Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Strict vegetarians, if you're offended by the discussion of fish as food, please don't read this. As someone who eats fish but not meat or poultry, I've been trying to learn what I can about the farmed-vs.-wild-fish question, and thought I was fairly well informed. So the article below came as a BIG surprise to me. I knew pellet- fed fish could be a goodsized mercury risk, but had no idea that humanly edible, wild-caught fish were being routinely fed to farmed fish as their main diet, let alone in such huge numbers. Between the two, it sounds to me at first blush like that pretty much cancels out the sustainability advantage of farmed fish, unless and until they solve this problem. And until then it sounds like fish farming could actually turn out to have a negative instead of a positive effect on world hunger. (I know, hunger isn't anywhere near as simple as lack of supply, but a safe and sustainable supply at reasonable cost is inevitably part of the equation.) YMMV; see what you think. Meanwhile, when I eat fish, I'm mainly sticking with wild-caught mackerel, whose population is presently thriving so far as I can tell, and which doesn't pose much if any mercury risk. (So far as I can tell, all canned mackerel sold in the US is still wild-caught.) I don't eat salmon that often because of the cost, but when I do, I look for fish that hasn't been artificially colored; the pellet-fed ones come out white and have to be dyed pink. I'll also eat what I can catch for myself from safe water when the weather warms up. Catfish chowder rocks. :-) _________________________ Fish Farms Taking Toll, Scientist Says Source: United Press International SEATTLE (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Fish farms continue to use too many resources to become a sustainable industry, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense told a U.S. science conference. Rebecca Goldburg, of the New York City environmental organization, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle that fish farming is more efficient than it was in 1997 when about 4.2 pounds of wild fish were needed to produce every 2.2 pounds of farmed fish. The report was published on the Nature Science Update Web site. It said more recent data from 2001 shows only about 3 pounds of wild fish were now needed for every 2.2 pounds of farmed fish. Part of the increased efficiency has come from more carnivorous fish being put on vegetable-protein-based diets. The booming aquaculture industry, however, also has taken its toll on other fish, such as sardines and herring, which are fed to larger fish in farms, Goldburg said. The total catch going toward fish food, the report said, continues to grow. A new policy by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could make the situation worse, she added. The NOAA is promoting offshore farming of species, such as red snapper and cod, in cages several miles offshore. Goldburg said because the fish are carnivores, they will need to be fed more fish, which could reverse the trend in efficiency. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. *************************** Rain @@@@ \\\\\\ ______________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 > I'm unsubbing, but I think you should change the group's description > to make it clear that this sort of topic is included on your list. In a recent poll of this group, 44% of those responding do eat some fish and/or poultry. Also, it's been my experience that sustainability and world-hunger issues are of concern to many strict vegetarians too. Anyway, I did precede the post with a warning, so if the topic bothered anyone, s/he didn't have to read it. Rain @@@@ \\\\\\ ______________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 And what do you suggest? Tell group members which topics to discuss and which not? Anyone is welcome to talk about whatever he pleases to, as long as he doesn't insult or provoke anyone. I get very angry at spams and very upset if anyone's religious or ethical feelings are hurt - and I do not think, topics covering sex or dating are appropriate here. But whatever is concerned with being a vegetarian (and I respect demi vegetarians as well) maybe we shouldn't take ourselves so serious all -the time and believe that we are better people, just because we do a few things ina different way? sorry to sound a bit harsh! Gabriella , Virginia SirAngus <SirAngusSAndMe@e...> wrote: > At 06:49 PM 02/20/2004, you wrote: > >Strict vegetarians, if you're offended by the dis- > >cussion of fish as food, please don't read this... > > I'm unsubbing, but I think you should change the group's description to > make it clear that this sort of topic is included on your list. > > Thank you. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.