or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Fish for people who don't eat fish
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fish for people who don't eat fish - Page 6

post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post
This whole process is fascinating, Kyle. I so wish I knew about this process before my trip to Japan two months ago. I can understand the logic behind severing the head's neurological connection to the rest of the fish, but I'm not sure about the spinal cord's need for destruction. What I need to figure out is if the cord is destroyed, does the heart still beat, thus allowing appropriate bleeding?

For the skeletal muscle, I suppose the pithing/needling of the spinal cord takes away the reflexes of the fish, thus stopping the circuitry that creates muscle contractions?


I need to investigate this more.
This is what I was led to believe. Because the only way to stop the nerve endings from still moving after death is complete destruction of the spinal cord. Regardless of the science, the results speak for themselves, and are really fascinating.
post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwilkinson View Post
This is what I was led to believe. Because the only way to stop the nerve endings from still moving after death is complete destruction of the spinal cord. Regardless of the science, the results speak for themselves, and are really fascinating.
It doesn't seem that we can tell, at least from their posts, if the results speak at all. There simply was not enough time for the fish to rest in the first one, and they only ate it raw. Were I to eat all my fish raw, I am sure I would prefer a traditional Japanese method. On the other hand, one would think that the traditional western methods of cooking, each of which changes the texture of the ingredient in one way or another, would be more suited to the Western killing methods, and that wasn't really tested to any significant degree. It is along the lines of what Foodguy said, if you cook a fish au bleu you need to cook it in a certain way, or it might taste like shit. On the other hand, if you fry a freshly killed trout, that doesn't mean the killing method was worse than any other, just that the cook was not appropriate for the kill.
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard View Post
Fresh sushi is fucking phenomenal, btw. One of the best meals I've ever had in my life was tuna at the fish market in Tokyo at something like 5:00am.

You wouldn't think there'd be much of a taste difference between fresh and slightly old sushi, but there's a world of difference. It was a real eye opener for me.

Have done the 5am Tsukiji sushi before, as well as some other pretty good sushi here and there (my girlfriend is the resident food snob and seafood expert) and you're right, it's edible... but I could end up eating $300 of fish and end the meal saying 'where's the beef?'... It's a meal though.

Mainly though, I'm more interested in how people can eat the pretty gnarly fish and seafood like it's an addiction; in Korea there's fucking seafood product in everything, so I look like a petty asshole when I go out to eat, whether it's ground shrimp or squid as a fermentation starter for your basic kimchi, to straight up mullet heads in a little bubbling pot of, well, mullet heads and kimchi, to the fermented shrimp-laden kimchi and raw oysters they give you in bossam (as does David Chang)...
post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
It doesn't seem that we can tell, at least from their posts, if the results speak at all. There simply was not enough time for the fish to rest in the first one, and they only ate it raw. Were I to eat all my fish raw, I am sure I would prefer a traditional Japanese method. On the other hand, one would think that the traditional western methods of cooking, each of which changes the texture of the ingredient in one way or another, would be more suited to the Western killing methods, and that wasn't really tested to any significant degree. It is along the lines of what Foodguy said, if you cook a fish au bleu you need to cook it in a certain way, or it might taste like shit. On the other hand, if you fry a freshly killed trout, that doesn't mean the killing method was worse than any other, just that the cook was not appropriate for the kill.
Well when I referenced "results" I wasn't speaking about that blog post. I was talking about the demonstration that happened when I was in Sonoma County. Basically six fish were brought in. 2 were killed ike jime, two were killed western, and two were left alive. The next day, we cooked one ike jime fish, one western fish, and one freshly killed fish, then we ate sashimi from one ike jime fish, one western fish, and one freshly killed fish. In both instances the freshly killed fish were by far the worst. I think the difference is bigger for sashimi than for cooked applications. You could tell a difference between the cooked ike jime and western style fish, but the difference was smaller, although still obviously there. But in the sashimi, it was incredible. The texture of the ike jime blew the western out of the water. Also, the bleeding out allows for a much clearer flesh, in what I saw. Now the fishmonger also told us that different fish will have larger or smaller variations in quality between ike jime and traditional slaughter. So anything I have said will not necessarily apply to any and all fish or for all circumstances. But the demonstration was one of the greatest food memories I have ever had. Very interesting to be a part of. BTW, the cooking method we used was only sauteeing in butter. So you might be correct re: western killing practices affecting western cooking techniques in different ways.
post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwilkinson View Post
Well when I referenced "results" I wasn't speaking about that blog post. I was talking about the demonstration that happened when I was in Sonoma County. Basically six fish were brought in. 2 were killed ike jime, two were killed western, and two were left alive. The next day, we cooked one ike jime fish, one western fish, and one freshly killed fish, then we ate sashimi from one ike jime fish, one western fish, and one freshly killed fish. In both instances the freshly killed fish were by far the worst. I think the difference is bigger for sashimi than for cooked applications. You could tell a difference between the cooked ike jime and western style fish, but the difference was smaller, although still obviously there. But in the sashimi, it was incredible. The texture of the ike jime blew the western out of the water. Also, the bleeding out allows for a much clearer flesh, in what I saw. Now the fishmonger also told us that different fish will have larger or smaller variations in quality between ike jime and traditional slaughter. So anything I have said will not necessarily apply to any and all fish or for all circumstances. But the demonstration was one of the greatest food memories I have ever had. Very interesting to be a part of. BTW, the cooking method we used was only sauteeing in butter. So you might be correct re: western killing practices affecting western cooking techniques in different ways.
Cool. That makes sense. I've had freshly killed fish cooked, and it has been wonderful, but as FG said, it must be cooked in a certain method, and that method is not likely to be found in many US restaurants (basically just simmered plain in court bouillon.) Do you know what I am likely to find in Japantown shops? I imagine Japanese style. No?
post #81 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Cool. That makes sense. I've had freshly killed fish cooked, and it has been wonderful, but as FG said, it must be cooked in a certain method, and that method is not likely to be found in many US restaurants (basically just simmered plain in court bouillon.) Do you know what I am likely to find in Japantown shops? I imagine Japanese style. No?

