One John West, One Asda.

Both have ingredients of 99% salmon, 1% salt and trace elements of Spongebob’s muck.

Asda is 110 calories/100g

John West 131 calories/100g

Who’s telling porkies fishies?

Perhaps one has more fat in it…

Fat

Seems to me that John West’s fishies have been eating more porkies.

From a programme I saw the other day actual calorific content has to be plus or minus 10% of the figure on the label. So they are both actually 120. Either that or fat like them others say.

Different species of salmon as above with different fat content.

or

Spongebob was saving up a big one for John West

No calories in mercury

Why did I post this in the bike forum?!

Sos.

Yes, JW has 5.4 of fat v 5.0 in Asda. (upon checking)

I may be being naive, but if it’s wild pacific salmon, how the hell is there a difference?!

EDIT: What Slow OM says would answer it though, if true.

Dry them both out and see which burns for the longer time?

I may be being naive, but if it’s wild pacific salmon, how the hell is there a difference?

Maybe JW brands the fattier stuff as it’s own as it tastes nicer and cans up the less desirable bits for the supermarkets?

Maybe.

I’ve got a 15yr old tin of Salmon in my cupboard, couldn’t care less about the calories, just wether it’ll kill me or not.

15 year old salmon is a not salmon, it’s a fossil.

Make a salmon mousse with it, what’s the worst that could happen?

Squidlord – Member
Make a salmon mousse with it, what’s the worst that could happen?

POSTED 5 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

“Shall we take the cars?”

I suspect this is one of those questions that won’t be confidently answered.

Maybe the least calorific batch was canned before Fukushima?

No calories in mercury

Umm, you are aware that the mercury issue affected tuna caught off the Japanese coast?…

I’ve got a 15yr old tin of Salmon in my cupboard, couldn’t care less about the calories, just wether it’ll kill me or not.

Thats how hockey pucks are made

Post it to Bear – then he’ll have 3 tins and can teach himself to juggle 🙂

In terms of variation between brands – the tinned salmon is cooked as part of the canning process- if the cooking processes vary then more fat might be rendered out as a result

The fat content is the biggest factor (1g fat = 9 calories). The fish that john west use might be lazy sods.

Hence why they were caught. Too slow to swim away from the nets

different parts of the fish used perhaps?

More importantly, why are you buying that horrid stuff? I bought a couple of cans for the cat this week and even he turned his nose up at it.

Made my sandwiches for lunch tomorrow, small can of John West Pacific salmon, generous amounts of black pepper, hot chilli from a pepper grinder and vinegar, well mixed up, thick sliced fresh tiger loaf, yum.

I take it they’re not 1x in oil and 1x in brine?

Make a salmon mousse with it, what’s the worst that could happen?

Who knows

or

I take it they’re not 1x in oil and 1x in brine?

Sam,no it’s salmon 🙂 (Not tuna)

Sleepless night trying to understand this…

Oh right.

I’m with ste_t – Salmon comes in tins?!

Sleepness night here too – but in my case is was after a long ride when I really wanted to sleep in 🙁

Dreaming of dentistry. Ow.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO COME FOR TEA OH MY GOD IS YOUR PLACE THAT EXCITING THAT YOU NO-LONGER NEED CAKE AND CHIT-CHAT?!

If it is labelled as Pink Salmon, there can’t be a species difference because Pink Salmon is one. But it is one of the most commonly caught and all over the place. So, it could well be that the cans came from two different fishery areas with the differences in calorie / fat content coming from the diet available to the fish caught in that area.

“Shall we take the cars?”

Hang on. I didn’t even eat the salmon mousse.