Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wild food

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The restaurant featured in Post # 1 - 4 above was our destination at the end of our holiday. Not to eat a lot of "wild" stuff, but because this is a family run place and the family is family, if you follow my drift. We did have turtle soup and frog, but no fanciful dishes.

    The main attraction was "Ikan Bakar", or Skate wings BBQed on banana leaf, with a lot of Chilli Sambal on top. (Signature dish):


    I'll present the establishment. Restoran Ah Peng in Taman Putri Wangsa, Johor:




    The kitchen, with the signature dish being advertised:


    The kitchen as seen from the other side:

    With "Lillegutt" hard at work cutting and preparing for the night's influx of guests.

    Maybe not the type of establishments that meet with universal approval, but you will be amazed at the dishes they can create.
    Recommended to any CVF member that happens to visit Johor.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ombugge View Post
      The main attraction was "Ikan Bakar", or Skate wings BBQed on banana leaf, with a lot of Chilli Sambal on top. (Signature dish):
      I love skate wings. I must remember to ask the fishmonger in the weekly market here for Ikan Bakar. I doubt if he'll have the banana leaf, though. And come to that, I don't like chillies, so it won't be your "real thing"!
      Ivy

      "To thine own self be true.......
      Thou canst not then be false to any man."

      Comment


      • #18
        Not so much Wild Food as Wild cooking.
        Swedish cooking at it's best: http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/109275/s...er-hele-verden

        Comment


        • #19
          Feral Cats has become a problem in Australia.
          Problems are there to be solved and here is a simple solution; EAT THEM: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-2...g-cats/6643358

          Comment


          • nari
            nari commented
            Editing a comment
            Well, they are a problem in our rather fragile semi-desert areas and in warm areas generally, but there is an aversion to eating cats. There was a Chinese restaurant here in Canberra which served up cat and dog meat in lieu of "chicken" and "beef". There was an outcry and they were heavily fined as a result.
            So legally, fines would need to be lifted, but that would mean our pet cats would be captured and eaten, along with small dogs......that's not on.

          • ombugge
            ombugge commented
            Editing a comment
            Well, as far as bush tucker goes cat would probably be among the more acceptable fears for those with sensitive minds.
            Can somebody please explain why certain kind of meat is more acceptable than others. What is the big difference between cattle and horse meat, cat and rabbit (once skinned), dog and lamb (both has strong taste)??

            Is it perception and prejudices, or anything to do with religion?? Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, but it is among the most popular of meats in most of the world, why?? At the time of Prophet Mohammad parasites were a major problem with pigs in the Middle East, but peoples kept on eating pork and died from it. How to get them to stop doing so?? Make it a religious case. Eating pork was declared "haram" in Islam and non-kosher in Judaism. (It still is)

            Why some people do not eat cat-, dog-, horse- and wheal meat is just as irrational as not eating pork is today. It is not based on anything but perception and prejudice.

            Insects are becoming more acceptable though: http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-food-security
            Last edited by ombugge; July 25th, 2015, 12:11.

        • #20
          Why some people do not eat cat-, dog-, horse- and wheal meat is just as irrational as not eating pork is today. It is not based on anything but perception and prejudice.
          As far as whale meat goes, I don't know. Maybe it is the the brutal method of killing - though is any form of extinguishing life non-brutal? But I would have thought that the "perception and prejudice" where eating horse, cat and dog is concerned was quite obvious to anyone. They are popular as pets, form relationships with humans or other species that they are brought up with. Cattle, rabbit, lamb, pigs, chickens etc. are bred en masse for consumption and more "anonymous". Irrational? Probably. Prejudiced? Yes, in favour of the individual we know as opposed to the herd out in the field. But understandable, surely, even to Ombugge.
          You kill a human being. Is it worse to kill your friendly neighbour or to kill the anonymous chap from "the other side" out in the trenches, who has never done a thing to harm you, doesn't even know you?
          Ivy

          "To thine own self be true.......
          Thou canst not then be false to any man."

