2 ms·

> 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 compose

> 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

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.