'Environmental Nightmare' After Thousands of Atlantic Salmon Escape Fish Farm(npr.org)
npr.org
'Environmental Nightmare' After Thousands of Atlantic Salmon Escape Fish Farm
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/08/24/545619525/environmental-nightmare-after-thousands-of-atlantic-salmon-escape-fish-farm
188 comments
The answer is 1/7.
1/7 of the calories needed to grow the amount of protein, that a cow needs.
They dont need to heat themselves up. They dont need to build large bones to fight gravity. Sorry, i know its not cool to be for something nowadays, fish farming of all the farming, has the best ratio.
Aquaculture has the best ratio, but fish farming isn't the only way to do it.
The GreenWave folks seems to have a decent alternative. They base their aquaculture on filter feeders (oysters, mussels, scallops, clams) and autotrophs (ocean kelp, a salad green which btw is the source of omega-3 in fish), with the result that their farms clean up fertilizer runoff from terrestrial farms and reduce eutrophication. Their protein requirements are even lower than fish farms, requiring 0/7ths of what a cow needs (ie no inputs).
Here's an overview from the founder Bren Smith, who incidentally is pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFPdTnclUA&t=4m20s (skip ahead to 8m for just the farm description)
The GreenWave folks seems to have a decent alternative. They base their aquaculture on filter feeders (oysters, mussels, scallops, clams) and autotrophs (ocean kelp, a salad green which btw is the source of omega-3 in fish), with the result that their farms clean up fertilizer runoff from terrestrial farms and reduce eutrophication. Their protein requirements are even lower than fish farms, requiring 0/7ths of what a cow needs (ie no inputs).
Here's an overview from the founder Bren Smith, who incidentally is pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFPdTnclUA&t=4m20s (skip ahead to 8m for just the farm description)
To be fair, chinese do exactly the same since 1950, when they invented and polished the modern polyculture systems based in seashells, ocean kelp, and crabs or fishes (and a similar freshwater version since thousands of years ago). Culture of marine filter feeders is not exactly breaking news for spaniards, french, dutch or japanese. If you can't resist the urge to invest on them, remember that GreenWave is just another company doing the same as thousands of current asian and european companies. Would be not much different than claiming that a californian company invented wine in 2017.
That's fantasic. Thanks for the correction.
Attribution aside, I'd like to see the technique more widely known and practiced. The commenter was defending fish farming by favorably comparing it to cows, but ignored shellfish polycultures probably because they simply didn't know about them.
It appears to be mainly China that practices it widely. To the extent the Chinese aren't scaling it globally as a climate-friendly alternative to fish farming, they leave an opportunity for other players.
Some links:
http://www.circleofblue.org/2012/china/chinas-marine-aquacul...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_in_China
https://theconversation.com/how-farming-giant-seaweed-can-fe... (discusses both GreenWave and China)
Attribution aside, I'd like to see the technique more widely known and practiced. The commenter was defending fish farming by favorably comparing it to cows, but ignored shellfish polycultures probably because they simply didn't know about them.
It appears to be mainly China that practices it widely. To the extent the Chinese aren't scaling it globally as a climate-friendly alternative to fish farming, they leave an opportunity for other players.
Some links:
http://www.circleofblue.org/2012/china/chinas-marine-aquacul...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_in_China
https://theconversation.com/how-farming-giant-seaweed-can-fe... (discusses both GreenWave and China)
> dutch or japanese.
And to come back to the topic of the original post: there's an invasive species of Japanese oysters in the Dutch Wadden Sea that you're free to harvest if you're in the neighbourhood. Although the debate on whether they are an ecological disaster or help restore the environment is not set, it's probably going to be the former if left unchecked, so you'll probably be helping out in the process.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanse_oester
And to come back to the topic of the original post: there's an invasive species of Japanese oysters in the Dutch Wadden Sea that you're free to harvest if you're in the neighbourhood. Although the debate on whether they are an ecological disaster or help restore the environment is not set, it's probably going to be the former if left unchecked, so you'll probably be helping out in the process.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanse_oester
I recall that there is a general recommendation to have a max limit on the amount of filter feeders in a diet because they have an above average in toxins and heavy metals. There have been suggestions to use such animals to explicitly clear out runoff from terrestrial farms and industries, but then the toxic levels would be so high that the meat is no longer be suitable for human consumption.
That said, they are a delicious source of food that is superior to other meat in many aspect, including being very ecology friendly and space efficient. Anyone that is trying to minimize the damage that a diet has on the environment should consider adding them.
That said, they are a delicious source of food that is superior to other meat in many aspect, including being very ecology friendly and space efficient. Anyone that is trying to minimize the damage that a diet has on the environment should consider adding them.
In France, where there are a lot of oyster and mussel farms along the Atlantic coast (apparently, modern oyster farming was invented there in the mid 19th century) warnings and restrictions are regularly issued because of pollution from natural or land farming-related causes, or mollusc diseases.
Shellfish farming is very efficient and ecological, in addition to having cultural value as a traditional local activity, but it does have drawbacks.
Shellfish farming is very efficient and ecological, in addition to having cultural value as a traditional local activity, but it does have drawbacks.
I'm having a hard time finding official advice to avoid shellfish that doesn't advise avoiding fish too[1]. In fact, the FDA lists scallops, clams, shrimp, and oysters as having the lowest amount of mercury[2].
It looks like some shellfish toxicity is due to cyanobacteria[3], which is mostly caused by eutrophication from farm runoff. But scaling this system should help with that.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/choose-fish-and-shellfish-wisely/fish-an...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellfish_poisoning
It looks like some shellfish toxicity is due to cyanobacteria[3], which is mostly caused by eutrophication from farm runoff. But scaling this system should help with that.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/choose-fish-and-shellfish-wisely/fish-an...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellfish_poisoning
There is a reason for this: Biomagnification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification
From memory, it depends on the toxin.
Heavy metals or things that aren't biologically eliminated accumulate as you go up the food chain.
Heavy metals or things that aren't biologically eliminated accumulate as you go up the food chain.
That is true. The heavy metal parts was a miss recollection. Toxins from run-offs, contaminated water, and algal blooms are the main problems.
Because filter feeders are generally low on the food chain, they are actually a food type which is very low on heavy metals. Thanks for correcting me.
Because filter feeders are generally low on the food chain, they are actually a food type which is very low on heavy metals. Thanks for correcting me.
You didn't explicitly state this, but I think it's important to highlight: protein != meat. Farming fish is more efficient than farming cows, but it's still more wasteful than having people eat plants directly.
It seems to me that a lot of damage is being done because of the idea that getting enough protein is difficult unless you eat meat. In reality, it's difficult to be protein deficient if you eat 2000+ calories/day.
I'm not advocating that everyone go vegan, but clearly the amount of meat we eat today is unsustainable. I think a good first step to addressing that is some nutrition education, and dispelling the myth that protein = meat.
It seems to me that a lot of damage is being done because of the idea that getting enough protein is difficult unless you eat meat. In reality, it's difficult to be protein deficient if you eat 2000+ calories/day.
I'm not advocating that everyone go vegan, but clearly the amount of meat we eat today is unsustainable. I think a good first step to addressing that is some nutrition education, and dispelling the myth that protein = meat.
A plant based diet does not eliminate ecological stress. The requirements for oil and petroleum skyrockets due to the need for nitrates and fereralizers . The only real solution without a ecological impact is reducing world population.
We use land/nitrates/fertilizers to grow crops to feed to cows/pigs/chickens/fish, which convert those plant calories into fewer meat calories. If we ate more plant-based foods, we'd need to grow less, not more.
I understand this is simplistic, as some plants (e.g., iceberg lettuce) provide few calories and are costly to grow. On average, eating from trophic level 1 is more efficient than eating from levels 2 or 3.
I understand this is simplistic, as some plants (e.g., iceberg lettuce) provide few calories and are costly to grow. On average, eating from trophic level 1 is more efficient than eating from levels 2 or 3.
