This is so lazy. How many tons of wild fish are farmed each year? How many tons of fish does this feed produce?
This is very much word salad:
“ In the report, Feedback calculated that the Norwegian salmon farming industry’s "feed footprint" is equivalent to 2.5 percent of global marine fisheries catch. The report also estimated that Norway’s annual output of farmed salmon is 27 percent lower than the volume of wild fish required to produce the fish oil used in Norwegian farmed salmon feed. The Norwegian industry’s plan to more than triple farmed salmon production to 5 million metric tons by 2050 would create demand for over three times as much wild-caught fish compared to 2020”
? 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 ?
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).
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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).
This is very much word salad:
“ In the report, Feedback calculated that the Norwegian salmon farming industry’s "feed footprint" is equivalent to 2.5 percent of global marine fisheries catch. The report also estimated that Norway’s annual output of farmed salmon is 27 percent lower than the volume of wild fish required to produce the fish oil used in Norwegian farmed salmon feed. The Norwegian industry’s plan to more than triple farmed salmon production to 5 million metric tons by 2050 would create demand for over three times as much wild-caught fish compared to 2020”