5 ms·

? 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ... The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less. Off course

? 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ... The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less. Off course as someone else mentionned not all those fish might be ready for consumption. But at the same time Norway toot Salmon farming as efficient but are all externalities really taken into account ?

vasco 2y ago
> The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less I was under the impression that's how it is with all animals, they always need to eat more than what you get from them in terms of calories which usually will also equate to more weight (the comparison used here) in than out. Otherwise we'd have found some feeding process that's over 100% efficient which doesn't seem possible. In other words, they poop while they grow, unlike plants where the efficiency looks better.
- Timshel 2y ago
  Yes just that usually you are feeding them something you can't east ... Last I checked you can't eat grass ... You are feeding fish to fish to produce fish. Of course this is not the exception as someone else mentioned: > 95% of soybeans grown in South America are used to feed livestock in Europe, even though soy is already a complete protein and could be used
  - theultdev 2y ago
    In this case they are feeding the fish really tiny fish. You wouldn't really be able to eat the fish they are feeding the fish with practically and it wouldn't be good.
    - sfjailbird 2y ago
      It's in the article. Local consumption of fish dropped by half.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Why do you think the fish those salmon eat are food quality?
    - Al-Khwarizmi 2y ago
      At least some of them are. Among other species, farmed fish are being fed sardines, mackerel, and a tasty fish that doesn't seem to have an English translation (it's "jurel" in Spanish). Sources (sorry, in Spanish... it's rather difficult to find info about fish in English if you're Spanish, because we don't eat the same species, we don't even name the same species, and when we do, there is not necessarily an one-to-one map between Spanish and English names). https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/ciencia/2019-10-17/peces-comida-harina-aceite-ecosistema-transparencia_2287371/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/ciencia/2019-10-17... https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/24/natura/1335258947.html https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/24/natura/1335258947.... Personally I strongly prefer the taste of some of these species they feed farmed fish than that of the farmed fish themselves.
enriquto 2y ago
> 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ... > The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less. But this will always be the case when growing animals. The 83% number seems quite efficient to me. I'd bet that the weight of a cow is a way smaller percentage of the weight of grass needed to grow it. Surely closer to 1%.
- forty 2y ago
  > But this will always be the case when growing animals. Yes. The question is: should we continue growing animals then?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    The case of grass-fed beef is less clear-cut than you seem to imply. We cannot directly eat grass or grass products, grassy lands depend on big ruminants to thrive, and are often unsuitable for intense agriculture. Grass is one of the most efficient ways of nature to turn sunlight and water into biomass. Feeding animals on it and using animals products for humans is a great way to use resources. Of course, that doesn't necessarily imply eating their meat. In India, cows are holy and only their milk and milk products are used to feed people.
    - forty 2y ago
      Yes! You are right, my question was more target towards animal that we eat, producing milk and eggs have probably a better environmental impact/protein
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    The answer is: yes, we should.
- Timshel 2y ago
  This 83% is just for the oil which I'm quite certain is only part of the diet. But it's quite certain it will stay more efficient than a cow (But efficiency is not everything since I can't eat grass; and yes I'm aware that quite a number of cow has never seen a blade of grass).

vasco 2y ago

> The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less I was under the impression that's how it is with all animals, they always need to eat more than what you get from them in terms of calories which usually will also equate to more weight (the comparison used here) in than out. Otherwise we'd have found some feeding process that's over 100% efficient which doesn't seem possible. In other words, they poop while they grow, unlike plants where the efficiency looks better.

Timshel 2y ago
Yes just that usually you are feeding them something you can't east ... Last I checked you can't eat grass ... You are feeding fish to fish to produce fish. Of course this is not the exception as someone else mentioned: > 95% of soybeans grown in South America are used to feed livestock in Europe, even though soy is already a complete protein and could be used
- theultdev 2y ago
  In this case they are feeding the fish really tiny fish. You wouldn't really be able to eat the fish they are feeding the fish with practically and it wouldn't be good.
  - sfjailbird 2y ago
    It's in the article. Local consumption of fish dropped by half.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Why do you think the fish those salmon eat are food quality?
  - Al-Khwarizmi 2y ago
    At least some of them are. Among other species, farmed fish are being fed sardines, mackerel, and a tasty fish that doesn't seem to have an English translation (it's "jurel" in Spanish). Sources (sorry, in Spanish... it's rather difficult to find info about fish in English if you're Spanish, because we don't eat the same species, we don't even name the same species, and when we do, there is not necessarily an one-to-one map between Spanish and English names). https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/ciencia/2019-10-17/peces-comida-harina-aceite-ecosistema-transparencia_2287371/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/ciencia/2019-10-17... https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/24/natura/1335258947.html https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/24/natura/1335258947.... Personally I strongly prefer the taste of some of these species they feed farmed fish than that of the farmed fish themselves.

enriquto 2y ago

> 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ... > The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less. But this will always be the case when growing animals. The 83% number seems quite efficient to me. I'd bet that the weight of a cow is a way smaller percentage of the weight of grass needed to grow it. Surely closer to 1%.

forty 2y ago
> But this will always be the case when growing animals. Yes. The question is: should we continue growing animals then?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  The case of grass-fed beef is less clear-cut than you seem to imply. We cannot directly eat grass or grass products, grassy lands depend on big ruminants to thrive, and are often unsuitable for intense agriculture. Grass is one of the most efficient ways of nature to turn sunlight and water into biomass. Feeding animals on it and using animals products for humans is a great way to use resources. Of course, that doesn't necessarily imply eating their meat. In India, cows are holy and only their milk and milk products are used to feed people.
  - forty 2y ago
    Yes! You are right, my question was more target towards animal that we eat, producing milk and eggs have probably a better environmental impact/protein
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  The answer is: yes, we should.
Timshel 2y ago
This 83% is just for the oil which I'm quite certain is only part of the diet. But it's quite certain it will stay more efficient than a cow (But efficiency is not everything since I can't eat grass; and yes I'm aware that quite a number of cow has never seen a blade of grass).