw, 09 April 2005 - 04:08 PM.

[cubilularis]

Typical fundamentalist move...
Take the topic on a tangent and develop 'loose' theories into fact.

My point, and only point is; we are an ever-evolving species. Every mistake, every success leads to our evolution be it straight forward or paridigm.

We eat fish, we eat meat, we eat plants...for whatever reason, it is what we do, as a whole and it has done us well in our evolution.

For us to beleive we are 'above the big picture' is scary! People who believe we are removed from 'nature' scare me.

[nwyles]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

Perhaps you would like to keep pushing forward until we are on a diet of Soylent Green alone.

I might call it a delicate house of cards rather than a food chain. We have removed a few cards and some are in the process of being removed. It will come tumbling down soon enough if we do not do something about it. With very little effort, we can start to reverse some of these trends and put things back in balance. For those you know me, I am not part of the Birkenstock Brigade" or to I propose we all sit in a circle and sing "Kum By Ya " . The "inferior species" would be just fine if we were not trying to turn them in "Capt. Highliner Fishsticks".

More to come later - I am braising a giant panda right now and I do not want to over cook it and have to start again.