Talk:Salmon as food

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Breakfast food category[edit]

There has been some warring over the inclusion of this category. While lox is certainly a breakfast food and I thoroughly enjoy a little smoked salmon in my scrambled eggs, it may not be appropriate to categorize the entire page this way as it is about the concept of salmon as food as a whole, not just lox, which has it's own article. Ironically it is not in the breakfast food category. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Health section?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a dedicated section of this article on the health benefits / concerns of eating salmon? Cramming it all into the introduction is an odd choice. The background on different types of omega-3 seems particualrly odd in the introduction section. I'm removing it. Leopd (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there should be a dedicated section on the health aspects, and of course you're welcome to start it. There is some material in aquaculture of salmon that could be used, though it needs to be brought up to date. However, the edits you have made so far are not without problems of their own. For example, you removed "Omega-3 content may also be lower than in wild-caught specimens" on the grounds that it is uncited. You should remove material like this only if you have grounds for believing it is false. In fact the statement is not false, and should be reinstated with citations and clarification. The statement is less true today than it was a few years ago, but it still has traction. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Types?[edit]

I was hoping for some info re the various species & their flavor characteristics/hierarchy.

Nice article[edit]

Bfpage |leave a message 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

I have to question why we have an infobox detailing the characteristics of raw wild Atlanticsalmon, which our own article identifies as being only about 1% of the salmon consumed by humans. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to talk about this or just edit war? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating a grilled salmon[edit]

Photo 1

Photo 2

Which of these two photos better illustrates a grilled salmon?

An editor is trying to edit war Photo 2 into the article as a replacement for Photo 1 on the grounds of "hi quality". To me, Photo 2 appears at first glance to be a jumble of roasted potatoes and lemons with some sort of mess in the middle. On closer examination of the enlarged image, the mess in the middle appears as raw fish slightly cooked by some method around the edges. Photo 2 may have technical virtues such as resolution and lighting, but has little to recommend it as an appropriate illustration of a grilled salmon. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo 1 : i see more metal than clear fish, its more How to grill fish, than grilled fish... Photo2: focus stacking included, seen all, witout DOF failures, bigger size and more cool looking (by my opinion). --PetarM (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very late to this discussion, but Photo 2 nearly made me gag. I don't know what that is supposed to be, but I certainly would not eat it. Whoever grilled it did not know what they are doing, even a little bit, it's basically ruined. We certainly don't to give readers the impression that when their fish looks like that it's been properly grilled. Image 1 isn't fantastic either but it does show a very common method of grilling fish and didn't almost make me throw up. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased towards farmed salmon?[edit]

The article seems to promote farmed salmon at the expense of wild salmon. For instance, it mentions the risk of parasites in wild salmon (vs. farmed salmon). Yet the parasite mentioned, Anisakis, occurs in cetacean-rich waters and the article about it specifically mentions Norway as a problem area.

Perhaps a salmon farmer has done a little touching up of this article? — 40.142.140.74 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

vitamin D[edit]

No mention of vitamin D on the nutrition table, despite https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/175167/nutrients — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a comparison of vitamin D and other nutrient contents in different salmon formats for consumers: raw-wild vs. raw-farmed vs. canned-wild, etc. For Wikipedia nutrition tables, we rely on the FoodData Central (FDC) tables. The article shows a nutrition table for raw-wild, with no vitamin D content reported in FDC here. Did the USDA just not analyze for it (happens for some foods), or was there no vitamin D content to report? Derwos started this discussion, asking for a vitamin D report in the article, but the table suggested is for farmed salmon which may be fed vitamin D-rich food as a method of increasing vitamin D content in the final product, such as here for farmed Atlantic salmon. On the canning issue, a decade ago, I inquired through a canned-salmon manufacturer's technician why canned salmon has high vitamin D content when raw salmon doesn't. The response was that the cooking and subsequent dehydration of the salmon tissue concentrates what was a low vitamin D content while raw, making canned salmon a rich source of vitamin D. I can find no WP:RS sources for these explanations, so it appears all we can do for the article is report the nutrition content for raw salmon. Zefr (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across an image, which has salmon as #1 vitamin D source. It claims 28.4 µg per 6 oz filet. Seems that there ain't too much info on this. 46.132.53.179 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change[edit]

The title ‘salmon as food’ I think can be shortened to ‘salmon (dish)’ or ‘salmon (food)’. Roastedbeanz1 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say "dish" can be rejected out of hand as that is normally understood to refer to a single preparation of a food, and this article covers a range of dishes. I would add that saying "the title could be shortened" doesn't explain why we might want to so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon (food) does redirect here so if it's just a matter of being able to use [[Salmon (food)]] then that is taken care of. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 February 2022 (UTC)