this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
264 points (100.0% liked)
196
16503 readers
2018 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Going to almost certainly be less than 1. Moving further up the food chain results in energy losses. Those fish are going to use energy for their own body and such
Moreover there's high mortality rates inside of fish farms for fish themselves. From the linked earlier article
For sure, which is why I said "another food source would be needed." I had in mind something like the wild-caught fish being processed into something useful as part of a more efficient food chain, e.g. combined with efficiently-farmed plant material.
I don't have any context on the other pros and cons of fish farming, so definitely not arguing whether they're a net positive or not.
Don't really see how it'd make it any more efficient
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/13/515057834/90-percent-of-fish-we-use-for-fishmeal-could-be-used-to-feed-humans-instead
Not to mention there's other effects of fish farms outside of just the overfishing part that I didn't even list earlier. They're actually a big player in mangrove deforestation, for instance
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14774
Or antibiotic usage
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8198758/
Being suitable for human consumption doesn't mean it's not also suitable for playing a role in a more efficient food chain