Cows need to live a long time, which costs a lot of energy. Chickens are much closer to fish, but eggs are even better in terms of grain calories to protein conversion.
PS: Salmon on the other hand are horrible as predators they cost more protean than they produce.
PS: Salmon on the other hand are horrible as predators they cost more protean than they produce.
I am not sure, scientifically speaking, what a statement like "All predators cost more protein than they produce." means or why it is significant. Can you provide a citation to this?
EL5:
Humans are omnivores so while we can live off plants it's much easier to have a healthy diet if you eat some animal protean. Generally people prefer not to eat bugs / 'trash fish' etc, even if we can digest them just fine. So, we generally feed that stuff to farm animals like cows but also farm fish.
The problem is people want more meat than we get just from feeding trash fish to chickens. So, we also use farm grown plants like corn. But, salmon can't eat corn. So we would need another step say corn > bugs > salmon. And it's more efficient to go corn > chickens than corn > bugs > salmon.
So, now we are better off feeding some corn to some chickens. But, we can also feed those 'trash fish' to chickens to speed their growth. And it turns out it's also more efficient to feed chickens a mix of corn + 'trash fish' than it to use that same corn to feed some chickens and all of the 'trash fish' to feed salmon. The reason for this is chickens use much of the protean in their diet to build protean in them, but salmon also use protean in their diet for energy.
Humans are omnivores so while we can live off plants it's much easier to have a healthy diet if you eat some animal protean. Generally people prefer not to eat bugs / 'trash fish' etc, even if we can digest them just fine. So, we generally feed that stuff to farm animals like cows but also farm fish.
The problem is people want more meat than we get just from feeding trash fish to chickens. So, we also use farm grown plants like corn. But, salmon can't eat corn. So we would need another step say corn > bugs > salmon. And it's more efficient to go corn > chickens than corn > bugs > salmon.
So, now we are better off feeding some corn to some chickens. But, we can also feed those 'trash fish' to chickens to speed their growth. And it turns out it's also more efficient to feed chickens a mix of corn + 'trash fish' than it to use that same corn to feed some chickens and all of the 'trash fish' to feed salmon. The reason for this is chickens use much of the protean in their diet to build protean in them, but salmon also use protean in their diet for energy.
I didn't need an ELI5. Your claims are basically a distortion of science which is meaningless.
Think he is referring to trophic levels. There is at least one order of magnitude more energy and resources needed going from one level to the next. So I think he is saying you should eat fish that don't eat other fish mainly.
And bugs
That was a good nat Geo article
That was a good nat Geo article
It's really the convenience...
I find I have to starve myself to be productive once I eat, it's over. At least milk/cereal/something heavy.
Beans, maybe a good recipe slow cook... Eaiser than buying those cheap thin pizzas from Walmart for $3.99, damn ate three of them today. Was hating myself, then after hours later agonizing, I got up, solved this code problem and boom! I feel better about myself.
Granted I'm in my 20's upper abs visible, v body but family's dying by heart problems. Evolution man self correcting mechanism.
I was eating those fake sausages (green boxes) for a couple of weeks with brocolli man they're expensive. Rice is so filling too I realize.
I find I have to starve myself to be productive once I eat, it's over. At least milk/cereal/something heavy.
Beans, maybe a good recipe slow cook... Eaiser than buying those cheap thin pizzas from Walmart for $3.99, damn ate three of them today. Was hating myself, then after hours later agonizing, I got up, solved this code problem and boom! I feel better about myself.
Granted I'm in my 20's upper abs visible, v body but family's dying by heart problems. Evolution man self correcting mechanism.
I was eating those fake sausages (green boxes) for a couple of weeks with brocolli man they're expensive. Rice is so filling too I realize.
Beans and other slow cooker foods become even more convenient once you have one of those new electric pressure cookers.
Yeah will take a look into it.
Minestrone is good too.
Minestrone is good too.
[deleted]
What about insect farming?
> I hope in the future they teach children to find out where there food comes from and what impact it has on their environment before purchasing it. This stuff isn't cool.
What's are the alternatives here? The ocean is overfished, mammals and birds require large amounts of water and either large areas of land or bring welfare concerns.
I can't clearly see that fish farming is any better than farming of any other animals. Did I understand you right?
What's are the alternatives here? The ocean is overfished, mammals and birds require large amounts of water and either large areas of land or bring welfare concerns.
I can't clearly see that fish farming is any better than farming of any other animals. Did I understand you right?
Fish farming is just as bad as anything else IMO.
Theoretical alternatives to the status quo are:
* Higher taxes and fines for those using detrimental and high-risk farming practices, thus driving up the price of meat, fish and poultry to deter over-consumption, people don't need to eat animals 7 days a week. Food is simply "too cheap".
* Public education and further studies into mostly plant based diets so people aren't afraid to face the stigma and uncertainty about not having animals every night of the week. It's ok to cut back.
* Eating food grown or caught as close to your residence as possible.
* Mandatory food labelling of products, detailed information about the origin and production methods used to produce said product.
* Monetary incentives to have less children.
Theoretical alternatives to the status quo are:
* Higher taxes and fines for those using detrimental and high-risk farming practices, thus driving up the price of meat, fish and poultry to deter over-consumption, people don't need to eat animals 7 days a week. Food is simply "too cheap".
* Public education and further studies into mostly plant based diets so people aren't afraid to face the stigma and uncertainty about not having animals every night of the week. It's ok to cut back.
* Eating food grown or caught as close to your residence as possible.
* Mandatory food labelling of products, detailed information about the origin and production methods used to produce said product.
* Monetary incentives to have less children.
> Monetary incentives to have less children
IMHO this isn't necessary in developed economies as the replacement rate is already below 2. [0]
Instead of paying people in developed countries to have fewer children, as the population of these countries would already be in decline were it not for immigration, we should spend the sane money on women's education and contraceptives in developing countries. [1]
Personally, my biggest concern is that the largest population growth is occurring in regions with the lowest levels of food security. Any disruption to the food supply in these areas will lead to large loss of life and/or geopolitical strife.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
[1] http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights1...
IMHO this isn't necessary in developed economies as the replacement rate is already below 2. [0]
Instead of paying people in developed countries to have fewer children, as the population of these countries would already be in decline were it not for immigration, we should spend the sane money on women's education and contraceptives in developing countries. [1]
Personally, my biggest concern is that the largest population growth is occurring in regions with the lowest levels of food security. Any disruption to the food supply in these areas will lead to large loss of life and/or geopolitical strife.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
[1] http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights1...
"Everywhere" is headed towards population stabilisation and constriction. UN predictions is a population decline towards the end of the century. First major "test" we'll see of those predictions is that China is expected to start seeing population decline in the 2030's or so.
Yes, but people in developed countries are also the biggest offenders. Even the most conscientious Americans have carbon footprints twice that of the global average. [0] And currently, the U.S. government pays citizens to have children. I have no idea if stopping that would have any impact, but slowly reducing the earned income tax credit is maybe a good place to start.
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h...
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h...
Largest population growth in areas with higher mortality risk. You think maybe the two are related? That the stress of not knowing whether your offspring will survive to adulthood is a biological trigger for having more children.
> You think maybe the two are related?
Personally, no. Latin America is statistically more dangerous than North America yet their population growth is not significantly larger.
The largest factor toward population growth has been shown many times to be the education level of women. More choices for women means fewer children. This is disccused in my source links above.
Personally, no. Latin America is statistically more dangerous than North America yet their population growth is not significantly larger.
The largest factor toward population growth has been shown many times to be the education level of women. More choices for women means fewer children. This is disccused in my source links above.
Everyone likes to have sex, people in developed countries are just better equipped to do it safely.
I think it's better described as "largest population growth in areas with no pension". When the only way to provide for your old age is to live with your children, you have significant reason to have several.
Several major religions in poor developing countries preach having more kids. They don't care about environmental impact or sustainability. They believe their God will provide.
