"Nearly half the fish consumed as food worldwide are raised on fish farms rather than caught in the wild," according to a new FAO report. The State of World Aquaculture 2006 report, presented at a meeting of the the FAO Sub-Committee on Aquaculture held in New Delhi earlier this month, stated that fish consumed by human beings originating from aquaculture, just 9% in 1980, today constitutes 43%.
The hard numbers are 45.5 million tonnes of farmed fish, worth US$63 billion, eaten per year, versus 95 million tonnes from capture fisheries, of which 60 million tonnes goes to human consumption.
Those are bigger numbers than I would have thought.
Other interesting highlights:
Global consumer demand for fish continues to climb, particularly in affluent, developed countries which in 2004 imported 33 million tonnes of fish worth over US$61 billion.
The global capture of wild fish has remained roughly stable since the mid-1980s, hovering around 90-93 million tonnes.
Note, however, that this figure overlooks (disguises?) the fact that in many fisheries, collapse of the main targeted species has led to "fishing down the food chain", shifting effort to marginal species once despised as "trash". Any implication that global wild capture fisheries have been essentially stable and unchanged for the last 25 years, which might seem to be implied by the previous statement, is very, very wrong.
The FAO said that of 600 wild capture species monitored, 52% are fully exploited and 25% are over-exploited (17%), depleted (7%), or recovering from depletion (1%) while only 3% listed as under-exploited.
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 10:41 am
21 Sep 2006
Thanks David,
These numbers should give any sane person pause.
The only solution is to not eat ocean fish.
Whether you are a vegetarian or not.
Only poor folks with no other source of protein should eat ocean fish.
If we can't even make this sacrifice for the future of the oceans, then ???
patrick
Permalink
Green fish Posted 12:59 pm
21 Sep 2006
If you are arguing against eating fish in general, I still fail to understand. Sustainably harvesting wild fish does not significantly damage ecosystems, which is more than I can say for most farming. If we go by the logic that we should not harvest fish because it will damage the ocean, we must also follow that we must not farm because it is more damaging, and we shouldn't even think about livestock.
I have been commercial fishing in Alaska most of my life, right now I'm doing it to pay my way through University. Our Alaska wild salmon are sustainably harvested and organic. There is a small by-catch (maybe 3% of total catch, and 90% of that is released alive). However, not all markets are as well managed and additional regulation and enforcement is needed for all wild fishing. It's a travesty that many fishermen are not willing or able to protect their resources and something must be done about it. Still, in all but the worst circumstances it's still better than any farmed fish (or livestock for that matter), both in quality, nutritious and environmental value.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:07 pm
21 Sep 2006
It is true that there are fish populations that are being sustainably harvested (not only yours, but some in parts of Australia, for instance).
But, frankly, most people can't remember which ones are sustainable or which ones are not.
Newsweek carried an article a couple of years back suggesting that over 90% of the large fish in the ocean were gone.
Some links
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1997/2/sto...
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugte133/courses/environs/cuttings/fish/Fishplet.pdf#search=%22%22ocean%20fish%
22%20sustainable%20depletion%20extinction%22
http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=222
There are people who have no other sources or protein (especially poorer people with limited choices). For them eating fish is a neccessity.
Clearly a world wide fishing industry that uses up 90% of the large fish in the oceans in a short period of time is well past sustainable.
Everyone will not give up eating fish.
But unless there are major reductions in the amount of ocean fish eaten, the oceans are in trouble.
We cannot keep going after smaller and smaller species until there is no life left (krill, anyone?).
Can Salmon substitute for all the other fish now eaten?
Only a tiny tiny percentage of the world's fishing industry practices sustainable fishing.
In order to reduce pressure on the oceans, it certainly seems to me that those people who consider themselves environmentalists should lead the way.
patrick
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:52 pm
21 Sep 2006
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 10:05 pm
21 Sep 2006
Due their diets. The fish food they are fed in the floating pens is high in fat and protein to bolster growth. The result is a faster, larger growing fish. Which just so happens to also have increase omega3 FA's.
I don't know that this justify's the correctness or incorrectness of aquaculture, just an interesting fact.
Permalink
Green fish Posted 10:40 pm
21 Sep 2006
http://www.thedietchannel.com/Omega-3-Fatty-Acids.htm
Patrick:
To some extent I agree, but I also know that much wild caught fish (35 million tons according to David's article) goes to feeding farmed fish and livestock. Despite what logic expects much of that is not waste from processing or unintentional by-catch, but meat that is certified for human consumption and then thrown away in an environmentally damaging practice.