          Comment


          • ombugge
            ombugge commented
            Editing a comment
            What is regarded as acceptable food is different in different parts of the world and I don't think that anybody should set themselves in judgment of what can be eaten by others. Horse meat is a delicacy in many cultures and a common ingredient in sausages and other processed meet in most countries.
            As long as the % of horse meat is declared and tested for unwanted substances, (i.e. no race horse meat) that is accepted.
            Camel meat is common in many places, usually from domesticated animals in the Middle East, but in Singapore it is imported from Australia: http://australiancamelindustry.com.a...els/camel-meat

            The only type of whales hunted by the Norwegian whalers are Minke Whales, which is not an endangered species:
            http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-a.../#.VbNt1fmqpBc
            Killing of whales are no more brutal than killing of cows, pigs and sheeps in approved slaughter houses and less cruel then most hunting.
            Exploding harpoon grenades are used to ensure instant death of the animal on impact, which occur in in 90% of cases. If not a second harpoon is fired, or a rifle shot is used to complete the killing. Since beginning of 1990s there have been inspectors on board every whaler in Norway to ensure that the hunting and killing is done according to the rules and humanly as possible.

        • #21
          What is regarded as acceptable food is different in different parts of the world
          Well, not being entirely ignorant of the world and its infinite variety, I had already digested that fact.

          I don't think that anybody should set themselves in judgment of what can be eaten by others.
          I don't know whether you interpreted my comments as "setting myself up in judgement"? If so you are shooting wide of the mark - in the opposite direction, in fact. In your original comment you said
          Why some people do not eat cat-, dog-, horse- and wheal meat is just as irrational as not eating pork is today. It is not based on anything but perception and prejudice.
          and I was merely trying to explain why some people are probably irrational/prejudiced about the matter.

          Killing of whales are no more brutal than killing of cows, pigs and sheeps in approved slaughter houses and less cruel then most hunting.
          Perhaps you did not read what I asked:
          ...though is any form of extinguishing life non-brutal?
          Exploding harpoon grenades are used to ensure instant death of the animal on impact, which occur in in 90% of cases. If not a second harpoon is fired, or a rifle shot is used to complete the killing.
          Yes, the grenade harpoon is more effective than earlier methods, but as to the percentage of "instant deaths" it is not wise to be too gullible. Estimates/"records" vary according to whose report you read. The sea does not remain calm while you aim, nor does the whale obediently stay still. The area to be hit in order to kill is not large, and the harpoon/second harpoon/rifle shot (only one????) cannot be guaranteed to hit their target. The 90% instant death figure is suspect when they cannot even agree on the evidence of death.

          For myself, I see no difference between animals in killing for food. We are just one of many species who do so.
          Ivy

          "To thine own self be true.......
          Thou canst not then be false to any man."

          Comment


          • ombugge
            ombugge commented
            Editing a comment
            The figure of 90% "instant kill" is from the official records by the inspectors who are on board to verify and record this, among other things.
            Other figures, from media people not on board and who may have an agenda different from that of the Inspectors, could also be suspect.
            How long is "instant" and what is the signs that the animal is dead is disputed, and being constantly reviewed by Norwegian authorities.

            If I intended to accuse you as a person of "setting yourself in judgement" I would have said so. (You should know that by now).
            I was referring to people from different countries or cultures setting themselves in judgement of what people in other countries or cultures like to eat.
            Somebody doesn't even want to try any food that is "foreign" to them, although that is changing with more travel and bigger variety of food within most countries. (Isn't it true that "Chicken Tikka Masala" is the National Dish in Britain??)

            For the rest we appear to agree, only wording it differently.

        • #22
          The figure of 90% "instant kill" is from the official records by the inspectors who are on board to verify and record this, among other things.
          Other figures, from media people not on board and who may have an agenda different from that of the Inspectors, could also be suspect.
          How long is "instant" and what is the signs that the animal is dead is disputed, and being constantly reviewed by Norwegian authorities.
          (My underlining in the quote above.) To which my reply can only be "Exactly". The statement that exploding grenades are used to ensure instant death is surely a non-starter. Are they down there with the animal to "check its pulse"? Viewed from on deck the criteria they use to ascertain death is surely somewhat arbitrary and, as you say, is disputed. Later examination can also be indecisive.
          You speak of Norway. When you raised the point of whale meat I was just thinking world-wide.
          However, whale is but one type of meat - there are disputes here about our methods of killing cattle and pigs. But that is another story, as they say, and one I'm not going into.
          Insects? I remember when I was at school there was a sudden craze for chocolate-covered ants and fried grasshoppers. I tried both. Ants - OK, but not worth the bother. Grasshoppers - ugh! like having a mouthful of greasy, crackly twigs and I soon spat them out.
          Ivy

          "To thine own self be true.......
          Thou canst not then be false to any man."