How would we deal with that?
How would we deal with that?
You don't. People should have more kids, period. What people don't get about the declining birthrate is that it leads to a graying of areas and a huge economic malaise as the elderly consume more and produce much less in terms of resources. This is part of the reason places like Japan or Italy are struggling so hard...they don't have enough native workers to support their aging population.
The demographic death spiral can be real. And if anything, there will be worse environmental impact simply because you have to use more invasive means to support an aging population. More factory farms since there are fewer, older workers, more resource intensive automation and robotics to take over things people did.
The demographic death spiral can be real. And if anything, there will be worse environmental impact simply because you have to use more invasive means to support an aging population. More factory farms since there are fewer, older workers, more resource intensive automation and robotics to take over things people did.
Religion is not to blame, for most include proper environmental stewardship. Unfortunately that theme is being ignored in the developed world. How about simply making the argument that it is morally wrong to destroy God's creation?
Develop methods for turning people into atheists.
Consumerism, may be?
Edit: not to turn them into atheists, but to reduce birth rate.
Edit: not to turn them into atheists, but to reduce birth rate.
You cant. Its game theory- those religions preach only what people want to here. And they want to here, that one of there descendants make it- so if everybody puts more tickets into the lottery, one has to gear the gambling up to have the same chances.
Also to thwart any racists- no, this is not limited to poor country's or certain skin colors. Once the economy drops below a certain threshold, everyone goes full survival zombie with the Loop-Deformation. Proof: The Nazis turned europe into a white version of africa during WW2.
Also to thwart any racists- no, this is not limited to poor country's or certain skin colors. Once the economy drops below a certain threshold, everyone goes full survival zombie with the Loop-Deformation. Proof: The Nazis turned europe into a white version of africa during WW2.
The Nazis had their economy ticking over in a very productive fashion, certainly better than before their rise. A successful economy doesn't make people behave well, although it certainly makes it easier to.
What do you mean by 'a white version of Africa'? There aren't many parallels I can draw.
Emergence of warlords/partisan leaders
(Yes, for freedom, liberty, king & country, fascism - im sure, in somalia and afghanistan they have great causes too )
Soldiers of the leash. War feeding the war. Refugees pouring back and forth.
Source is mostly anecdata:
My late grandfather was a Nazi truck-driver in France, Italy, eastern Europe (Hungary, Greece) and the stories he and his war companions told - are really very similar to those you get to hear from African refugees. My grandfather and his officer made a nice little extra by smuggling people and got sentenced into a "Straf-battalion" for taking advantage of the general lawlessness of the situation.
I know, i know- the popular Nazi image in TV presents a wicked law & order extremist, but where the war went - it really was quite different. There was a mixture of total lawlessness (as in "We dont care/expend resources on subhumans") and extreme military overreactions.
And before you claim that was just fascism at work, as if politics where just a program loaded into humans, no,the unraveling usually set on before the occupation got started.
In a ironic way, the Nazis and their homecoming war proofed that all humanity, disregarding of race, pushed beyond a certain breaking point - is equally wretched and desperate.
A zombie like animal, forgetting about tomorrow, trying to see the end of today at all costs. Not a beautiful sight, but one that offers a lot to understand and learn.
The good news is, once the stress is reduced - and the war has not gone on to long, preventing the education of the next generation- there is a way to recover.
Soldiers of the leash. War feeding the war. Refugees pouring back and forth.
Source is mostly anecdata:
My late grandfather was a Nazi truck-driver in France, Italy, eastern Europe (Hungary, Greece) and the stories he and his war companions told - are really very similar to those you get to hear from African refugees. My grandfather and his officer made a nice little extra by smuggling people and got sentenced into a "Straf-battalion" for taking advantage of the general lawlessness of the situation.
I know, i know- the popular Nazi image in TV presents a wicked law & order extremist, but where the war went - it really was quite different. There was a mixture of total lawlessness (as in "We dont care/expend resources on subhumans") and extreme military overreactions.
And before you claim that was just fascism at work, as if politics where just a program loaded into humans, no,the unraveling usually set on before the occupation got started.
In a ironic way, the Nazis and their homecoming war proofed that all humanity, disregarding of race, pushed beyond a certain breaking point - is equally wretched and desperate.
A zombie like animal, forgetting about tomorrow, trying to see the end of today at all costs. Not a beautiful sight, but one that offers a lot to understand and learn.
The good news is, once the stress is reduced - and the war has not gone on to long, preventing the education of the next generation- there is a way to recover.
The Nazi economy was ticking over through the means of confiscating wealth from people, and later on, through just straight-up murdering them from it. It wasn't 'very productive', it was short-term gains with no long-term sustainability.
Compare the economy they had in the mid or early war to that in the early thirties or late twenties. Germany was in chaos. The output of their economy was still increasing throughout the allied bombing campaign. Duplication was removed, competition reduced, production lines simplified and available models decreased. Vulnerabilities were addressed and production went up, fast.
And yes, by every measure I can think of it wasn't sustainable, but it produced a lot in a short time with extremely difficult conditions.
Again- similar "economys" have been seen in war torn areas of the planet.
I don't think the religions preach what people want to hear. They built procreation into their belief system to make sure they will have bigger and bigger adherents. It works and many of those religions are much larger today than others without procreation preaching.
Religions allow you to force a rule-set on your neighbors and limit your descendants behavior, long after they reached adolescence.
I would guess for a middle-aged person, in constant silent fear of loosing it all with one mighty divorce - or drug accident of son/daughter - this sounds attractive.
> Food is simply "too cheap"
This is so true in most civilized world. But same is its opposite, paradoxically.
Dunno how the whole system of gov subsidies and externalized costs and all work around the world, but meat is severely underpriced and vegetables are severely over-fucking-priced. Like geez, anywhere around western Europe if you go around buying ingredients for a decent salad you're like "wtf, a beef steak would lead to a cheaper meal!"
And after this, occasionally see that the cheapest vegetables of one type or another are produced like a freaking continent away! Don't tell me that transport energy that is mostly from burning fossil fuels doesn't have insane environmental costs that somehow got magically externalized out of the product price.
Maybe this also has something to do with underpriced oil or dubious trade treaties making half-a-planet-away exports too cheap, or "indirectly subsidizing" transoceanic shipping costs (hint: China, hint 2: all that burnt shipping diesel is similar to the pollution of the world's cars).
To top it all, in most developed countries increasing food prices would 99% likely result in increasing minimum wages because people will fight for them, and politicians will eventually give them... Really, if there's any way in which global economy needs to be "fixed" is by making products prices include the real damn costs, including environment ones!
This is so true in most civilized world. But same is its opposite, paradoxically.
Dunno how the whole system of gov subsidies and externalized costs and all work around the world, but meat is severely underpriced and vegetables are severely over-fucking-priced. Like geez, anywhere around western Europe if you go around buying ingredients for a decent salad you're like "wtf, a beef steak would lead to a cheaper meal!"
And after this, occasionally see that the cheapest vegetables of one type or another are produced like a freaking continent away! Don't tell me that transport energy that is mostly from burning fossil fuels doesn't have insane environmental costs that somehow got magically externalized out of the product price.
Maybe this also has something to do with underpriced oil or dubious trade treaties making half-a-planet-away exports too cheap, or "indirectly subsidizing" transoceanic shipping costs (hint: China, hint 2: all that burnt shipping diesel is similar to the pollution of the world's cars).
To top it all, in most developed countries increasing food prices would 99% likely result in increasing minimum wages because people will fight for them, and politicians will eventually give them... Really, if there's any way in which global economy needs to be "fixed" is by making products prices include the real damn costs, including environment ones!
Three words, my friend: "calories per acre".
Vegetables are not good calories sources; they are good nutrient sources. Grains are good calorie sources: your rice, your potatoes [not a grain], and especially your corn. Grains will yield 10-20 times the calorie per acre of vegetables. Grains are so insanely productive that, on a calories per acre basis, it is more land efficient to get your calories from corn-fed livestock than from vegetables.
