Oh I made some canned tuna sushi lunch for the volunteers at little man's school yesterday. I used canned tuna because I wanted to make sure everybody could eat it. Little man loves sushi. Even thought I am no sushi expert I try to make it at home from time to time. We would eat sushi using salmon, canned or cooked, but never smoked or raw. I just don't like it. Amount all the sushi I like Spam musubi the best! Growing up in Hawaii, what do you think? LOL The seaweed salad I eat is nothing fancy, just Konbu and cucumber strips with vinegar and toasted sesame seeds and oil. When I make my own seaweed salad I use dried Konbu. Boil the Konbu to make Dashi for Miso soup. Cut the boiled Konbu in thin strips, Do the same thing with a small peeled cucumber. Toss then marinate with sesame oil and vinegar, sprinkle some toasted sesame seeds over top. Voila, seaweed salad. If I don't feel like making my own seaweed salad I buy packages from Asian stores. You can find them in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean grocery stores. Here in Calgary, the Korean instant seaweed salads are cheapest. The packaged stuff is not the best so you will have to season the salad before eating it. Many kinds are available. Here are a few pictures of what I have at home... The Korean kind: The Chinese kind: Dried Konbu: Gonna LOVE sushi & seaweed salad! Al

This is complicated. Maybe we should just discuss brownie recipes. In lieu of that, let's just for now try to focus on two aspects of the question, food quality and conservation. Wasn't there someone who, early in the discussion, cited a large study published in Science magazine? I can't find that post now but the study is the most important one I am aware of. The full text can't be accessed at the Science web site without subscribing. It is available elsewhere on the web. The study sampled and compared wild and farmed salmon from many regions around the world. The level of PCBs and other dangerous substances was found to be "significantly" higher in farmed salmon. The word "significant", when used in this sort of document is understood to mean statistically significant, which is not the same as the every day usage. Statistical significance means that a difference between two samples can be proven mathematically at a certain criterion. It does not mean the difference is important. If I sprinkle 2 grains of salt on my order of fries and you sprinkle 4, the difference obviously is statistically significant. But is it important? Neither one is enough salt to affect the taste at all. Significant but not important. The study found, at some locations, levels of certain toxins at 10 or so parts per billion. At those levels, differences of say, 4 parts per billion would be significant. But important? FDA standards allow hundreds of times that concentration. But that is not the end of the controversy. Some, including the authors of the study, prefer the standards of the EPA over those of the FDA. EPA standards are much stricter. This is where science and politics collide. One might think that the "Food" and Drug Administration would take precedence over the "Environmental" Protection Administration in the matter of food safety. But that would be too simple. I have to observe that, although the importance to science of a "not statistically significant" finding is equal to, often greater than, one of "statistically significant". The importance in press releases is not. Everyone wants the results of their work to be "significant". Well, that is the health issue in a nutshell, a very small nutshell. The conservation issue is more difficult. Jim Here is a link that might be useful: Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

I'm not a salmon expert but we live in Seattle and eat fresh (summer/fall) and frozen salmon (winter/spring) weekly. We only eat wild caught salmon from the Pacific. I have always been disappointment in the flavor of Atlantic salmon I've eaten. From my experience the color varies across species. For example, sockeye has the richest darkest color. King is often lighter. The color does seem to affect flavor, but I think the most important factor to my palette is freshness. The fresher the wildcaught pacific salmon is when eaten or frozen the better it tastes. We buy frozen from a local vendor that fillets and freezes on the boat so the frozen when defrosted still tastes great. The other thing is not to overcook it. I find defrosted frozen salmon takes less time to cook. If you live somewhere that does not have good access to really fresh salmon then I'd buy frozen and try and source boat processed salmon. I haven't tried Costco salmon but they are a Seattle company and I do think they source, in general, pretty good quality products. If you like it then really that's all that matters. Also, largely you get what you pay for with salmon. The exception is that if it's the first of the season it's a rip off and if it's the height of the season it's a great deal. But wild will typically cost more than farmed and Pacific probably more than Atlantic and those price differences are worth it IMHO.

"Apparently in the past the salmon was dilled and salted, wrapped in a cloth and buried in a bog. It sounds unlikely doesn't it but that is what he says.I doubt they do it like that these days." This is not unlike the Icelandic method of curing shark, called Hakarl. After preparing the shark pieces they are buried under the sand on the beach to ferment for a few weeks, which converts toxic chemicals in the shark flesh to make it edible. Well, "edible" for very low values of edible. It is described as "an acquired taste", one which even the late great Anthony Bourdain was not eager to acquire LOL