Thanks for bringing that post into the conversation! We really appreciate the cautious approach it advocates and agree that there’s a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to understanding the full welfare implications of wild-caught fish.
That said, we think the situation with sardines and anchovies might be somewhat different from many other species. These small pelagic fish are already being caught at or near maximum catch levels, primarily to produce feed for farmed salmon. So increasing human consumption wouldn’t lead to more fishing, but rather to a diversion of existing catch from salmon feed to direct human food. This shift could reduce the scale of salmon farming, thereby lowering both the direct suffering of farmed fish and the wider ecological harms associated with aquaculture.
Because these small pelagic fish are already being caught (unlike species like tuna, which are mostly caught for direct human consumption) the food web effects of this shift may be more or less neutral. And while anchovies do eat krill, which might be sentient, this concern may be outweighed by the positive ripple effects of reducing salmon farming.
On the human side, sardines and anchovies may help some people stick to a veganish diet by improving nutrient intake and reducing reliance on supplements or costly alternative proteins, which could further reduce harm overall.
If we’re talking about an increasing demand shift for sardines and anchovies from people who would otherwise abstain from eating fish, this would increase the price of fishmeal and make farmed insects look relatively more attractive as a potential feed for farmed fish, especially salmon. So, this could increase insect farming, too.
On the other hand, shifting people from eating farmed fish to eating sardines and anchovies could reduce both fish farming and insect farming (as well as crop agriculture for feed, but I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Michael! I believe the key reason wild fish ingredients in aquaculture have yet to be eliminated is due to EPA/DHA (omega 3s) which as far as I know are only derived from algae or the marine creatures which consume it. Thus, insect meal might be able to replace some of the fish meal, but certainly not the fish oil. Currently, both insect meal and, especially, algae oil seem to be expensive, so even if producers were to switch to these ingredients, salmon prices would rise, likely decreasing demand. But I agree that if insect and algae farming become more efficient this could be a concern in the future.
Also, thanks for sharing the information on krill, I’ve updated my thoughts thanks to you :)
Thanks for bringing that post into the conversation! We really appreciate the cautious approach it advocates and agree that there’s a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to understanding the full welfare implications of wild-caught fish.
That said, we think the situation with sardines and anchovies might be somewhat different from many other species. These small pelagic fish are already being caught at or near maximum catch levels, primarily to produce feed for farmed salmon. So increasing human consumption wouldn’t lead to more fishing, but rather to a diversion of existing catch from salmon feed to direct human food. This shift could reduce the scale of salmon farming, thereby lowering both the direct suffering of farmed fish and the wider ecological harms associated with aquaculture.
Because these small pelagic fish are already being caught (unlike species like tuna, which are mostly caught for direct human consumption) the food web effects of this shift may be more or less neutral. And while anchovies do eat krill, which might be sentient, this concern may be outweighed by the positive ripple effects of reducing salmon farming.
On the human side, sardines and anchovies may help some people stick to a veganish diet by improving nutrient intake and reducing reliance on supplements or costly alternative proteins, which could further reduce harm overall.
If we’re talking about an increasing demand shift for sardines and anchovies from people who would otherwise abstain from eating fish, this would increase the price of fishmeal and make farmed insects look relatively more attractive as a potential feed for farmed fish, especially salmon. So, this could increase insect farming, too.
On the other hand, shifting people from eating farmed fish to eating sardines and anchovies could reduce both fish farming and insect farming (as well as crop agriculture for feed, but I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Michael! I believe the key reason wild fish ingredients in aquaculture have yet to be eliminated is due to EPA/DHA (omega 3s) which as far as I know are only derived from algae or the marine creatures which consume it. Thus, insect meal might be able to replace some of the fish meal, but certainly not the fish oil. Currently, both insect meal and, especially, algae oil seem to be expensive, so even if producers were to switch to these ingredients, salmon prices would rise, likely decreasing demand. But I agree that if insect and algae farming become more efficient this could be a concern in the future.
Also, thanks for sharing the information on krill, I’ve updated my thoughts thanks to you :)