Top
Best
New

Posted by dnetesn 2 days ago

The problem with farmed seafood(nautil.us)
154 points | 134 commentspage 2
righthand 2 days ago|
> My other advice is a one-size-fits-all food equation, which is, simply, to know where it came from. If you can't place it, trace it, or grow it/raise it/catch it yourself, don't eat it. Eat aware. Know your food. Don't wait on waiters or institutions to come up with ways to publicize it, meet your small fishmonger and chat him or her up at the farmer's market yourself.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-pescatores-dilemma_b_2463...

leobg 2 days ago|
Makes a lot of sense.

I always find it super weird that people will eat soy bean products over, say, meat or cream when they’ve never seen a soy bean plant in their whole lives.

cestith 2 days ago||
The article reads as if nobody has considered farming anchovies, sardines, anchovetta, and other feed fish. We farm land crops for land herbivores. It seems we could feed some sea herbivores and omnivores with plants, and feed some of those to sea carnivores and omnivores.
cryoshon 2 days ago||
For me, the considerable environmental issues aside, the problem with farmed fish is that it simply doesn't taste nearly as good as the wild-caught versions.

Take salmon for instance. In a lifetime of preparing and then eating several portions of salmon per week, I've noticed that the farmed salmon are pretty much always:

-Very pale pink color, as though the animal was unhealthy (sometimes stores even add red food dye to cover this up)

-Weak and mushy flesh, even when fresh; healthy salmon flesh is muscled and springy, it isn't naturally slimy and it holds its shape

-Weak flavor that seems to be missing a lot of the more robust flavor notes entirely

-Thinner or nearly-nonexistent layer of fat between the flesh and the scales (contributes to less flavor overall and removes a lot of the umami); the same problem also applies to the thin bands of fat between the rows of muscle in the filet itself

-Skin/scales slightly disintegrate or fleck away at a touch instead of remaining intact

I don't even bother buying it even if it's significantly cheaper.

I can't imagine that the nutrient content is the same as the wild-caught fish. And based on the sickly look and taste of the meat, it's also very hard to believe that the farmed fish live a life that they find to be pleasant, to the extent such a thing is possible.

orev 2 days ago||
Wild-caught salmon is pink because of the krill they eat, so in a way it’s also a dye. Farmed salmon definitely has coloring added to get this effect, but otherwise the flesh itself isn’t naturally pink.
maxerickson 2 days ago||
The color in the farmed Salmon is the same compounds as the wild:

https://www.dal.ca/news/2023/03/21/farmed-salmon-colour-heal...

The amounts differ, and the farm feed may be synthetic.

kccqzy 2 days ago|||
I eat plenty of farmed salmon (Atlantic salmon) because they are the default in grocery stores here and the few times I went out of my way to buy wild caught salmon I find that they are way worse. The first time I bought sockeye salmon not king salmon which was not fatty at all. The second time I bought king salmon shipped straight from Alaska and the flavor still disappointed. It's everything you say about farmed salmon: weak flesh, weak flavor, pale pink color. I'm starting to think I was scammed.
srid 2 days ago|||
> the problem with farmed fish is that it simply doesn't taste nearly as good as the wild-caught versions.

I eat wild-caught salmon every day (as part of https://srid.ca/carnivore-diet) and can totally confirm this. Farmed salmon's taste is very off-putting. I noticed this only after switching to wild salmon for a few weeks.

Aunche 2 days ago|||
Arctic char and trout tend to taste more like their wild counterparts than salmon since they're raised on smaller, less industrialized farms. Many restaurants actually prefer Ora King salmon over regular king salmon due to the consistency.
maxglute 2 days ago||
A nice steamed white fish is pretty indistinguishable for me. But again I'm not a fresh fish enthusiast, and ultimately aquaculture makes adequate inputs for fish products like fish balls or fish pattys.
xhkkffbf 2 days ago||
Has anyone had much luck raising crickets or other insects for feed? Fish like trout feast on them.
anon84873628 2 days ago|
The article mentions black soldier fly larva which is good for fish like trout that naturally eat insects. However fish higher on the chain need to eat bait fish, and replacing those is more difficult.
goda90 2 days ago|||
Black soldier fly larva seems pretty simple to farm using organic waste too. Lots of backyard chicken keepers make simple grow boxes for them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzedftrQJw
aeternum 2 days ago|||
Why can't the bait fish eat the fly larva?
Faelon 2 days ago||
The easiest solution: Don't eat fish. Or our oceans may never recover.
ActivePattern 2 days ago|
On the contrary, farmed fish is among the most sustainable protein sources for those not willing to go full vegetarian [1]

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore

goda90 2 days ago|||
Greenhouse gas emissions shouldn't be the only factor people consider for sustainability of their food. In the case of fish, this very article talks about the issues with farmed fish. Even a plant-based diet can be filled with unsustainable sources, such as plantations that destroy endangered habitats for palm oil, or industrial farming operations that spray lots of pesticides to harm the insect population and allow lots of fertilizer runoff into natural waterways. We're still polluting and depleting resources for many many vegetarian foods in the world.

