| paul the original - 6/21/2013 03:37
But now we over fish, so have to raise fish on farms, instead.
So the fish might not be raised all that healthy after all, and are fed so they aren't leaving a better Eco footprint either.
Why would farmed fish be less healthy because of overfishing? I agree that there might be a different nutritional content then in the wild, and intensive farming is probably more stressful for the fish, but then there's less predators to be stressed about, and no mercury for us to fear.
As for the eco footprint, what counts is how much feed is needed to build one pound of fish protein (1.7 pound to gain 1 pound of weight), how long does it take, and how much acreage does fish farming take. On all three I think the fish are winning. Plus, when is the last time you've seen a cow holding 2,000 calves of her own in her mouth? ;)
Tilapia for instance requires about 8 months to reach one pound, and you can easily manage concentrations of 15,000 fish per acre, with a lot of aeration and heating and filtration (the former two increase metabolism and weight gain). With 80% waste, that's 16,000 pounds per acre per year, $24K if you sell it at $1.5/lb. Every month if you rotate a dozen acres. I think it's a no-brainer if you live in a warm state with access to clean water.
You can grow all the duckweed they can eat from the nutrients in the fish waste too, helps offset the cost of fish meal and oil supplement, or the brine shrimps treat the tilapia go crazy for.
Fish farming in no way means the end of cattle farming, it just adds to our choice of proteins. The lower eco footprint is a bonus, it does not have to be a goal.
Edited by Chimel 6/21/2013 09:42
|
We’re now farming more fish than cattle
