Reversal of Fish Stock Decline in the Northeast Atlantic Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.016 Highlights: • Fishing pressure on northern European fish stocks has reduced continuously since the turn of the century • In 2011, for the first time, the majority of assessed stocks were fished sustainably • Declines in pressure were associated with the effort controls of the 2002 reforms • Challenges remain for the recovery of many cod stocks, especially the need to prevent discarding +++ The idea here is that reduced commercial fishing intensity can achieve the desired goals, the recovery of a profitable industry sector. This in spite of (typical) naysayers, who live on the perimeter of many areas involving ecological decisions. In general recovery does happen, whether reduced fish take or logging, or waiting enough millions of years after a marine methane exhalation or a comet strike. Does not always happen, dinosaurs did not, and Atlantic cod has not (yet). It is good news, we can actually live sustainably. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it (to paraphrase a famous quote). There is a lesson here. But I have to 'go to the library' to get the paper. Current Biology does not willingly hard out the goodies. Imagine, they want to be paid (by me) for their publishing work. Dream on Elsevier!
I don't know enough about them to comment. There is a fish farm where I live that supplies local restaurants. Carlsbad Aquafarm - Farm raised Seafood
Farm raised Salmon is very much an environmental disaster. In addition to the possibility (probability) of farm bred fish escaping and damaging the wild gene pool, or the concentrated fish waste issue, the biggest issue is the disruption of indigenous fisheries (particularly in S. America) to provide feed for Salmon farms. Food fish are over harvested, ground to meal and shipped to fish farms. Like Hyo says, do some research, Icarus
Sustainability Lessons From China: Low Footprint Fish Farms – News Watch The West coast north american model for fish farms isn't sustainable. The old Chinese model seems to be, but it likely is not as profitable.
Profitable is quite simple - makes a profit above a hurdle rate. Sales - costs is high enough to be better than just selling the land. Whether it is a good business to many of us means more than profit, but They seem to bring in workers from poorer villages to work the fish farms to keep labor costs down enough to make a profit in China. I fear to speculate how much they are paid a day, but it can't be very much. In the US and Canada, with its higher cost of living, I doubt fish farms like this can pay a living wage and still produce a profit. Fish farms compete with other food in our society. First they compete with wild fishing. Wild fishing in the OP had turned into over fishing, which is not sustainable but is profitable for those taking too many fish. Next up are commercial fish farms, that are often unsustainable. These compete with corporate meat farms that are also unsustainable. You could increase regulations high enough that these activities are only done in other countries. You could subsidize them. You could give guest migrant worker visas to have foreign workers work these bellow a living wage. Its not an easy question. In my mind a small subsidy for sustainability might help, based on a tax on the unsustainable pollution on factory farms. Given the US mess of a farm bill that is working its way through the congress, no curbs on even agricultural pollution, big give money to privileged factory farm interests I don't have much hope of the government helping sustainability. At least the agricultural policies are not as bad as the ones that caused the dust bowl. Fishing restrictions on wild stocks are a good first step.
Just like energy, how do you calculate externalities? Because you can make a "profit" on a N. American salmon farm does that take into the account the environmental costs, both locally and globally? (didn't think so!) Icarus
Obviously if these farms are not charged environmental costs, then they won't pay them. If you read my reply, I noted that as one item of the problem with the farm bill. Fisth farming environmental costs are pretty small compared to the environmental cost of meat factory farming, but the farm lobby has been able to keep this out of any regulation, they even removed reporting it as part of the failed cap and tax plan. NRDC: Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms What you can do is not buy from these factory farms. This normally means a reduction of meat consumption or spending a great deal more money on food. I'm doing a mix of the two. Buying a huge amount of wild caught fish versus farmed fish isn't a good solution. Over fishing has been a bigger environmental problem than fish farm pollution. Greater fishing restrictions help. I do eat a small amount of wild caught fish, but its not a huge amount. I eat no factory farmed meat unless I am on a business trip in a rural part of the country and the restaurant choices leave that as the only option versus insulting my customers.
Interesting article on Blue Fin Tuna Fish Farms off Baja Ca. Bluefin tuna farming presents daunting challenge - Los Angeles Times The fish are caught, put in pens and when mature brought to market. However they are not allowed to be released to migrate and breed. Blue Fin Tuna Pacific is down 70% from 1970 levels. 90 % of Blue Fin are consumed in Japan with the USA market growing. The Atlantic Blue Fin a close relative is not as popular. Much of the capturing of the fish are done when they are breeding thus it depletes the stock at the source. Fish farms, or fish ranches as they are sometimes called, for bluefin tuna are places where fish corralled in the open sea are brought and kept in giant underwater cages and fattened up with sardines and tuna for between a few months to a year, and then are shot and butchered. About 20 percent of the bluefin tuna consumed in Japan is farmed from wild fish. About 400,000 bluefin tuna are being raised on farms as of 2010. The technique, which is really more like rustling than ranching, has revolutionized the bluefin industry. Fishermen scoop up schools of spawning tuna and transfer them to 50-meter-wide cages and return to the spawning area catching all the fish they can. The practice is though to be particularly damaging to fish stocks because it captures large number of fish at place they come to spawn. Not only are large numbers of fish caught they are also deprived of producing offspring. BLUEFIN TUNA FISH FARMING - World Topics | Facts and Details Cod in the Atlantic new England area and Canada collapsed from overfishing. A stop in fishing is growing the population but not to previous levels. It may take awhile. Cod Shortage Roils New England - WSJ.com
With in increase in Iodine129 (ah la Fukashima) arriving on the U.S. western shores, I'm thinking wild fish supplies will likely be on the rise .
Man just when I was getting the flavor for that coal pollution mercury in my fish, I have to change my tastes to radioactive Iodine.
Any of youse guys with a few hundred$ you don't need can get your own 'ionizing radiation' meter and check the fish or other food. Search AWARE and radiation meter and you'll find it. I receive no compensation for commercial announcements. Analyzing mercury in food is more complicated but many universities have atomic absorption with graphite furnace and that's the ticket. Go make friendly with some chemist. Just a thought. I could get rice analyzed here for arsenic and cadmium (it's been in the news) but ... maybe I just don't want to know. Compared to the average local my rice consumption is very low. Except to the extent that rice is used as carbohydrate in beer manufacture. Hmmm... that may be worth checking.
There is another option. Eat lots of seafood and test yourself. This is exactly what I did. With a substantial change in diet to seafood many years ago, the wise one of the castle wondered if mercury ingestion should be a worry. How does one know? So I when I was at the Doctor for next routine visit, I asked if I could be tested. She never had that test requested before and really liked the question. Found out that the standard test is a "heavy metals test". It's pretty simple. Pee in a big jug for 24 hours and send it off the lab. It only cost me about $100 if I remember. The net result was surprising. Hg was undetectable, but Arsenic was at the high end of the band. Might be time for a second test. Obviously Mercury is not what I'm curious about.