          Comment


          • ombugge
            ombugge commented
            Editing a comment
            There are 70-80 different type of whales and only a few of those were threatened with extinction. Even fewer are hunted today.
            Aside from native hunting with hand harpoon, (or rifle shots) all three hunting nations use exploding harpoons.

            There is no way to check that a whale, or whatever other animal being slaughtered, is instantly brain dead, unless you can put them into a CT or RM scanning machine immediately. I don't think anybody is advocating putting those on board whalers, or in slaughter houses for that matter.

            I presume the media people are using remote sensing, since they know better than the Norwegian Whaling Inspectors on the scene? I doubt if any of them have been on board a whaler on the hunt. Maybe they have not even seen a killed whale, or even a whale skeleton outside a museum.

            Are you insinuating that hundreds of Norwegian Whaling Inspectors have been filing inaccurate reports for the last 20-odd years? If so, why???
            Or maybe you think that the Norwegian Fishery Department has falsifying the date before issuing to the IWC?? For what reason??

            I think it is time to cut this debate right here.

        • #23
          In my last reply I made it clear that I was thinking world-wide.
          I know little or nothing about Norwegian whale hunting viv-a-vis the methods of other countries and am not interested in establishing any comparison. I insinuated nothing concerning Norwegian Whaling Inspectors neither did I consider the Fisheries Dept. was falsifying data.
          Repeat: I was thinking worldwide.
          Ivy

          "To thine own self be true.......
          Thou canst not then be false to any man."

          Comment


          • ombugge
            ombugge commented
            Editing a comment
            Only three nations carry out commercial whaling, Norway, Iceland and Japan, although the last claim it is for research purposes only.
            All these nations use the same method of killing and apply same/similar rules for what type and number of whales can be hunted, and when.
            Non-commercial whale hunting, using traditional methods of hunting and killing, is carried out in the Arctic by Eskimos, Inuits and some tribes in Siberia and by some Islanders in the Pacific and Caribbean. This is allowed under IWC Rules and local laws, incl. in the US and Canada.

            The most (in)famous traditional whale killing in Europe is the "Grindadrap" in the Faeroys every year.
            I must admit that this look brutal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0Xl-iObbM

        • #24
          Originally posted by ombugge View Post
          Feral Cats has become a problem in Australia.
          Problems are there to be solved and here is a simple solution; EAT THEM: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-2...g-cats/6643358
          I know we have stopped the discussion that developed after the above post, but it looks like somebody has taken up the idea of eating the problem animals. In this case I presume it is more acceptable to everybody: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-0...d-here/6663716

          If this go for Feral Cats and Camels, why not Crickets??: http://dailyburn.com/life/health/cri...rotein-powder/
          Easy to farm, need little water and does not produce greenhouse gasses, like methane and CO2
          Last edited by ombugge; August 7th, 2015, 08:19.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by ombugge View Post

            I know we have stopped the discussion that developed after the above post, but it looks like somebody has taken up the idea of eating the problem animals. In this case I presume it is more acceptable to everybody: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-0...d-here/6663716
            Camels? Why not? The only problem might be the method of slaughter if it has to comply with halal/kosher requirements. See http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-halal...ralia_116.html
            If I am honest, as someone who eats fish but no other flesh, the halibut on my plate did not have a pleasant death but hopefully it was a quick one, whereas can the halal method be said to be equally quick? That is not a rhetorical question.
            Ivy

            "To thine own self be true.......
            Thou canst not then be false to any man."

            Comment


          • #26
            Further to solving pest problem by eating them; In Cambodia they have found a lucrative market for rats in neighbouring Vietnam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6C5...gl=SG&hl=en-GB
            The local market is also increasing.

            Comment

            Working...
            X