Calories per acre are a big reason why vegetables cost more than meat. It is also why we grow different foods in different places. It is why basically all of our [the United States] potatoes come from Idaho: the volcanic soils there grow potatoes so well that it makes more sense to grow highly efficient potatoes in Idaho and corn in Kansas and ship them back and forth, because you'd get half as much corn in Idaho and half as many potatoes in Kansas.
Vegetables are not good calories sources; they are good nutrient sources. Grains are good calorie sources: your rice, your potatoes [not a grain], and especially your corn. Grains will yield 10-20 times the calorie per acre of vegetables. Grains are so insanely productive that, on a calories per acre basis, it is more land efficient to get your calories from corn-fed livestock than from vegetables.
Calories per acre are a big reason why vegetables cost more than meat. It is also why we grow different foods in different places. It is why basically all of our [the United States] potatoes come from Idaho: the volcanic soils there grow potatoes so well that it makes more sense to grow highly efficient potatoes in Idaho and corn in Kansas and ship them back and forth, because you'd get half as much corn in Idaho and half as many potatoes in Kansas.
[deleted]
[Replying in a different comment, because this is more confrontational and less informative, but I still think it is important to say.]
Re: food prices -> minimum wage, is your plan seriously to (somehow) raise food prices, so that the people who cannot afford to eat will riot / strike / protest for higher wages, so they don't starve to death?
Re: food prices -> minimum wage, is your plan seriously to (somehow) raise food prices, so that the people who cannot afford to eat will riot / strike / protest for higher wages, so they don't starve to death?
[deleted]
> Don't tell me that transport energy that is mostly from burning fossil fuels doesn't have insane environmental costs
Why don't tell you that? Have you ever looked at the energy needed to transport full cargo containers? It's not a lot. You could fully internalize the cost by using renewable fuels and it would still be cheap.
> all that burnt shipping diesel is similar to the pollution of the world's cars
That's looking at a couple very specific pollutants, and could be fixed with a relatively tiny cost if there was enough political will.
Why don't tell you that? Have you ever looked at the energy needed to transport full cargo containers? It's not a lot. You could fully internalize the cost by using renewable fuels and it would still be cheap.
> all that burnt shipping diesel is similar to the pollution of the world's cars
That's looking at a couple very specific pollutants, and could be fixed with a relatively tiny cost if there was enough political will.
Another theoretical alternative are lab-grown meats. It should be much more efficient to just grow steaks, instead of growing cows and throwing most of them away.
What part of the cow gets thrown away? My understanding is that every bit gets used.
Yeah, even in country where people are too squeamish to eat them as-is (unlike here, where recipes directly include cow hoof, liver, brains, etc), I can't believe the food industry doesn't shove into some processed blob.
People don't need to eat animals at all. You can live perfectly healthy as a vegetarian or vegan. The more I read about what goes on in industrial farming the happier I am to have changed my diet.
> * Mandatory food labelling of products, detailed information about the origin and production methods used to produce said product.
What if I Don't Care.
There's this weird assumption that information/education will lead people to share your viewpoint. It won't. I am fully aware of the impact that cattle farming has on the environment. I still eat beef whenever I want with literally zero concern.
I know that I can live without meat. I know that it's entirely possible to eat food that has a lower impact on the environment. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do either of those things. That doesn't make me uninformed or ill-educated. It just means my "utility function" is different to yours.
What if I Don't Care.
There's this weird assumption that information/education will lead people to share your viewpoint. It won't. I am fully aware of the impact that cattle farming has on the environment. I still eat beef whenever I want with literally zero concern.
I know that I can live without meat. I know that it's entirely possible to eat food that has a lower impact on the environment. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do either of those things. That doesn't make me uninformed or ill-educated. It just means my "utility function" is different to yours.
>There's this weird assumption that information/education will lead people to share your viewpoint.
Is there? I don't think anyone thinks labelling is going to magically make people who don't care make different choices, they just think it will allow people who do care to actually make choices at all.
Is there? I don't think anyone thinks labelling is going to magically make people who don't care make different choices, they just think it will allow people who do care to actually make choices at all.
You're one person. Adding nutrition information to labels isn't meant to change your behavior, specifically. It's meant to change lots of people's behavior.
> It just means my "utility function" is different to yours.
Most people include "social recognition" into their utility function. Spreading the idea that "eating too much beef is 'bad'" might actually alter the behavior of those who want to be "'good' citizens".
(please note I'm not advocating for the method here ; although I certainly see how it could work, I have no idea how much it actually does)
Most people include "social recognition" into their utility function. Spreading the idea that "eating too much beef is 'bad'" might actually alter the behavior of those who want to be "'good' citizens".
(please note I'm not advocating for the method here ; although I certainly see how it could work, I have no idea how much it actually does)
> Monetary incentives to have less children.
Some countries are already below the necessary births to renovate the generations, you want to reduce it even further?
Why not having suicide booths, it's faster to lead humans to extinction.
Some countries are already below the necessary births to renovate the generations, you want to reduce it even further?
Why not having suicide booths, it's faster to lead humans to extinction.
> Why not having suicide booths, it's faster to lead humans to extinction.
Actually, many people (myself included) advocate for the right, and plan for themselves, euthanasia as the best, most humane alternative to the current nightmare/torture regime that makes up end of life, hospice, and terminal disease care. This seems like just a logical idea at first, but nothing puts it quite in perspective like experiencing these things in your own family.
The fact that euthanasia is one small way to speed up the reduction of human population down to less environmentally destructive levels is a small benefit.
Actually, many people (myself included) advocate for the right, and plan for themselves, euthanasia as the best, most humane alternative to the current nightmare/torture regime that makes up end of life, hospice, and terminal disease care. This seems like just a logical idea at first, but nothing puts it quite in perspective like experiencing these things in your own family.
The fact that euthanasia is one small way to speed up the reduction of human population down to less environmentally destructive levels is a small benefit.
Tell me are you going offer these monetary incentives in Nigeria and Pakistan or in Italy and Japan or both?
> * Monetary incentives to have less children.
Is this some kind of a joke? How will society support itself with fewer kids?
Is this some kind of a joke? How will society support itself with fewer kids?
How will society support itself with fewer kids?
By increasing productivity, as it has been doing over the past few centuries, and not increasing waste of resources proportionally, unlike what it has been doing over the past few centuries.
By increasing productivity, as it has been doing over the past few centuries, and not increasing waste of resources proportionally, unlike what it has been doing over the past few centuries.
> Monetary incentives to have less children.
Gross.
Gross.
Why is that? Australia did (or still does?) have monetary incentives to have more children, completely backwards...
I think that is maybe distasteful. A monetary incentive to not have children is like advocating state-sponsored neutering of people. And since its money, who do you think would be affected for such things? the rich?
So basically its the very concept of paying poor people not to procreate, so that the current existing people have a 'nicer time' (which is actually also economically incorrect).
Its super gross.
So basically its the very concept of paying poor people not to procreate, so that the current existing people have a 'nicer time' (which is actually also economically incorrect).
Its super gross.
Fish farming has bassically the same problems than traditional farming (problems that must be solved), but wins clearly in some aspects.
First of all is more efficient. We produce human food via cold blooded animals so we need to provide less animal food to obtain 1Kg of high quality human food. Mammals and birds instead will use a considerable amount of this energy just to keep itselves several degrees warmer than the environmental temperature day and night.
Is better also because reduces waste. Fishes are aquatic and have swimming bladders. Its bodyweight is carried by the water, so you are not investing in growing several Kg of heavy unedible skeletons that will end in the trash. There is more food in 100Kg of entire fishes than in a pig of 100Kg, and you'll need to allocate less volume of garbage dump.
At difference of agriculture or industry, if you have a farm fish you need to care for keeping the quality of the water in reasonable levels for life beings. This water is still available to other animals and plants.