I'd imagine it'd be the traditional Japanese style. But maybe not. I could see myself asking if it was ike jime and the person just staring blankly at me as if that was the only way they knew.
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard View Post
Really depends how you define "genetically modified." Technically speaking, breeding is a form of genetic modification. Gene splicing to reduce pest or disease resistance is genetic modification. Etc. People hear the term "genetically modified" and think we're talking about broccoli with fish genes in it to produce omega-3 acids or something. Those types of foods, while technically possible, are not currently sold in the US. They won't be for quite some time, given the uncertain effects of long-term human consumption (recent studies, while controversial, have linked cross-species genetically modified vegetables to fertility problems in mice).
while technically true, beside the point. when people today talk about genetically modified organisms (GMO), they are not talking about turning teosinte into corn. they are talking about gene splicing. that is a new technology that rightly or wrongly scares people. genetic modification through traditional breeding has, of course, been going on since the beginning of domestic agriculture.
post #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Cool. That makes sense. I've had freshly killed fish cooked, and it has been wonderful, but as FG said, it must be cooked in a certain method, and that method is not likely to be found in many US restaurants (basically just simmered plain in court bouillon.) Do you know what I am likely to find in Japantown shops? I imagine Japanese style. No?

i doubt you'll find ike jima in any japanese markets... this sounds like the furthest reaches of sushi ... perhaps someone like masa is doing it ... or if you had nobu cook for you. correct bleeding and handling is a different matter, though and i think that would be more noticeable at japanese markets. it's a funny thing ... you'd expect the fish at those markets to be more expensive because of the more careful handling, but that's not the case in my experience ... my guess is its because western markets have to absorb so much shrink because we eat so much less fish.
post #84 of 114
Cod. Yum.
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post
Cod. Yum.

I just had some, stewed with eggplant in a creole sauce. Yum!
post #86 of 114
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyquik View Post

fond memories of fish sticks dipped in ketchup when I was a little kid, prepared by my nanny, who also beat me... oh wait... it's coming back to me now....
post #88 of 114
This is not very profound, nor meant to be, but one can think one knows something about food when in fact one really knows jack. There is so much to know. 90% of what is in this thread is stuff I never heard of before.
post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
This is not very profound, nor meant to be, but one can think one knows something about food when in fact one really knows jack. There is so much to know. 90% of what is in this thread is stuff I never heard of before.
ha! welcome to my world. i've been writing about it for 25 years and i still learn something new every day--and something that totally surprises me, like ike jime, at least once a month. probably what keeps me going.
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodguy View Post
ha! welcome to my world. i've been writing about it for 25 years and i still learn something new every day--and something that totally surprises me, like ike jime, at least once a month. probably what keeps me going.

I trust that I will be fully cited if you ever write on this topic. If not, expect to hear from my lawyer, Connemara.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Fish for people who don't eat fish