I understand that cows generate a lot of methane and contribute significantly to global warming. I think reptiles (and all cold blooded creatures) consume just a fraction of the calories compared to mammals. I would think that land-based fish hatcheries could generate much more protein for the caloric and monetary costs, and create much less methane as well (maybe none).
If we put the same effort into breeding “fat” fish that we did into cattle, I would think we could improve the fish in terms of profit, taste, and resistance to disease and pests.
Note that I am not trying to create a gourmet product; I want to compete with McDonalds. Let the sauce compensate for quality, but lets save money and methane.
The fresh water fish runs could exist near the crops (but away from the fertilizer) and be a part of the irrigation systems. If the farmer feeds his harvest to his own fish then a middleman is eliminated. What remains after the meat is sold becomes fertilizer for the crops. It seems light a “tight” aka profitable system.
I think salt-water hatcheries could also be run in the oceans but I have not given that as much thought.
This might be more than a “hatchery” in that we would grow these fish just like cattle or chickens.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
There are fish farms all over the place already. One of the problems is that fish generally are carnivores and other species of fish must be caught to feed the fish farms and wild fish are declining rapidly. Over 90% of large wild fish have already disappeared and the destructive methods of fishing are destroying the capacity of fish stocks to replace themselves.
What does "all over the place" mean, exactly? I'd like to see fish displace more beef, I think there is room for more. To me it seems like Beef 50%, Chicken 40%, Pork 5%, everything else 5%. Not all fish are carnivores, and for those that are -- the bugs & worms that eat trash could be plugged into the cycle of life as fish food. I am sorry about the 90% of large wild fish disappearing, but I would not catch those & feed them to my domestic fish. I don't think my idea would impact those destructive methods Sand mentioned, but I guess I did bring up fish & I guess that was close enough. Bad mood or something?
Anyway, because fish have a much faster generation turn rate as compared to cattle, I would think we could quickly breed a better domestic herbivore/omnivore fish.
Save a buck, slow down global warming, but who cares -- fish farms are already "all over the place". Thanks.
No sense in getting emotional. A quick dip into Google should clear up your lack of information in the area. For a start see http://www.nofishing.net/fishFarms.asp
Your link went to a "not found" page on a PETA site. Yes, PETA hates people eating fish. You offer Google as an explanation of "all over the place". Got it.
I say: More fish, less beef; better for the individual, better for the planet. And, eventually, much cheaper as well.
"All over the place" -- that is hard to argue with.
If you don't like my source I suggest you look around for more of your own. Here is another which shows some of the problems of fish farming. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,391523,00.html
I don't know why I have to do your research for you. Unless you are operating under some sort of prejudiced agenda. It is dangerous and not particularly bright to fall in love with an idea without investigating all the consequences.
One further comment. I am not your enemy. I wholly sympathize with your general idea of decreasing or hopefully eliminating the frightful cruelties and environmental damages by the present meat industries not to speak of its unhealthy consequences. But I merely suggest you investigate very carefully before wholly approving the current fish farming which is very large indeed and growing rapidly.The basic problem is the overpopulation of the Earth with no provision for caring for too many people for the current systems to support while preserving the wonders that have evolved through billions of years to accomplish a balanced ecology. The world is in great danger from all sorts of directions and simple solutions do not seem to be available, especially from special interests that refuse to look at long term dangers from short term gains.
Sand- It was not that I did not like your link, but it did not work for me. PETA is known for not being objective, but I could not tell if it was a PETA link or just a link they liked. Your new TIMES link worked for me, and it is interesting. Note, though, that I would not dump "liquid waste into the sea" but that I hope to recycle it as fertilizer. The article focused on Salmon, which is a gourmet dish of carnivorous fish -- not what I had in mind. A key phrase from the link ""We are not against aquaculture," says Langer, "but we are against the way it is being done now." I heartily agree, but I was not suggesting salmon. I found this to be encouraging: "Next come the vegetarian freshwater species that do not need large quantities of fish meal — carp, catfish and tilapia. "
This is from your article "Experts say aquaculture done right could easily feed the world without polluting it."
So why did you vote against my idea?
I voted against your idea because I found it not really suggestive as to how to go about improving the current efforts. Salmon is not, at the moment, a gourmet dish. Fish farmed salmon has almost totally replaced wild salmon and accidental release of cultured salmon is damaging the survivability of the wild variety. I like your suggestion of substituting insects for fish as fish farm fodder but I would like to hear more about how commercial farming of insects might be accomplished. That seems to me to have possibilities. Current wash of fertilizer into coastal waters has given rise to poisonous blooms of microscopic sea life and endangers normal ecology. That is a real problem. Fresh water is soon to become a worldwide problem. Culture of sea agriculture might help to alleviate the shortage of fresh water which is mostly used for agriculture. There are many fronts which require good thinking. I welcome your interest.
Wizard- Yours is a good idea. Catfish farms in Alabama raise a considerable amount of fish in ponds a fraction of the surface area that a cow uses. They rotate ponds to remove the fish manure, which is fertilizer for farm fields. The methane produced can not get very high or it will kill the fish.
Catfish eat a variety of foods. Most anything they can get into their mouths. Algae, small fish, dog food, corn, biscuits, ... If we could separate out our garbage from our trash, catfish would eat it all up. I wonder how a catfish on caffeine would act?
Yours is a very good idea because like McDonalds and other fast food restaurants, the fish could easily be processed and used as a high protein filler for hamburgers, fish sticks, and other products. As for making a tasty food, you do realize that many fast food restaurants use high percentages of filler and their hamburgers still taste good. So fish would seem to be a better protein alternative to kelp.
Also, as far as needs are concerned. People eat way more protein than they need to in the United States. A small piece that would fit in the palm of your hand has more protein than you need in one day. One hamburger could be stretched over 4 days to provide all the protein you need.
Catfish farms raise much more meat than a cattle farm for the same volume of food fed to the livestock.
Like shrimp? Shrimp farms produce almost as much shrimp as is harvested out of the ocean.
American salt water hatcheries provide a lot of the gourmet tuna that is so popular in Japan.
The origin of the problem to be solved is overpopulation, and many/most people are in denial about it.
Good idea. Go for it!