More efficient use of energy and water and less waste is the definition of environmentally friendly. The ugly truth is that the number of humans is ever increasing but resources are limited. Cows, sheeps, pigs and poultry use also antibiotics and spreaded parasites and diseases in the past and of course the arrival of massive quantities of them 200 years ago was also a neverending 'environmental nightmare' for lots of species of trees, flowers or insects (and a bless to other, just like salmon farms). The difference is that you can have more people with aquaculture in the end.
First of all is more efficient. We produce human food via cold blooded animals so we need to provide less animal food to obtain 1Kg of high quality human food. Mammals and birds instead will use a considerable amount of this energy just to keep itselves several degrees warmer than the environmental temperature day and night.
Is better also because reduces waste. Fishes are aquatic and have swimming bladders. Its bodyweight is carried by the water, so you are not investing in growing several Kg of heavy unedible skeletons that will end in the trash. There is more food in 100Kg of entire fishes than in a pig of 100Kg, and you'll need to allocate less volume of garbage dump.
At difference of agriculture or industry, if you have a farm fish you need to care for keeping the quality of the water in reasonable levels for life beings. This water is still available to other animals and plants.
More efficient use of energy and water and less waste is the definition of environmentally friendly. The ugly truth is that the number of humans is ever increasing but resources are limited. Cows, sheeps, pigs and poultry use also antibiotics and spreaded parasites and diseases in the past and of course the arrival of massive quantities of them 200 years ago was also a neverending 'environmental nightmare' for lots of species of trees, flowers or insects (and a bless to other, just like salmon farms). The difference is that you can have more people with aquaculture in the end.
I don't disagree with you as such.
The problem comes when the fish farming industry doesn't stick to the rules and the government, who are meant to be overseeing the industry, decide to look the other way.
That exact situation has been going on in Tasmania for many years now and that type of neglect can only end badly.
More details: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got...
The problem comes when the fish farming industry doesn't stick to the rules and the government, who are meant to be overseeing the industry, decide to look the other way.
That exact situation has been going on in Tasmania for many years now and that type of neglect can only end badly.
More details: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got...
Thanks for sharing that story, it was really interesting!
> What's are the alternatives here?
The alternative is to stop eating carcinogenic, heart disease-causing foods made out of animals and animal secretions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
The alternative is to stop eating carcinogenic, heart disease-causing foods made out of animals and animal secretions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
Comments like yours is a good way to discredit veganism
Why exactly? He just provided you with some facts, along with a logical suggestion.
He didn't provide any fact, he made hyperbolic claims and and illogical suggestion.
Please, provide evidence that all ANIMAL products are carcinogenic and causes heart diseases.
The logical conclusion is not stop eating any animal product, is eating less meat.
Please, provide evidence that all ANIMAL products are carcinogenic and causes heart diseases.
The logical conclusion is not stop eating any animal product, is eating less meat.
What overfished means today is that the very few species that we want to eat is overfished. I have heard several estimates of how much fish is fished but then discarded, and the number is general around 75%.
If we look at lakes, there are plenty that is over populated because of eutrophication, but the type of fish that thrives in that environment also eats fish eggs of the fish we want to eat. Predators can actually go extinct by a combination of prey either the eggs and humans eating the adults.
Much of this could be solved if we just wanted to eat more divers selection of fish.
If we look at lakes, there are plenty that is over populated because of eutrophication, but the type of fish that thrives in that environment also eats fish eggs of the fish we want to eat. Predators can actually go extinct by a combination of prey either the eggs and humans eating the adults.
Much of this could be solved if we just wanted to eat more divers selection of fish.
> I hope in the future they teach children to find out where there food comes from
Who's they? Isn't it our responsibility?
Who's they? Isn't it our responsibility?
Ultimately yes, but many parents won't. Cover all bases by encouraging parents to do so, and educating children as well.
There are a number of basic life skills that go untaught during school years - personal finance being one of them.
There are a number of basic life skills that go untaught during school years - personal finance being one of them.
The problem is, depending on who you talk to, there are thousands of things like this that a person "should" know. I wouldn't even know where to start or who to believe on even this one topic.
You could distill the original commenters suggestion to teaching children how to research and always find ways to learn a bit more about what they're told or what they're doing. That way it can be applied to food origins or newspaper articles or receiving financial advice.
And that's how we got the anti-vaccination movement.
Over fishing, habitat destruction, and hatcheries have nearly wiped out wild pacific salmon. Fish farms will finish the job. Woot.
I volunteered for a decade for a group trying to save wild salmon. Towards the end, I attended the EPA hearings for adding 12+ local salmon runs to the endangered species list. So depressing. Then GWB got selected, pushing a clear "pave it all" agenda, the conservation effort fizzled; my peeps just gave up.
By comparison, Bush Sr signed the landmark federal legislation for wetlands conservation. Huge progress after the Reagan & James Watt era of environmental destruction.
I think there's been some policy progress since I left the scene. Our tribes, fishermen, and anglers have made (mostly) common cause. Still opposed by timber and developers, of course. (I don't know agriculture's current policy position.) And what can any one do about international treaties and open water and modern technology (fish spotting, tracking)?
Any way. My family loved to fish. Very involved with Trout Unlimited, Poggie Club, etc. My brother studied to be a marine biologist.
The deep irony for me is that conserving the wild fisheries would have immense positive economic impact. Ditto cultural. Our current policies (malign neglect) steal dollars from the majority to give pennies to a select few. Woot.
Edit- Removed pejorative reference to Watt's faith-based anti-environmentalism.
I volunteered for a decade for a group trying to save wild salmon. Towards the end, I attended the EPA hearings for adding 12+ local salmon runs to the endangered species list. So depressing. Then GWB got selected, pushing a clear "pave it all" agenda, the conservation effort fizzled; my peeps just gave up.
By comparison, Bush Sr signed the landmark federal legislation for wetlands conservation. Huge progress after the Reagan & James Watt era of environmental destruction.
I think there's been some policy progress since I left the scene. Our tribes, fishermen, and anglers have made (mostly) common cause. Still opposed by timber and developers, of course. (I don't know agriculture's current policy position.) And what can any one do about international treaties and open water and modern technology (fish spotting, tracking)?
Any way. My family loved to fish. Very involved with Trout Unlimited, Poggie Club, etc. My brother studied to be a marine biologist.
The deep irony for me is that conserving the wild fisheries would have immense positive economic impact. Ditto cultural. Our current policies (malign neglect) steal dollars from the majority to give pennies to a select few. Woot.
Edit- Removed pejorative reference to Watt's faith-based anti-environmentalism.
>>Huge progress after the Reagan & James Watt era of pave every thing for Jesus environmental destruction.
I understand you have strong feelings and a point-of-view, but I'd like to ask you to please attempt to make your point without slandering a religion.
We really need to learn how to talk to one-another, again, without being so needlessly provocative and confrontational.
I understand you have strong feelings and a point-of-view, but I'd like to ask you to please attempt to make your point without slandering a religion.
We really need to learn how to talk to one-another, again, without being so needlessly provocative and confrontational.
[deleted]
PS- NPR story says higher tides (solar eclipse) damaged pens. FFS. Amateurs. Cue Condi Rice (-esque) quote "No one could have foreseen tidal activity and poor craftsmanship could have led to an incident like this."
It's funny how a made up name, 'Joe Blogs' can look wrong. Joe Bloggs is apparently a UK, Canada, Australia, NZ thing. John Doe is American.
It's still much better than depleting wild fish stocks AFAIK.
We could farm the fish we eat or we could eat all the wild fish...
Or get your protein from other sources [e.g. https://silk.com/products/protein-nutmilk] and eat less meat. Its the only sustainable way to support the growing human population.
Plant based proteins are more sustainable. With animal proteins, people don't think about how inefficient it is to have to feed those animals before they end up on your plate. If you want to liken it to computer science, its a O^2 kind of inefficiency.
