5 ms·

In 2018, 150 million tons of fish and shellfish were used directly for human food. This is more than pork (113 millions in 2018). Other 29 millions were used to

In 2018, 150 million tons of fish and shellfish were used directly for human food. This is more than pork (113 millions in 2018). Other 29 millions were used to feed animals. (Source: FAO) > People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish This is an eurocentric point of view. To start, around 65% of the humans in the planet are lactose intolerant. The second most populated country in the planet will not eat cattle, and Jews and muslims will not eat pork. US people eat 100Kg of meat/year on average whereas Hindi survive with 5Kg of meat/year on average. > wild fish are critical for a few communities There is not modern aquaculture without a regular supply of wild fish flour provided by fisheries. Remove all the seafood suddenly and Japan or Singapore would not survive two years. Not as we know it currently. Neither would do India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Chile or Peru. Just the muslims would have a hard time to not starve, and one of each four people in the planet is a muslim.

Retric 6y ago
Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms and ~60 Million tons was from the wild. Yes, some of that wild fish is used to feed fish farms, but you don’t turn 29M tons of wild fish into 90M tons via fish farms. It’s simply one of several cheap protein sources used in fish farming. Overall fish farms are ~50% more important than fishing and trying to combine them when I already noted the difference is disingenuous. And no this is not Eurocentric these are worldwide totals. Cow meat on it’s own provides more protein than wild fish and that’s less important than cow milk. Worldwide cow milk represents 85% off all milk consumption it’s somewhat regional though still plenty global. I suggest you actually look into milk and meat consumption in say India which you said would be devastated without fishing. ~1/4th of Indians consume zero meat of any source they would be completely unaffected by fishing being banned. Cattle consumption in India is 2.7 million metric tons which actually puts it reasonably close to the worldwide average in terms of ocean fishing : beef consumption ratio. https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-veal-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-ve... PS: Further confusing the issue the majority of India’s fish come from fresh water.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms, you can't convert 29... There are several confusions here. One is that those 150M tons of fish are composed of just fish. There are clams also, there are oysters, mussels, crabs and shrimps. You can produce 100M tons of mussels even if you have only 29M tons of flour fish available. They don't need it at all. The other wrong idea is that fish farms equal fishes of non wild origin. This is not necessarily true.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The 60M tons of wild fish is also mussels etc, it’s also largely irrelevant in terms of nutrition thus the generic term fish. Aka crab fisherman even though crabs are not fish. If you really want to be specific some of that of that 29M tons of wild “fish“ is also fed to cattle, chicken, and pigs etc. But, it’s really only a net benefit of ~3M tons worth of increased output for human consumption across all intermediaries. The basic cycle of feeding stuff to animals we prefer eating is extremely inefficient, but to world food surplus is so massive and that 29M tons has such a low value it’s not a big deal. Getting back to the main point, I think I have clearly demonstrated how irrelevant fishing is in global terms.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > it’s also largely irrelevant in terms of nutrition, thus the generic term fish In English. To assume that marine molluscs or cnidarians are "a type of fishes" is a mistake that the majority of languages did not commit. For millions of people shellfish is an excellent, healthy, nutritive and easily available food. Very far from "irrelevant". This point of view is (probably, I could be wrong) not so widespread in the anglosphere, but this is just a cultural thing. More for us. If cooked properly, Mussels, crabs, lobsters and sea urchins are delicious and highly appreciated among connoisseurs, that's for sure.
      - Retric 6y ago
        It’s not a linguist mistake, it’s overloading a single word which happens a lot in most languages. The same thing is going on in English when referring to a group or generic unknown people as male. Anyway, I will accept this as a backhanded agreement and leave it at that.

Retric 6y ago

Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms and ~60 Million tons was from the wild. Yes, some of that wild fish is used to feed fish farms, but you don’t turn 29M tons of wild fish into 90M tons via fish farms. It’s simply one of several cheap protein sources used in fish farming. Overall fish farms are ~50% more important than fishing and trying to combine them when I already noted the difference is disingenuous. And no this is not Eurocentric these are worldwide totals. Cow meat on it’s own provides more protein than wild fish and that’s less important than cow milk. Worldwide cow milk represents 85% off all milk consumption it’s somewhat regional though still plenty global. I suggest you actually look into milk and meat consumption in say India which you said would be devastated without fishing. ~1/4th of Indians consume zero meat of any source they would be completely unaffected by fishing being banned. Cattle consumption in India is 2.7 million metric tons which actually puts it reasonably close to the worldwide average in terms of ocean fishing : beef consumption ratio. https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-veal-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-ve... PS: Further confusing the issue the majority of India’s fish come from fresh water.

pvaldes 6y ago
> Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms, you can't convert 29... There are several confusions here. One is that those 150M tons of fish are composed of just fish. There are clams also, there are oysters, mussels, crabs and shrimps. You can produce 100M tons of mussels even if you have only 29M tons of flour fish available. They don't need it at all. The other wrong idea is that fish farms equal fishes of non wild origin. This is not necessarily true.
- Retric 6y ago
  The 60M tons of wild fish is also mussels etc, it’s also largely irrelevant in terms of nutrition thus the generic term fish. Aka crab fisherman even though crabs are not fish. If you really want to be specific some of that of that 29M tons of wild “fish“ is also fed to cattle, chicken, and pigs etc. But, it’s really only a net benefit of ~3M tons worth of increased output for human consumption across all intermediaries. The basic cycle of feeding stuff to animals we prefer eating is extremely inefficient, but to world food surplus is so massive and that 29M tons has such a low value it’s not a big deal. Getting back to the main point, I think I have clearly demonstrated how irrelevant fishing is in global terms.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > it’s also largely irrelevant in terms of nutrition, thus the generic term fish In English. To assume that marine molluscs or cnidarians are "a type of fishes" is a mistake that the majority of languages did not commit. For millions of people shellfish is an excellent, healthy, nutritive and easily available food. Very far from "irrelevant". This point of view is (probably, I could be wrong) not so widespread in the anglosphere, but this is just a cultural thing. More for us. If cooked properly, Mussels, crabs, lobsters and sea urchins are delicious and highly appreciated among connoisseurs, that's for sure.
    - Retric 6y ago
      It’s not a linguist mistake, it’s overloading a single word which happens a lot in most languages. The same thing is going on in English when referring to a group or generic unknown people as male. Anyway, I will accept this as a backhanded agreement and leave it at that.