I'd argue that if we're looking for a full top-to-bottom sustainable food system, animals will play a role. But we need to be cognizant of the whole system, not playing whack-a-mole with issues.

yesfitz 2 days ago||||
"...among the most..."

According to your source, there are 15 sources of protein that emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs) per 100g of protein than farmed fish, including poultry and eggs, and 16 sources that emit more (including items that are not known for their protein content like coffee, apples, and dark chocolate). Being highly charitable, farmed fish is squarely in the middle.

Additionally, farmed fish emits twice the GHGs of tofu, and almost 22 times that of nuts. So just comparing placements on the list paints a misleading picture.

As for "not willing to go full vegetarian": you may as well say "not willing to stop eating fish", because they are equally unserious limitations when discussing these topics. "Not being willing" is only a slightly more mature version of a child saying "I don't want to".

ActivePattern 2 days ago||
I don't think it's "unserious" to recognize that >85% of the world's population eats meat.

If you're quibbling about wording, all I meant was: farmed fish and chicken are among the most sustainable meat sources.

I'm not making a statement that people should eat meat, but many people do eat meat, so it's worth comparing which meat sources are better than others. I think it would be great if more people knew that beef produces 10x the greenhouse gases than chicken/fish do.

yesfitz 2 days ago||
It's not "quibbling" to correct your mischaracterization of the truth.

If you'll forgive me borrowing your logic: "I'm not saying that people should eat beef, but many people do eat beef, so it's worth comparing which beef sources are better than others."

Plant-based diets are a very good answer to the problems caused by animal agriculture. If someone takes issue with that answer, I'd need a better reason than their personal pleasure to take them seriously in the conversation.

ActivePattern 2 days ago||
I agree it’s worth comparing beef sources! That was my point about within-category differences and harm reduction. Saying "tofu is cleaner" doesn’t make beef comparisons pointless - just like the existence of bicycles doesn’t make car fuel economy comparisons pointless. We should compare across categories and within them, so people who aren’t switching today still choose the lower-impact option.
yesfitz 7 hours ago||
I hesitate to use the word "quibbling" now, but it seems like a poor use of time to compare beef when even the most environmentally-friendly beef is multiple times worse than alternatives.

I think this harm-reduction approach might make more sense from a governmental policy perspective, but is otherwise silly for us to take as individuals because we have such comparatively little influence over each other's choices. I wouldn't waste that small influence encouraging someone to make a slightly less bad choice.

The comparison of food to transportation is a bad one. Nutrients are nutrients, and everything else is personal pleasure. In other words, you can easily hit your same macros by replacing animal products with plant products without even having to change grocery stores. You cannot easily transport a mattress on a bicycle instead of a car.

kakacik 2 days ago|||
Farmed seafood is among the worst garbage you can eat. Tons of antibiotics, growth hormones, fish are fed utter cheap junk so ie salmon meat has more like pork composition than a wild salmon, shrimp are even worse. If you ever saw a shrimp 'factory' and grow pond/cage and its surroundings in a typical 3rd world country where most come from, you wouldn't eat it for a long time if ever again. Literally nothing lives around those places.

Good in theory, horrible in practice.

ActivePattern 2 days ago||
That take’s outdated. In the US/EU, routine antibiotics in fish farming are banned [1]. Growth hormones aren’t used in edible fish. Farmed salmon’s feed changed (more plant oils), but it still delivers high omega-3s and usually less mercury than wild [2].

[1] FDA “Approved Drugs for Use in Aquaculture” — https://www.fda.gov/media/80297/download

[2] Jensen et al., Nutrients 2020 — https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12123665

kakacik 1 day ago||
OK thats a good development. But overall difference in quality of meat is even visible - farmed salmon looks like a completely different fish than wild one (if you even can get one) - akin to difference between say boar and domesticated pig (lean muscle vs tons of fatty wobbly tissue). It doesn't scream 'healthy' but that may be just emotions playing old tune.

Also what I wrote about shrimp from any 3rd world country is valid - I've seen such place this summer in Indonesia, and from what I've heard whole south east Asia is exactly like that, or worse. Getting shrimp from some western democracy with strong consumer protection rights ain't possible in many parts of Europe, not sure about other places

gorfian_robot 2 days ago||
feeding chickens to fish doesn't sound sustainable ...
RegW 2 days ago|
... and just a by-product of chicken production at that. Gotta eat more chickens to save the oceans.