Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Caviar was a free bar snack

delanceyplace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#101

Post by steve_adams_86 »

ljcn wrote: post #96
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Alaskan fishery is much like the fishery south of it in BC, where 'sustainable' is a bit of a joke - I think that term is based on taking a 'sustainable' number of the estimated population returning to spawn in rivers. Alaskan rivers are doing better than BC's, but returns are dwindling and both governments are consistently shifting baselines on a yearly basis. Every year quotas are smaller, but so are the popula…

I don't know much about fish or live near the Pacific, but neither of the links in my comment (sibling to yours) suggest sockeye is a bad choice. In fact NE Pacific 'early summer' sockeye is a recommended choice, and many BC sockeye fisheries have MSC certification.

I know there's certification, but if you look for BC's department of fisheries and oceans' minutes on the sockeye return, it's dire. As I mentioned, it's well below their lowest estimates. Their lowest estimates for this year are even lower than previous years. I've been following this for 7 or 8 years, and while there are years where the return is better than previous years... It's still not a good return historically speaking. The sockeye are disappearing.

This year it's not clear why numbers are so low, but a sound guess would be that the generation spawning this year's returners were largely impacted by pre-spawn mortalities. Numbers look good going into the river, but they end up dying before they can spawn. Research into this phenomenon isn't well-funded, but it's a known problem.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#102

Post by steve_adams_86 »

hammock wrote: post #95
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Alaskan fishery is much like the fishery south of it in BC, where 'sustainable' is a bit of a joke - I think that term is based on taking a 'sustainable' number of the estimated population returning to spawn in rivers. Alaskan rivers are doing better than BC's, but returns are dwindling and both governments are consistently shifting baselines on a yearly basis. Every year quotas are smaller, but so are the popula…

I thought there was a glut of sockeye a year or two ago? I remember seeing it everywhere.

Every now and then there are bumps in the size of the return (typically every 4 years, which is why the 4 year average is more meaningful to determine population health), but with salmon it isn't a very strong indicator of anything other than that spawning was more successful than usual or disease and predation were reduced while the salmon were maturing in the ocean. It has very little long-term bearing on population growth or stability, unfortunately. I'm not sure but I suspect a couple years ago was probably a normal, predictable spike. People get excited about it nonetheless.

Another thing to consider is that what we call a glut of sockeye these days is still a paltry return compared to what was once possible. 100 years ago, before a certain landslide occurred in one of BC's major rivers, our largest returns were estimated to be almost 40,000,000 fish. This year, we're seeing around 600,000 fish. We were expecting 4,800,000.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#103

Post by naravara »

huhtenberg wrote: post #23
mkl wrote: post #2

"It takes twenty years for a female beluga to mature, and at that point she can weigh as much as 1,800 pounds [...]. Such a fish could yield twenty pounds of eggs [when killed]." That's got to be one of the least sustainable things I've ever heard of. I tried caviar once. It didn't taste like much, and I didn't see the point.

They no longer kill the fish to extract the caviar. They can now drain the caviar through a form of cesarean, basically, and release the fish back.

Do fish regrow their eggs over time or is like, once harvested they're barren for life kind of deal? And if so, do they tag them to keep track?

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#104

Post by hammock »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #102
hammock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought there was a glut of sockeye a year or two ago? I remember seeing it everywhere.

Every now and then there are bumps in the size of the return (typically every 4 years, which is why the 4 year average is more meaningful to determine population health), but with salmon it isn't a very strong indicator of anything other than that spawning was more successful than usual or disease and predation were reduced while the salmon were maturing in the ocean. It has very little long-term bearing on populatio…

Thanks for sharing numbers. I wasn't aware. If you look at any form of wildlife though 100 years ago it's not comparable to today. Any other type of fish, oysters, bear, moose etc.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#105

Post by diablerouge »

icebraining wrote: post #97
diablerouge wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be incorrect about GMOs actually being more sustainable, as they have a pretty major effect on biodiversity by encouraging higher use of pesticides and insecticides[0]. A great example is the effect they have had on the population of monarch butterflies, mentioned in the linked source. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...

