|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Redlinks
- 2 Acquired taste
- 3 Banned from airlines - true or not?
- 4 Earwitness about alleged taste
- 5 Eating surströmming
- 6 "you either love it or hate it"
- 7 Surströmming is *not* rotten.
- 8 Surströmming in English
- 9 Information that the preparation of surströmming was restricted to the High Coast (a term coined in the 1970s) is wrong
- 10 Picture of an unopened can?
- 11 how it smells
- 12 origin
- I agree, and removed it. Jonathunder 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: the acquired taste paragraph, I didn't publish it anywhere, but I tried it, and liked it the first time. It has a strong mustardy taste. I don't know first hand whether the tin can explode, but it certainly was grossly swollen, and the person I got it from presumably had some reason for sending it wrapped in no less than three heavy plastic bags. The smell is definitely strong, but didn't strike me with the force described in some of the narratives. 126.96.36.199 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What brand did you eat, how old was it. I have several cans from January 2007 which are revolting to open. We had a collegue go home because of the smell.188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Banned from airlines - true or not?
What about the sources for the banned-from-airlines part of the article? The linked BBC news page is dated 1st of April 2006, which might even be an Aprils fool. Anybody can confirm this story? --184.108.40.206 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Judging from a few Swedish papers, BBC is obviously quoting some of the major Swedish papers: SvD, March 23, DN, March 24
- / Mats Halldin (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The BBC has also been known to use the 1st of April to run deceptive stories which look like jokes but are actually true, just to keep readers on their toes.220.127.116.11 07:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not banned on carry on luggage if you check it. Swiss air required I put in into special baggage claims. It is not illegal to have it on a plane, rather they count it as a liquid. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It certainly wouldn't be potentially explosive. The pressure inside a can of hairspray or deodourant is far greater (and the walls of the can much thinner than a food container can) and they have no problem allowing those on planes! StanPomeray (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tins of surströmning are tough pieces of metal that are shut of at a low preassure, and still they reach shops in an expanded shape. If spraycans had the same preassure, it would explode if one would just make a small disperse of the fluid. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Earwitness about alleged taste
I heard a reportage in Swedish P3, where the price of a radio game was one bite of Surströmming. The winner took that bite, and then screamed:
- "Fyfaan! Fyfaan! Det smakar som skit!
- translation: "Shame you S*t*n! Shame you S*t*n! It tastes like ... (guess the rest yourself) ...
- Actually the talk pages are a terrific place to learn more about the "unofficial" bits & pieces of a certain entry. It does absolutely no harm, since it's not part of the actual "encyclopedic" entry, where these type comments would obviously be out of place. I fully understand some editors want to prove just how knowledgable they are about the thousands of rules governing Wiki, but being so stiff about a completely harmless, even interesting and/or useless observation, tends to make the place very boring. Wiki is used less & less often for serious academic reference, because of the endless back & forth of professional reverters & habitual edit-warriors. Don't bring the same type of completely unnecessary policing into the informal talk pages. If you just really HAVE to show your vast knowledge of Wiki procedures & policies, do it where it counts .... in the actual entry. Don't waste everyone's time telling people how they are wrong over on the non-encyclopedia talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The "right" way to eat surströmming is a topic of much controversy and differs much depending on who you ask. I have myself grown up in northern Sweden where the surströmming tradition is very strong compared to the southern parts and I have never seen or even heard (it is a very discussed topic around the table) anyone adding gräddfil. Also worth noting is that I feel most people consider the snaps far more important than what sort of potato you have, also most people would consider chives necessarily and so on.
Someone has oblivious written what he/she consider the right way without any consideration about NPOW this section should be completely rewritten with more of a list of common and uncommon ingredients.
There is no right or even no classic way of eating surströmming but it differs over time and geography.
Also the importance of the snaps must be stressed more since that is probably the tradition that is most universal when eating surströmming. (Which also is true for most festivity gathering in Sweden for that part.)
- I've had a hack at it. Please adapt as required. Everyone should put in input from their local variations. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...with due regard for WP:OR, of course! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"you either love it or hate it"
The last paragraph of the section 'Eating Surströmming' needs to be re-written. The sentences like "In fact, there are usually no middle levels - you either love it or hate it." don't belong to encyclopedia.
Surströmming is *not* rotten.
Under "Origin" there is much talk about rotten fish. It's a misconception. Surströmming is not rotten, it's fermented. Just as the next section ("Canning") states. The Origin section sounds more like a myth. The history I've heard is that people tried to conserve fish in brine despite not having enough salt, which led to fermentation. They had to eat it in order to survive, and found it quite tasty, despite the smell. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Surströmming in English
Information that the preparation of surströmming was restricted to the High Coast (a term coined in the 1970s) is wrong
Surströmming i dåtidens lunchlåda Det finns inga uppgifter om när man började lägga in surströmming men vid mitten av 1700-talet åt man surströmming allmänt från Dalarna upp till Västerbotten och även i Österbotten.
Förutom strömming surades annan fisk som sik och mört. Surströmming var tidigare något av en basföda hos allmogen i vissa delar av Sverige. Ofta bestod den matsäck som man tog med sig ut i skogen av långmjölk och surströmming - båda fermenterade produkter som höll sig bra.
From a reliable site: (translation)
Sursströmming in packed lunches in the 18th century
There is no information available that records when surströmming was first prepared, but in the mid 18th century surströmming was eaten from as far south as Dalarna up to Västerbotten and even in Österbotten.
Apart from strömming (Baltic herring) other fish was soured such as whitefish and the common roach. Surströmming was previously a staple among the peasantry in certain regions in Sweden. Often the packed lunch taken out to the forest would consist of långmjölk (soured milk using bacteria from a fern) and surströmming - both fermented products that had good keeping properties.
What this implies for the now part of the Swedish Tourist Industry´s promotions. It is true that surströmming was a staple there, but it was much more widely spread in northern Sweden.
source: The Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket)
Picture of an unopened can?
Reading stuff about how the can bulges to an unnatural shape due to the gases gives a curious image. Anyone got a picture of an unopened can to put in the article? Sera404 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
how it smells
I don't understand this sentence: "One explanation of the origins of this method of preservation is that it began long ago, when brining food was quite expensive owing to the cost of salt. The fish are marinated in a strong brine solution that draws out the blood, which is replaced by a weaker brine...." My problem is, when this explanation is introduced by the idea that salt was expensive, it is to show how the method being explained was less expensive. Yet the method being explained involves salt. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)