5 ms·

Salmon is general is a bad fish to farm because it consumes more protein than it produces. There are better fish (in terms of sustainability) that can be famred

Salmon is general is a bad fish to farm because it consumes more protein than it produces. There are better fish (in terms of sustainability) that can be famred, and proper regulations (which the US has, compared to other countries) exist to help. In general, I don't believe the US is the problem with overfishing or polution problems caused by fish farming, compared to other countries who don't have or want the ability to keep things in check.

La1n 6y ago
>Salmon is general is a bad fish to farm because it consumes more protein than it produces. That counts for all animals, no?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Its about using protein that has other uses. E.g. free-range chickens eat bugs; I don't want to eat bugs, but I'll gladly eat chickens.
  - La1n 6y ago
    Yes, but my point stands. Any animal "wastes" protein.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    What do farmed salmon eat, and is that better used for something else?
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Dunno. Maybe less efficient use of the same feedstock? Further, now they're putting oil in Salmon feedstock so they have imaginary dietary advantages i.e. Omega-3 fatty acid, which farm-raised salmon don't have much of normally. So add that cost to raising salmon.
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        It might make sense, especially for where salmon farms are usually placed, or it might be overly destructive in terms of resources and environment. The analysis needs to be done before we can make a conclusion about it, but I'm sure other parties have already come to the conclusion they want.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  Ya. I’m not sure why you are being downvoted but with animals you always get out less than you put in. Plants are the same way, but can grab other inputs (solar, minerals from the ground). Animal husbandry is a great way of converting inputs unfit for human consumption (animal feed) into something that is (meat) but it’s never very efficient.
  - Maximus9000 6y ago
    > Animal husbandry is a great way of converting inputs unfit for human consumption (animal feed) into something that is (meat) but it’s never very efficient. Ideally, yes. In practice, we feed animals mostly things that we ourselves could eat ourselves - like corn, soy, and grains. Sure, you can find cute examples of cattle eating grass on rocky soil... but around 99% of animals are not grown that way... they are grown in factory farms where they're fed soy, corn, and grains.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      Soy isn't very appetizing to humans in large quantities, so if it wasn't for animal feed, we wouldn't' grow nearly as much as it. Likewise for corn, which is a not so great staple for humans, and often just used as a sugar substitute. Yes, we can live on animal feed, but we can't really thrive on it, and a lot of land is only suited to such. Meat is still a useful medium for converting what humans can't consume very well to something they can. Especially pigs, which in much of the world are used as recyclers (not in the west anymore, due to safety issues, and probably not for long in the undeveloped world, but they have bigger problems to worry about).
      - Flenser 6y ago
        > but they have bigger problems to worry about The undeveloped world or the pigs?

La1n 6y ago

>Salmon is general is a bad fish to farm because it consumes more protein than it produces. That counts for all animals, no?

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Its about using protein that has other uses. E.g. free-range chickens eat bugs; I don't want to eat bugs, but I'll gladly eat chickens.
- La1n 6y ago
  Yes, but my point stands. Any animal "wastes" protein.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  What do farmed salmon eat, and is that better used for something else?
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Dunno. Maybe less efficient use of the same feedstock? Further, now they're putting oil in Salmon feedstock so they have imaginary dietary advantages i.e. Omega-3 fatty acid, which farm-raised salmon don't have much of normally. So add that cost to raising salmon.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      It might make sense, especially for where salmon farms are usually placed, or it might be overly destructive in terms of resources and environment. The analysis needs to be done before we can make a conclusion about it, but I'm sure other parties have already come to the conclusion they want.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Ya. I’m not sure why you are being downvoted but with animals you always get out less than you put in. Plants are the same way, but can grab other inputs (solar, minerals from the ground). Animal husbandry is a great way of converting inputs unfit for human consumption (animal feed) into something that is (meat) but it’s never very efficient.
- Maximus9000 6y ago
  > Animal husbandry is a great way of converting inputs unfit for human consumption (animal feed) into something that is (meat) but it’s never very efficient. Ideally, yes. In practice, we feed animals mostly things that we ourselves could eat ourselves - like corn, soy, and grains. Sure, you can find cute examples of cattle eating grass on rocky soil... but around 99% of animals are not grown that way... they are grown in factory farms where they're fed soy, corn, and grains.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    Soy isn't very appetizing to humans in large quantities, so if it wasn't for animal feed, we wouldn't' grow nearly as much as it. Likewise for corn, which is a not so great staple for humans, and often just used as a sugar substitute. Yes, we can live on animal feed, but we can't really thrive on it, and a lot of land is only suited to such. Meat is still a useful medium for converting what humans can't consume very well to something they can. Especially pigs, which in much of the world are used as recyclers (not in the west anymore, due to safety issues, and probably not for long in the undeveloped world, but they have bigger problems to worry about).
    - Flenser 6y ago
      > but they have bigger problems to worry about The undeveloped world or the pigs?