Additionally, your argument also assumes that all damage to large fish has been from fishing. Like land based extinction the main cause for population decrease underwater is habitat destruction. The fishermen in our neck of the woods never had nearly as much impact on the fish as the Exxon-Valdeez oil spill, even the eruption of Mt. Redoubt in 1985 caused greater damage than the fishing industry. In the lower 48 much of the devastation is from dams.* Farmed fishing is another culprit, because farmed fish create and spread diseases to the wild fish in the region and dominate a significant part of the habitat. Unsustainable harvesting is a contributing factor to
But, you're right, we humans do consume far more fish than we should. A sustainable amount would probably be closer to 30-50 million tons. However, calling on environmentalists to completely eschew fish is just as wrong as telling them to never eat farmed vegetables because they're environmentally damaging. The environmentalist simply needs to exert extra effort into making a conscious choice to protect the environment, whether they buy organic, locally produced vegetables, or organic, sustainable, locally harvested fish.
*Seriously, dam based hydro-power is one of the most environmentally damaging power-sources when you look at biodiversity which is why I'm crying for China right now, they're burning their own fishing industry to the ground and killing thousands of species. When we did it we didn't know, please don't make our mistake again. You can find another way, please...
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 2:57 am
22 Sep 2006
So I looked into the Omega 3 issue a little further, and its a bit more complicated than, "farmed fish vs. wild fish" as far as Omega 3 levels are concerned.
Most diets sites, such as the one you cited above, agree with your position. However, I couldn't find any that cited their source of information.
I did find an article that stated The Mayo Clinic's position: "Information from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., though, states that the omega-3 levels of farm-raised fish are comparable to that of wild caught." article here
However, this article from Cornell University states in the first line that farmed fish have higher levels of Omega 3 fatty acids that wild fish.
Personally I will tend to lean in the direction of respected scientific institution, i.e. - Cornell. However, I find the Mayo Clinic's response interesting and worth looking into.
I think limiting factor in whether or not farmed fish have higher, equal, or lower levels of Omega3 FA's is dependent on their diet. Traditionally aquacultural operations fed wild salmon, fish. Exactly what they eat in the wild. However, many operations are switching to soy based feeds. So if a farm is feeding fish-meal to the farmed fish, then they will have high Omega 3 levels. If they are feeding soy-based food, then omega3 levels will probably be lower.
bottom line, i think there are so many variables that I don't think the average consumer is going to know what they are getting in the end nutritionally, let alone be able to put into context the environmental effects of their salmon purchase.
Permalink
Green fish Posted 4:23 am
22 Sep 2006
My apologies.
P.S. Although... according to Wiki, Science journal suggests that wild-salmon have higher omega-3 levels, now I need to do some serious research...
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:45 am
23 Sep 2006
Dear Green fish,
One, I only urged people not to eat ocean fish, not all fish. So, I am not sure if you agree with this point (smile) or were merely misunderstanding what I wrote.
It is much more possible for people to control and sustain the health of a local eco-system of waterways that include fish than it is for them to do the same with the oceans.
Most of the plans for so-called sustainable ocean fishing do not set limits on the types of equipment used, which means long line fishing and large nets that sweep the entire ocean would still predominate (in a market based situation, they are the most economically effective).
The large net fishing is more comparable to strip mining than to farming.
Comparing not eating fish to not eating vegetables is different. I am not trying to starve anyone.
I am not Chinese nor the Chinese government, so your gratuitous swipes against the Chinese make no sense.
BTW, I should make it clear that I am not going to say that anyone who still eats ocean fish is not an environmentalist.
It is clear to me that most environmentalists will not make many sacrifices to reduce the impact of humanity on the oceans, so there seems to be no point asking (smile).
pace,
patrick
PS. Wikipedia is an absolutely unreliable source of information
Permalink
photo01 Posted 8:00 am
23 Sep 2006
Leaving Florida? GREAT! Take a developer with you!
Permalink
photo01 Posted 8:09 am
23 Sep 2006
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/animal-feed-and-the-food-supply-105/seafood-farmed-vs-wild/i
ndex.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=1&searchTerm=farmed%20fish
It is a quick read.
David A.
Leaving Florida? GREAT! Take a developer with you!
Permalink
KathyF Posted 6:44 pm
23 Sep 2006
Unless they were fed a diet high in algae containing n3.
I don't, btw, recommend eating any fish, regardless of whether it's natural or aquatorture fish. There's a reason why health experts recommend pregnant women don't eat fish more than once a week.
Get your DHA elsewhere.
Permalink
photo01 Posted 11:16 pm
23 Sep 2006
Leaving Florida? GREAT! Take a developer with you!
Permalink