From that link: "A 2014 meta-analysis covering 147 original studies of farm surveys and field trials, and 15 studies from the researchers conducting the study, concluded that adoption of GM technology had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%". Scrolling further down shows more citations showing lower use of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...

Right back at ya' from the same link: "Some doubt still remains on whether the reduced amounts of pesticides used actually invoke a lower negative environmental effect, since there is also a shift in the types of pesticides used, and different pesticides have different environmental effects."

Again, read the monarch butterfly example, where higher rates of Roundup usage has killed milkweed all over, reducing habitat/food for the butterflies.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#106

Post by tempguy9999 »

cvs268 wrote: post #85
tempguy9999 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got bumped from cattle class to royal class (sic) on a flight when I was a kid. Got to taste real caviar. Black, salty, fishy and rather fatty. Bit gross really. Also got asked for a drink (alcoholic, I guess I was old enough). Cattle class you got the drink. Royal class you got a saucer with a coaster with a doily with a smaller coaster on that finally with the drink parked atop, and a tiny fork next to it to pull o…

Haha... nice sponsored content!

I don't get it? They were both examples of utter stupidity via conspicuous consumption. That's how I expected them to be seen anyway.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#107

Post by defterGoose »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #8
nkrisc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't tried the super expensive stuff, but it tasted like seawater to me. Didn't really see the point of it. At least with other expensive foods like saffron or truffles they are very potent and have pretty unique flavors. Instead of caviar I'll just add salt next time.

Got bumped from cattle class to royal class (sic) on a flight when I was a kid. Got to taste real caviar. Black, salty, fishy and rather fatty. Bit gross really. Also got asked for a drink (alcoholic, I guess I was old enough). Cattle class you got the drink. Royal class you got a saucer with a coaster with a doily with a smaller coaster on that finally with the drink parked atop, and a tiny fork next to it to pull o…

In all fairness, even in the higher classes on airlines, any caviar served was probably not the greatest quality. Even so, the fatty, fishy taste is what most people prize caviar for.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#108

Post by ivanhoe »

gowld wrote: post #31
ivanhoe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally wild-caught fish taste better, probably because of the differences in diet and activity.

WaPo tried to test this, and found that a bit of added salt overwhelms any difference in meat quality. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farmed-vs-wild...

I don't buy this, in my experience farmed fish (at least where I live on the coast of the Adriatic sea), just like mass produced chicken, has noticeably softer meat with more fat. Perhaps you can't spot the difference when skillfully prepared, but while cleaning and cutting it it's obvious. Also the same kind of fish caught in Atlantic tastes very different than the ones from Adriatic, ocean fish having different/stronger smell.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#109

Post by steve_adams_86 »

hammock wrote: post #104
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every now and then there are bumps in the size of the return (typically every 4 years, which is why the 4 year average is more meaningful to determine population health), but with salmon it isn't a very strong indicator of anything other than that spawning was more successful than usual or disease and predation were reduced while the salmon were maturing in the ocean. It has very little long-term bearing on populatio…

Thanks for sharing numbers. I wasn't aware. If you look at any form of wildlife though 100 years ago it's not comparable to today. Any other type of fish, oysters, bear, moose etc.

It's true, it's maybe a poor comparison to make. I guess you could compare it to the late 80s - we had a significant collapse across all salmon populations and it's not even clear why yet. There hasn't been a stable recovery since then, and overall the downward trend is continuing.

Something fascinating about this is if you look up the conservation status of the pacific sockeye salmon, it's Least Concern. There certainly are some populations in some rivers that are doing better than others, but the overall trend is a steady downward pattern.

Re: Caviar was a free bar snack

#110

Post by zwaps »

I always wonder how much of the scarcity is supply+taste vs. conspicious consumption.

I personally would't pay a lot for caviar of any sort, even though I tried it quite a few times.

Post reply on HN