How much of this was farmed seafood? I have a friend right now who is planning on opening fish farms because he feels it will have less of an environmental impact.

Looks like farmed fish is 50%.

However, they feed farmed fish wild fish apparently. Takes 5 lbs. of wild fish to grow 1 lb. of farmed fish.

Hmmm... doesn't sound sustainable.

https://www.livescience.com/5682-milestone-50-percent-fish-f...

I don't get why black soldier fly larvae isn't more common and popular as animal feed. BSF larvae have numerous advantages, including eating their weight in organic matter very quickly, and being a good mix of fat and protein for growing out farmed animals.

The adult flies also have no mouth parts, and do not hang around people or spread diseases as a result.

Your link refers specifically to salmon for the 5:1 ratio.

Overall the article says it takes 20 million tons of wild fish to feed 51.7 million tons of farmed fish. Which is still a significant amount.

Thank you for clarifying. Appreciated.

I mean... I have to eat. Is seafood any worse than land animal production?

I think you're asking the wrong question. Both have heavy environmental impacts.

To me the big difference is that seafood affects a natural ecosystem and species vs. farmed land animals.

Yes. A lot. Especially ghost nets and other issues. Land animal production has issues with cruelty and pollution but it’s nowhere near as bad as seafood.

Get ready to be told to simply go vegan.

I mean... The comment is suggesting a false dichotomy (possibly without meaning it) that options are either seafood or land animal production. I'm not vegan, not even vegeterian, but the only answer I can give in good faith is that "I have to eat" is not a good argument, there's alternatives better for the environment than seafood _or_ land animal production.

No vegan even commented, I find vegan-bashing so much worse than vegan-evangelism. I'm seriously getting vegan fatigue fatigue.

What's your answer to making a difference?

If (1) our current system is unsustainable, and (2) we can't make a difference, then we are, by the most basic rules of logic, (3) headed for a collapse of our current system.

It's a bit strange how often people will aggressively make either point 1 or 2, and then concede that the other is also true, but then decry the 3rd, which follows from 1 and 2, to be ridiculous pessimism.

I believe #1 is accurate. I don't believe #2 is accurate.

Companies provide what people demand. If our demands change, then they will change. It's the only way.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

This is the way.

At some point everyone will be vegan ascetics forever apparently. Including all of our descendants, who will recognize and appreciate how enlightened we are. Curiosity and discussion about other solutions cannot be tolerated lest it jeopardize the coming worldwide ascetic veganism forever awakening.

Not sure what your point was.

Facts seem valuable when making individual decisions that affect the planet, especially when we wring our hands and wonder when someone else will do something to solve our environmental problems.

Some of the answers are right there in front of you every day.