3 ms·

At a certain point economics would dictate that fish farms would be cheaper than commercial fishing due to scarcity. Plus you could probably charge a premium t

by jcnnghm 16y ago

At a certain point economics would dictate that fish farms would be cheaper than commercial fishing due to scarcity. Plus you could probably charge a premium to gouge the hippies for their compassion, desire for 'clean-water' fish, saving the planet rhetoric, and whatnot.

yesbabyyes 16y ago
Farmed fish eats fish. For each kg of farmed fish, you have to catch two to five kg fish in the ocean. Some of this is fast-growing and might be ok to harvest in large quantities, but most of it, we don't know. Farmed fish also spreads disease and destroys the local ecosystem. Chiles coastline is in pretty bad shape because of extremely large scale salmon farming.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  Can it be done sustainably? Can a complete ecosystem be established where the feeder fish don't have to be harvested from elsewhere?
  - yesbabyyes 16y ago
    I don't know, but usually, nature is better at creating ecosystems than we are.
    - itistoday 16y ago
      +1 Though I'm struggling to think of even just one example of a human-created ecosystem designed to substitute for a natural one that's been at least as sustainable as those existing in nature.
    - krschultz 16y ago
      That doesn't mean it is better at creating food for us. Sun -> algae -> small fish -> medium fish -> fish we eat. Very doable, the problem comes in dealing with the waste.
  - fondue 16y ago
    Yes, people do it with Talapia right now.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Not really, unless you're willing to stretch sustainable to the breaking point. As I understand it, after a few years the floor of the fish farm is basically a solid toxic layer of fish food and fish shit, and it becomes unsuitable for farming. That's not sustainable.
      - evgen 16y ago
        There is nothing wrong with the process, just the implementation. The bottom layer is not radioactive, it just needs to be processed properly. Since there is not going to be anything there of significance which is not organic there is not reason you could not move fish from pond A to pond B, and then process the bottom layer of the pond to be fertilizer that will help grow more food to feed to the fish, etc. Since you are talking about years of use in a single location it is pretty obvious that you are not actually talking about known sustainable processes but are tagging that label onto something else.
        jbooth 16y ago
        I think "properly processing" a 3 foot thick layer of sludge on the ocean floor might be a little more difficult than you're making it out to be. Or maybe it's easy. I don't know. But as things stand right now, the process as implemented is completely unsustainable.
plesn 16y ago
My guess is that at a certain point we will have to reconsider our animal based food habits, not based on ethics but on efficiency mainly. We gain some specific contributions from them (B12 vitamin etc) but for others (most proteins included) there should be more efficient ways to get them. The higher you are on the food chain, the more efficiency you loose on the process, so it would better be for something specifically produced at that point of the chain.

by jcnnghm 16y ago

yesbabyyes 16y ago

Farmed fish eats fish. For each kg of farmed fish, you have to catch two to five kg fish in the ocean. Some of this is fast-growing and might be ok to harvest in large quantities, but most of it, we don't know. Farmed fish also spreads disease and destroys the local ecosystem. Chiles coastline is in pretty bad shape because of extremely large scale salmon farming.

glhaynes 16y ago
Can it be done sustainably? Can a complete ecosystem be established where the feeder fish don't have to be harvested from elsewhere?
- yesbabyyes 16y ago
  I don't know, but usually, nature is better at creating ecosystems than we are.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    +1 Though I'm struggling to think of even just one example of a human-created ecosystem designed to substitute for a natural one that's been at least as sustainable as those existing in nature.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    That doesn't mean it is better at creating food for us. Sun -> algae -> small fish -> medium fish -> fish we eat. Very doable, the problem comes in dealing with the waste.
- fondue 16y ago
  Yes, people do it with Talapia right now.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Not really, unless you're willing to stretch sustainable to the breaking point. As I understand it, after a few years the floor of the fish farm is basically a solid toxic layer of fish food and fish shit, and it becomes unsuitable for farming. That's not sustainable.
    - evgen 16y ago
      There is nothing wrong with the process, just the implementation. The bottom layer is not radioactive, it just needs to be processed properly. Since there is not going to be anything there of significance which is not organic there is not reason you could not move fish from pond A to pond B, and then process the bottom layer of the pond to be fertilizer that will help grow more food to feed to the fish, etc. Since you are talking about years of use in a single location it is pretty obvious that you are not actually talking about known sustainable processes but are tagging that label onto something else.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        I think "properly processing" a 3 foot thick layer of sludge on the ocean floor might be a little more difficult than you're making it out to be. Or maybe it's easy. I don't know. But as things stand right now, the process as implemented is completely unsustainable.

plesn 16y ago

My guess is that at a certain point we will have to reconsider our animal based food habits, not based on ethics but on efficiency mainly. We gain some specific contributions from them (B12 vitamin etc) but for others (most proteins included) there should be more efficient ways to get them. The higher you are on the food chain, the more efficiency you loose on the process, so it would better be for something specifically produced at that point of the chain.