Plant based proteins are more sustainable. With animal proteins, people don't think about how inefficient it is to have to feed those animals before they end up on your plate. If you want to liken it to computer science, its a O^2 kind of inefficiency.
Farming also have a negative environmental effect and is not indefinite sustainable. It is generally less harmful than beef, but that don't make it sustainable.
The only sustainable diet is one where the total has a environment zero or even positive effect. Honey would be one such animal product, since the work that the bees does has a net positive effect on the environment. Meat from over populations would also have a net positive effect, and is part of the bigger picture when farms use fertilizers and cause eutrophication.
In order for a biological system to remain diverse and productive indefinitely (the definition of sustainability), we need to look at the whole picture. Animal proteins is part of that chain, but a sustainable diet would look very different from a regular meat rich diet. The species, the amount, and also the plants would all have to be very different.
The only sustainable diet is one where the total has a environment zero or even positive effect. Honey would be one such animal product, since the work that the bees does has a net positive effect on the environment. Meat from over populations would also have a net positive effect, and is part of the bigger picture when farms use fertilizers and cause eutrophication.
In order for a biological system to remain diverse and productive indefinitely (the definition of sustainability), we need to look at the whole picture. Animal proteins is part of that chain, but a sustainable diet would look very different from a regular meat rich diet. The species, the amount, and also the plants would all have to be very different.
Given that a cow basically serves as a way to convert salad into steak, it's pretty obvious that meat is less efficient. But it's also more delicious, which is why we eat so much of it. Life is about more than simple proteins.
Or we can make culturing food more productive, with vat grown meat... and fish farms. Newsflash: food production has kept up with population growth through past centuries of development.
> food production has kept up with population growth through past centuries of development
that doesn't mean its sustainable. And what would you feed these fish farms?
that doesn't mean its sustainable. And what would you feed these fish farms?
Agriculture which has also kept up with productivity improvements. "It must be unsustainable" is not an argument.
It has only kept up because it receives billions in subsidies. Most of the ag subsidies go to animal based agriculture or agriculture for animal's food (soy, corn, etc). The productivity improvements are artificially inflated.
Cows and pigs need lots of water and lots of food (soy, corn, etc). Considering all of the required space for the animals, and the space to grow the food for the animals, and all of the required gallons of water for the animals and to grow their food, and all of the antibiotics the animals are given, then no, its not sustainable or scaleable.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are keeping up with productivity improvements, or if you are simply making assumptions. The meat is the lowest quality its ever been and line speeds are too fast to be properly inspected. Animals have to be given so much antibiotics and medications.
Cows and pigs need lots of water and lots of food (soy, corn, etc). Considering all of the required space for the animals, and the space to grow the food for the animals, and all of the required gallons of water for the animals and to grow their food, and all of the antibiotics the animals are given, then no, its not sustainable or scaleable.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are keeping up with productivity improvements, or if you are simply making assumptions. The meat is the lowest quality its ever been and line speeds are too fast to be properly inspected. Animals have to be given so much antibiotics and medications.
Do you cut your power consumption because there are rolling blackouts in Nigeria?
But farmed fish are fed fishmeal made from wild fish...
Bamboozled is right.
"Department officials blamed the structure failure on high tides caused by the eclipse...."
That's certainly creative.
That's certainly creative.
Should read "Department officials were ordered to tell BS reason instead of pointing out the most likely reason: shitty quality of structure due bad management trying to save money on maintenance"
Isn't that true though? The sun-moon-earth in a straight line when the moon is near perigee _would_ cause unusually high tides.
It would, but the tidal effect of a perfectly aligned sun/moon would not be much different from the tidal effect of a mostly-aligned sun/moon. It's really just another spring tide, which happens about twice a month.
Plus, the failure didn't even happen during the eclipse. It happened two days earlier, when the moon would have been 20-30 degrees away from the sun's position. That combination happens quite frequently.
The article notes that tides weren't abnormally high, and had reached greater heights at some point in every month of 2017 so far.
Plus, the failure didn't even happen during the eclipse. It happened two days earlier, when the moon would have been 20-30 degrees away from the sun's position. That combination happens quite frequently.
The article notes that tides weren't abnormally high, and had reached greater heights at some point in every month of 2017 so far.
plus - even if the tide would be significantly higher during an eclipse - this is something that has to be planned nonetheless ... it's not the first eclipse and its effect as well as its timing can very well be calculated.
Well, it being a total (non-annular) eclipse does mean the moon is relatively close.
Right, but lunar perigee will approximately line up with the sun about twice a year, so that's not unusual either.
Related: Public urged to remain vigilant after Pacific salmon found in Irish rivers (August 14 2017)
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/public-ur...
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/public-ur...
Question is, why are they farming atlantic salmon on the pacific coast?
Atlantic salmon are larger than native species on the coast, so more business value. They also grow faster than than native salmon.
> Atlantic salmon are larger than native species on the coast, so more business value. They also grow faster than than native salmon.
You've missed the point. Of course they do it because it makes business sense. That's the whole point of a business.
What remains a mystery is why on earth would they be farming an invasive specie right in the ecosystem they are a threat.
You've missed the point. Of course they do it because it makes business sense. That's the whole point of a business.
What remains a mystery is why on earth would they be farming an invasive specie right in the ecosystem they are a threat.
My guess would be the abundance of nice sheltered inlets for net pens.
My sister is a marine biologist for a fish farming company (not the one involved in the article). My understanding from past discussions with her is that there have been attempts to farm some of the species of pacific salmon, but they have not yet figured out how to get good yields.
My sister is a marine biologist for a fish farming company (not the one involved in the article). My understanding from past discussions with her is that there have been attempts to farm some of the species of pacific salmon, but they have not yet figured out how to get good yields.
why are there nuclear plants right next to where people live?
You're answering your own question : they do it because it makes business sense and they probably won't be the one to pay for the damages (not personally at least)
> they do it because it makes business sense
That's far from being the point, and it doesn't answer anything at all.
I mean, I assume this "environmental nightmare" happened on a fish farming business located in Washington. After a brief googling, it appears that Aquaculture companies in Washington are required to apply for a commercial license.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/commercial/misc_additional_perm...
Why on earth would a commercial license be granted to a business that involves introducing invasive species on a protected ecosystem?
That's far from being the point, and it doesn't answer anything at all.
I mean, I assume this "environmental nightmare" happened on a fish farming business located in Washington. After a brief googling, it appears that Aquaculture companies in Washington are required to apply for a commercial license.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/commercial/misc_additional_perm...
Why on earth would a commercial license be granted to a business that involves introducing invasive species on a protected ecosystem?
Primary industries have a lot more political clout than environmental protection. Primary industries generate tax dollars for the government; conservation consumes it.
Well, you said it yourself, business.
I think parent is asking why on the _coast_
same thing as why most stuff is made in $cheapcountry
My understanding is that Atlantic salmon has a milder flavour and is more popular.
If $FISH is easier to farm or tastier or more valuable than $FISH2 and there are enough consumers in $CITY, I'd bet there will be a $FISH farm close enough to $CITY.
The worst thing about this is that this company will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And their larger fish farm that they want will of course get approved, even though they can't handle a smaller one. It's incredibly offensive how little government officials actually care about the environment.
I'm not being flippant; I'm genuinely curious.
What's your ideal punishment? Death? Life imprisonment? Complete liquidation of the company? Fines or wage/income garnishment for executives and mangers and board members?
Shouldn't at least some government officials also be punished? I'm miffed that they're not routinely punished for similar (or worse) lapses.
And what exactly is it for which you wish they'd be punished? Potentially introducing an invasive species into the habitat of a protected species? Or failing to do more to prevent the actual introduction?
What's your ideal punishment? Death? Life imprisonment? Complete liquidation of the company? Fines or wage/income garnishment for executives and mangers and board members?
Shouldn't at least some government officials also be punished? I'm miffed that they're not routinely punished for similar (or worse) lapses.
And what exactly is it for which you wish they'd be punished? Potentially introducing an invasive species into the habitat of a protected species? Or failing to do more to prevent the actual introduction?
Companies that engage in environmentally-risky practices should be fined so heavily that they shouldn't attempt environmentally risky things unless they know they can do it properly. This creates a great advantage for well-run companies because it's basically a moat. Other companies that try it will fail dramatically because they'll get fined into oblivion.
This, to me, includes chemical factories. Whenever they have a gas leak, or an chemical spill, the fines should be utterly draconian. Personally I think a CEO of a chemical company should live no more than 1 mile away from one of her factories, but that's the environmental fascist in me.
Ineffective government officials should be fired with prejudice.
This, to me, includes chemical factories. Whenever they have a gas leak, or an chemical spill, the fines should be utterly draconian. Personally I think a CEO of a chemical company should live no more than 1 mile away from one of her factories, but that's the environmental fascist in me.
Ineffective government officials should be fired with prejudice.
Or, more likely, how powerless they are to do anything.
Talk to a local Conservation Officer. You'll likely come away with newfound respect, but also pessimism. ;-)
Talk to a local Conservation Officer. You'll likely come away with newfound respect, but also pessimism. ;-)
Wow, it's like a vastly lamer and far less exciting Jurassic Park.
life, finds a way
Or Chicken Run
Somewhere in the middle is the interesting bit (to me at least: "why is releasing fish an issue?"):
> Warren said his main concern is that Atlantic salmon could out-compete native Chinook salmon and steelhead for food and spawning grounds.
> Warren said his main concern is that Atlantic salmon could out-compete native Chinook salmon and steelhead for food and spawning grounds.
We need good science media to explain these things to the rest of us.
For instance, where I'm from, a failed float switch allowed millions of gallons of treated drinking water overflow into the local streams. The EPA pitched a fit about a hazardous chemical release. It is really difficult to support and believe in the EPA's mission without an explanation why the same water you drink and spray on your lawn suddenly becomes a hazardous chemical.
For instance, where I'm from, a failed float switch allowed millions of gallons of treated drinking water overflow into the local streams. The EPA pitched a fit about a hazardous chemical release. It is really difficult to support and believe in the EPA's mission without an explanation why the same water you drink and spray on your lawn suddenly becomes a hazardous chemical.
Reference please? My Bayesian estimate is that it is much more likely that you misunderstood badly or believed fake news than that the EPA was upset about a drinking water spill.
I can't find a reference, unfortunately. This was in the Arkansas River watershed, likely back in the 1990s, and so has likely not made it over the digital divide, yet. Consequently, we might only have my memory of the event to depend on. I will concede that it may have been local (Colorado) authorities, and not the US EPA.
But my point still stands: Drinking water is surprisingly and counterintuitively an environmental hazard. It is easy to conclude that the local environmental agency is being irrational without good science media explaining.
It is well-understood that chlorinated water causes fish kills:
But my point still stands: Drinking water is surprisingly and counterintuitively an environmental hazard. It is easy to conclude that the local environmental agency is being irrational without good science media explaining.
It is well-understood that chlorinated water causes fish kills:
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/edout/albefitfish1.html
http://www.vita-d-chlor.com/specs/awwarfdechlorguides.htm
http://www.fosc.org/AL-Chlorine.htm
http://ntv.ca/chlorinated-water-killed-hundreds-of-fish-in-waterford-river/It appears that 22 days ago user dwyerm posted about a recent flood at the West Point treatment plant in the Puget Sound area: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14914743
The article mentions "millions of gallons of raw wastewater dumped into Puget Sound in 2000, 2006 and 2009" as well as "millions of gallons of wastewater began flooding the plant" [this time, in 2017].
I could find no source indicating that the flooded water was "treated drinking water", nor that the EPA pitched a fit.
The article mentions "millions of gallons of raw wastewater dumped into Puget Sound in 2000, 2006 and 2009" as well as "millions of gallons of wastewater began flooding the plant" [this time, in 2017].
I could find no source indicating that the flooded water was "treated drinking water", nor that the EPA pitched a fit.
we should release fish small enough to fit through nets, so that they outbreed fishes we catch and the fishing industry goes bankrupt.
As bad as this is I hope some late night comedy show take it and runs with it. Lots of good xenophobia, immigration and west coast jokes could be made from this.
i wonder how this will affect the already struggling pacific northwest resident orca population.
This is appalling. As an avid fly fisherman, these farms are disgusting. You can see how sick these fish are at the local costco. They put the farm raised salmon fillets right next to the wild salmon fillets. They are pale pink compared to the vibrant rich red of the wild.
These farmed salmon exist in this huge pen of netting, where they swim in their own filth and spread disease amongst each other and any wild salmon swimming through the filth that washes out from the netted pens. It hurts and damages the wild population as they spawn and swim through this sickness and get sick.
I wish they were banned personally, but if humans are not smart enough to not buy this sick farm raised salmon then we deserve to have salmon wiped from the earth.
It's such a shame.
These farmed salmon exist in this huge pen of netting, where they swim in their own filth and spread disease amongst each other and any wild salmon swimming through the filth that washes out from the netted pens. It hurts and damages the wild population as they spawn and swim through this sickness and get sick.
I wish they were banned personally, but if humans are not smart enough to not buy this sick farm raised salmon then we deserve to have salmon wiped from the earth.
It's such a shame.
Most of this is handwaving. The color of the fish has nothing to do with it's health; it comes from certain materials in the diet. Moreover, farmed salmon has lower prevalence of parasites: https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/d755kx/almost-every-...
The farmed salmon require constant medication to combat the parasites that thrive in dense populations of confined salmon. The wild salmon, however, do not benefit from the medication, but do pick up the parasites as they swim past open-net salmon farms. This is one of the many reasons why Pacific commercial fishermen are opposed to open net salmon farming specifically, rather than just to salmon farming in general; it is not just competition, it is literally destroying a species we depend on, and the ecosystems that depend on them in turn.
Sorry about the lack of a citation, I found out about this while handling tons of infested salmon over several summers, not by reading a study. Last I heard, a study was commissioned by the DFO, but the results were kept private by the BC government; communications by government sponsored scientists were tightly regulated, beginning during premier Gordon Campbell's time in office.
Sorry about the lack of a citation, I found out about this while handling tons of infested salmon over several summers, not by reading a study. Last I heard, a study was commissioned by the DFO, but the results were kept private by the BC government; communications by government sponsored scientists were tightly regulated, beginning during premier Gordon Campbell's time in office.
According to the internet (always reliable), the natural pink color of wild salmon comes from their diets. The most natural diet for farmed salmon would make them gray, and that wouldn't have anything to do with their health, just the fact that they'd be eating different things. But people won't buy gray salmon, so farms include a pigmenting agent to give them color.
Here's the tool that's used to determine how much pigment to feed farmed salmon:
https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solu...
https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solu...
Yes, it's from the crustaceans in the natural diet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astaxanthin for background on natural and synthetic forms of the pigmentation.
I don't eat meat, but watching a documentary on sea lice in farmed salmon made me lose my appetite for everything. Getting a little queasy just thinking about it.
I don't eat meat, but watching a documentary on sea lice in farmed salmon made me lose my appetite for everything. Getting a little queasy just thinking about it.
So kind of like flamingoes, then?
How do they remove parasites from sushi and poke fish?
Sushi grade fish is frozen at a specific temperature for a specific time period to kill parasites.
In the USA. Sashimi (sushi is the rice) is never frozen in any decent restaurant in Japan, so the question remains unanswered...
If you find this is because it was farmed fish and farmer fish can't have this type of inner parasites that cause trouble. Although is true than can have more load of external parasites in skin or gills they are super-clean inside normally. Much cleaner than wild fishes.
I bet that most, if not all, decent restaurants in Japan ultra-freeze wild fishes on the other hand, even if they may not admit it.
I bet that most, if not all, decent restaurants in Japan ultra-freeze wild fishes on the other hand, even if they may not admit it.
> I bet that most, if not all, decent restaurants in Japan ultra-freeze wild fishes on the other hand, even if they may not admit it.
They (can, in some restaurants or if you ask) serve the head next to the sashimi and it is still twitching so you know it is fresh. So no, they don't.
They (can, in some restaurants or if you ask) serve the head next to the sashimi and it is still twitching so you know it is fresh. So no, they don't.
So the parasites don't exist in Japan or they don't affect people who eat them?
> The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry has issued an official warning on the rapidly growing number of Anisakis infections linked to eating raw or undercooked fish. [...] The ministry urges consumers to keep the fish frozen below minus 20 degrees for at least a day, or heat it for at least for a minute in temperatures exceeding 60 degrees, which should kill the larvae.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/05/12/national/scienc...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/05/12/national/scienc...
My understanding is that for many fish species, the fish are caught well offshore on multi-day fishing trips. They are put on ice immediately, otherwise they return to the docks with spoiled fish. Think "The Perfect Storm".
Also, there is no such thing as sushi grade.
[deleted]
> people won't buy gray salmon
Isn't that called trout?
Isn't that called trout?
>Thy are pale pink compared to the vibrant rich red of the wild.
Meat colour can be deceiving (at least for land-based mammals).
Eg - Some American supermarkets treat meat with carbon monoxide to keep it bright red for days.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-supermarket-meat-...
Edit - apparently farmed salmon are given pigments mixed with their feed to make their flesh more pink : https://qz.com/358811/heres-why-your-farmed-salmon-has-color...
Meat colour can be deceiving (at least for land-based mammals).
Eg - Some American supermarkets treat meat with carbon monoxide to keep it bright red for days.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-supermarket-meat-...
Edit - apparently farmed salmon are given pigments mixed with their feed to make their flesh more pink : https://qz.com/358811/heres-why-your-farmed-salmon-has-color...
>if humans are not smart enough to not buy this sick farm raised salmon then we deserve to have salmon wiped from the earth.
Spoken like a true capitalist.
Spoken like a true capitalist.
The free market provides. And the free market taketh away.
fish farming salmon is interesting as it turns a large quantity of less desirable wild fish into a small quantity of more desirable salmon.
i.e. if people just ate the inputs directly then there would be more food for less environmental impact.
i.e. if people just ate the inputs directly then there would be more food for less environmental impact.
This is how it works with cows too. And to a lesser extent, pigs. And to an even lesser extent, chicken.
All meat by and large has a much worse impact on the environment per-calorie than vegetarian diets.
All meat by and large has a much worse impact on the environment per-calorie than vegetarian diets.
What is this called.. trophic entropy?
The laws of physics must be obeyed.
The laws of physics must be obeyed.
Many (certainly not all) cattle are fed diets of plant material that is inedible for humans, and that was grown on land that is not suitable for other crops with minimal to no fertilizer usage and no irrigation. The cows themselves are raised on similar land.
Such cows are raised in a much more sustainable / efficient manners than others, and the important tradeoffs are independent of whether they are "organic" or not.
I've never seen product labeling that reflects this, and it makes me sad.
Such cows are raised in a much more sustainable / efficient manners than others, and the important tradeoffs are independent of whether they are "organic" or not.
I've never seen product labeling that reflects this, and it makes me sad.
From my understanding of the economics of the majority of US beef cattle, they are fed a diet composed largely of corn and soybeans, which grow on land that could otherwise produce varieties of the crop edible to humans. They are grown in CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operafion) lots and produce huge amounts of waste. This is in contrast to the more 'expensive' grass fed cattle that does indeed eat plant matter otherwise indigestible to humans. Our food system is designed to produce food in massive industrialized systems that trend heavily towards requiring massive inputs and producing massive waste outputs.
Pigs are the ultimate recyclers, and we'd really not want to eat their inputs in much of the world. Have some organic waste? Well, feed it to the pigs!
As an aside, the Coptic christians in Cairo stopped collecting trash because the government slaughtered all their pigs, leading to a huge garbage crisis in the city.
Cows and sheep graze on marginal grassland that is unsuited to agriculture. Most countries aren't like India and suited to vegetarianism. Tibet would basically not exist without meat (and Tibetan Buddhist are specifically not vegetarians accordingly). The Inuits could never make a go at it in the arctic as vegetarians.
As an aside, the Coptic christians in Cairo stopped collecting trash because the government slaughtered all their pigs, leading to a huge garbage crisis in the city.
Cows and sheep graze on marginal grassland that is unsuited to agriculture. Most countries aren't like India and suited to vegetarianism. Tibet would basically not exist without meat (and Tibetan Buddhist are specifically not vegetarians accordingly). The Inuits could never make a go at it in the arctic as vegetarians.
> Pigs are the ultimate recyclers, and we'd really not want to eat their inputs in much of the world.
Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet
Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet
NYC used to have pigs too.
https://qz.com/1025640/hogs/
https://qz.com/1025640/hogs/
Cows have a rumen. You can feed them a diet that is almost entirely sawdust and they will do just fine.
Or newspaper waste: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/Raw-Materials/Articles/2017/3/Fe...
I don't know many humans who eat grass!
Or you know, we could just catch and eat all the wild salmon instead.
Farming is not the problem. Unsustainable farming is the problem. We can raise and kill and eat animals humanely (oh irony), just as we can grow food sustainably. The problem is that knowledge is not evenly distributed...
Farming is not the problem. Unsustainable farming is the problem. We can raise and kill and eat animals humanely (oh irony), just as we can grow food sustainably. The problem is that knowledge is not evenly distributed...
The planet can only support so much inefficiency. Humans are eating too much meat for our population. No animal farming is sustainable at this rate.
If people filled up on more plant-based foods and had a little meat for flavor we would have much less of these kinds of problems.
If people filled up on more plant-based foods and had a little meat for flavor we would have much less of these kinds of problems.
There is a fair chance that 'vibrant rich red' of that wild Salmon is actually the vibrant rich red of farmed Salmon fed food with carotens.
I've never seen actual wild Salmon whose flesh you could describe as 'vibrant rich red', it would be more of a hue somewhere between orange and pink. But I have seen farmed Salmon with that over-bright and saturated color.
I've never seen actual wild Salmon whose flesh you could describe as 'vibrant rich red', it would be more of a hue somewhere between orange and pink. But I have seen farmed Salmon with that over-bright and saturated color.
[deleted]
I have never seen farmed salmon with any vibrant reddish color.
They always look pale pink.
>these farms are disgusting
Commercial fishing has absolutely devastated our oceans. Farmed fish have long been proposed as the "sustainable" solution.
If commercial, open water fishing or fish farming isn't the solution to provide sustainable food, then what is?
Commercial fishing has absolutely devastated our oceans. Farmed fish have long been proposed as the "sustainable" solution.
If commercial, open water fishing or fish farming isn't the solution to provide sustainable food, then what is?
The local Coast Salish natives have been successfully farming oysters and other shellfish in the tidal zone for thousands of years. This actually improves the nearby environment by filtering the water, and sequesters carbon in the CaCO3 seashells. We could probably scale this up safely, if the DFO is still capable of regulating anything effectively.
We need to repair the DFO, the gutting of regulatory agencies is a root cause for many of these problems.
We need to repair the DFO, the gutting of regulatory agencies is a root cause for many of these problems.
Sardines and other smaller fish are generally far more sustainable than the types of predator fish that humans have been pushed to prefer. There are also sustainable rates of fishing but our current economy doesn't work to incentivize this aside from the labels and NGOs approvals that go on certain seafood products.
Sustainable commercial open water fishing is completely acceptable to everyone, surely?
I honestly think that the Joe Blog's of the world have no idea how detrimental fish farming like this is to the environment, people in my family see it as a nice alternative to eating mammals. It's sad things like this have to happen to bring it to public attention.
I hope in the future they teach children to find out where there food comes from and what impact it has on their environment before purchasing it. This stuff isn't cool.