Use fish meal to produce fish instead of fowl (and pigs)
Opinion
You wouldn’t find any background information about today’s first speaker in the program of the 9th Seafood Summit in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. While other presenters had at the least a summary description of their presentation and where they worked or where they came from, the plenary session afforded to Dr. Ray Hilborn of the (US) University of Washington was described as a “video presentation”. And knowing the background of the main organizers, this is perhaps not surprising.
A message from the likes of Dr. Hilborn suggesting that “Replacing global fish supply would cost 22 times the world’s rainforests” is obviously not going to be appreciated by organizations trying to curtail fishing or fish farming. And the professor’s suggestion that fish meal- produced from fish that humans don’t want to eat- is better used to feed fish than to feed terrestrial animals is also frowned upon by many environmental groups. It remains to be seen what coverage of his presentation to the Vancouver Seafood Summit will be included in the conference proceedings, but following a presentation last year by professor Hilborn, the Seafood Industry Council issued the following press release;
If we replaced the protein we got from fish with land based agriculture, we’d need extra grazing land equal to the entire world’s rainforest 22 times over, says eminent fisheries scientist Professor Ray Hilborn. Professor Hilborn, from Washington University, USA, has evaluated published research into the effects on the environment of protein production (including farming animals on land and catching wild fish). He found that on average, commercial fishing had a lesser impact on the environment than land-based animal farming.
Seafood industries are held to “higher environmental standards generally” when compared with other food producers, he says. Protein production is always going to have some effect on the environment. But it is important that we are aware of the trade off required to feed the world. It wouldn’t be smart to suggest we stop producing any single category of food, especially without thinking about how and with what we’re going to replace it. “Commercial fishing in particular is held to higher environmental standards. If green groups were consistent and applied those same standards to other forms of food production we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
Professor Hilborn examined existing published and peer reviewed research from a wide range of scientific sources into the environmental effects of food production. “When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that fishing has a relatively small environmental impact. In terms of water use, water pollution, pesticides, fertiliser, antibiotics and soil erosion, fishing barely figures. Then when you compare energy use and CO2 footprint, fishing in general comes out on top again.”
Fishing also compared favourably in terms of biodiversity, Professor Hilborn said. “This is interesting because biodiversity is an area where fishing has been strongly criticised.” He said the other scientists’ work shows that fishing typically reduces measured biodiversity by 30 per cent and reduces abundance of fish by one half to three quarters. “Land based agriculture has a far greater effect on biodiversity. For every acre that’s ploughed you lose 100 per cent of the biodiversity.”
In fairness to SeaWeb, one must appreciate the allocation by the organizers of the Seafood Summit of space given to Dr. Hilborn in an otherwise crowded agenda.
