I think the question Azteca pose is what do you think about people (to include some scientists) who say that the fish meal in fish food should not be in fish food but rather feed humans.

I've given a fair amount of thought to this issue myself and the conclusions I've drawn are that their arguments have ulterior motivation. In other words, its not humans they care about feeding but all the same the concerns they have are arguments in themselves and these arguments should be debated independently of an ingenuine concern for the hungry.

Fishmeal comes from two places.

1. By product of fileting (the carcasses of fish caught or grown for human consumption). This is the part of the fish that no one wants to eat.

2. By catch. (the incidental catch that isn't targeted by fishermen). This is the part of the catch ... that again ... no one wants to eat. This catch could be thrown overboard and often is but it is often already dead or too far gone to survive by the time it is dumped on the deck. We can make use of the catch by converting it into the food fish we grow. Which feeds people.

A person just has to support the use of the first source. Perhaps the second is debatable. People get pretty hyped up about the second wanting a moratorium on fishing and so on. The by catch represents income to those who do it (otherwise they would just throw it overboard) and so maybe they want to eliminate that income? Keep in mind, most wouldn't want to eat it but even to feed it someone who might you have to buy it, process it, transport it, distribute it, before you even get to eat it. Make sense? I don't think so either. People who grow fish make use of this resource and then people are fed.

Feeding hungry people is a diatribe. Those that say it want sustainable stewardship of the oceans which of course means reducing the catch and divvying it up to those with influence. Even some organizations that pretend to support sustainable stewardship depend on industry for money or in some cases even owned by industry insiders if you care to look deep enough. I say be careful what you believe because there is a lot of misinformation out there and you don't know who you can trust. In the end, the best hope for the oceans is zero emission sustainable fish farming and that which is something we are already achieving in some commercial operations. We will only get better at it, I think. We will also use less fish meal per pound of fish grown as we are making good progress there.

In the end, economics will prevail. Look at solar only 10 to 15 years ago. EXPENSIVE. Now with exception of wind, its the cheapest source of electrical energy. Its even cheaper to buy electricity for a car than gas now. Fossil fuel use will be greatly diminished because the source of energy for renewables is free and sustainable. This is the future for sure ... when we solve storage issues (which we will). We are at the beginning of a efficiency revolution when it comes to energy and food. There is much room for progress.

Last edited by jpsdad; 11/29/21 05:40 PM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers