How Sustainable is Antarctic Krill as a Raw Ingredient?
- Thread starter RD.
- Start date
Hello; I recorded recently a program on a National Geographic channel titled OCEAN WITH DAVID ATTENBORO. Watched it last night. Had segments about industrial fishing with one about krill. Big emphasis on trawlers with some intended to shock video of how the trawlers actually operate. The one showing a large heavy chain being dragged along the ocean floor wrecking everything made the point clearly. Then the fact that as much as 75% of trawlers catch can be thrown overboard adds to the point.
Other than some species of whale, penguin and birds likely will go extinct, I figure the krill themselves will come back. At some point the cost to reward ratio will become too low for running a big trawler to pat its way. I do not think they can catch all the krill. Once the trawlers are parked the krill can come back. Likely too late for the whales & penguins. Attenborough threw a jab at pet owners saying much of the krill harvest goes into pet food.
So, I can avoid krill laced fish food and will try. Depends on if the label lists the protein source. But a question arises. I already have the answer when the question is raised about dogs. But how many on here will give up the hobby to save whales, penguins, seabirds? Let's not limit the question to krill fish foods. Let's say some clever environmentalist finds a way to associate the pet fish hobby to the extinction of some wild population.
Other than some species of whale, penguin and birds likely will go extinct, I figure the krill themselves will come back. At some point the cost to reward ratio will become too low for running a big trawler to pat its way. I do not think they can catch all the krill. Once the trawlers are parked the krill can come back. Likely too late for the whales & penguins. Attenborough threw a jab at pet owners saying much of the krill harvest goes into pet food.
So, I can avoid krill laced fish food and will try. Depends on if the label lists the protein source. But a question arises. I already have the answer when the question is raised about dogs. But how many on here will give up the hobby to save whales, penguins, seabirds? Let's not limit the question to krill fish foods. Let's say some clever environmentalist finds a way to associate the pet fish hobby to the extinction of some wild population.
Money always trumps everything. If some "clever environmentalist" spins the data and makes the point that fish food will cause the extinction of some obscure slimy sea creature...or, worse yet, some cute and cuddly poster-child sea creature...then an equally-clever capitalist will explain how it's not true. Both parties will present actual facts...neither will out-and-out lie...but the facts will be manipulated and curated and polished so that, at the end of the day, the side that has more and better financial backing will come out on top.
I'm not defending either side; both factions are expert at this type of wordsmithing, and both are equally committed to winning the day. Lots of folks will be swayed by the heart-wrenching plight of the Purple Gazorkfish, the nests of which are destroyed by the fishing nets, driving it to the brink of extinction and beyond. But when those people are standing in the supermarket and looking at two cans of tuna, and one costs twice as much because the label smugly informs the consumer that all the fish in the can were convinced to jump into the boat of their own free will, with no damage to the environment...how many of those shoppers will pay the price...especially in today's economy, where everything is priced through the roof already?
I love the wording of the comment that "up to" 75% of the catch "can" be thrown back. What does that mean? That the absolute worst case, rare as that might be, results in a catch that is 75% thrown back. How often does that happen? 90% of the time? 50% of the time? 0.05% of the time?
The weepers and wailers don't say that, on average, 25% of the catch is wasted, for example. Why is that? Why don't they reveal an average, an actual hard number, which would be much more meaningful, rather than shrilling about "as much as"? Maybe they don't have enough data to say that...in which case I would suggest that they need to get that data if they are to be believed. Or is it simply because picking the worst-case scenario and then presenting it as though it were common...instead of being an extreme example...is a deliberately disingenuous marketing technique?
Next time you see a store proclaiming that everything is on sale at "up to 90% off!"...go into the place and ask to see the stuff that's been reduced by 90%. There won't be very much; just one or two items, likely quickly sold out, that allow them to legally use that descriptive phrase. It's technically true...but it doesn't accurately portray the sale at all.
Again, I'm not defending or condemning either side. Sir Attenborough is an idol of mine; I was an avid reader of his Zoo Quest books since I was a pre-teen. But he is marketing an idea, and the capitalists are marketing the other side of that same coin.
I'm not defending either side; both factions are expert at this type of wordsmithing, and both are equally committed to winning the day. Lots of folks will be swayed by the heart-wrenching plight of the Purple Gazorkfish, the nests of which are destroyed by the fishing nets, driving it to the brink of extinction and beyond. But when those people are standing in the supermarket and looking at two cans of tuna, and one costs twice as much because the label smugly informs the consumer that all the fish in the can were convinced to jump into the boat of their own free will, with no damage to the environment...how many of those shoppers will pay the price...especially in today's economy, where everything is priced through the roof already?
I love the wording of the comment that "up to" 75% of the catch "can" be thrown back. What does that mean? That the absolute worst case, rare as that might be, results in a catch that is 75% thrown back. How often does that happen? 90% of the time? 50% of the time? 0.05% of the time?
The weepers and wailers don't say that, on average, 25% of the catch is wasted, for example. Why is that? Why don't they reveal an average, an actual hard number, which would be much more meaningful, rather than shrilling about "as much as"? Maybe they don't have enough data to say that...in which case I would suggest that they need to get that data if they are to be believed. Or is it simply because picking the worst-case scenario and then presenting it as though it were common...instead of being an extreme example...is a deliberately disingenuous marketing technique?
Next time you see a store proclaiming that everything is on sale at "up to 90% off!"...go into the place and ask to see the stuff that's been reduced by 90%. There won't be very much; just one or two items, likely quickly sold out, that allow them to legally use that descriptive phrase. It's technically true...but it doesn't accurately portray the sale at all.
Again, I'm not defending or condemning either side. Sir Attenborough is an idol of mine; I was an avid reader of his Zoo Quest books since I was a pre-teen. But he is marketing an idea, and the capitalists are marketing the other side of that same coin.
Hello; interesting that the percent of a catch became the point of focus. I suggest watching the video or find a similar video of such a drag chain or bar in action. That was, to me, the thing to focus on. Bad as the waste of life may be when part of the "catch" is tossed away, it is the near total destruction of everything on the bottom which is the real issue of concern.
I get the before & after images of the bottom are selected to have a desired impact. But the impact is none the less real. A heavy chain or steel bar is dragged along the bottom plowing thru everything. Corals and all are ripped up and back into the net. Attenborough focused on that a particular mollusk might be the target catch but everything winds up in the net. The fishermen pull the target prey and discard the rest.
Let's pretend some unwanted & discarded animals actually survive after being dumped back into the ocean. Their habitat is destroyed. Think of clear-cutting forests. Slash and burn in the Amazon basin.
I worked the log woods briefly. The crew did selective cutting, so most trees were left standing. The worst of the environmental damage was cutting log roads to get the equipment in. The operators did work the cuts with a small dozer so as to slow runoff.
I grew up in southeast KY in the 1950's. Got to see the unrestricted way the strip mines left scars on the sides of the ridges. The way the runoff carried mud and stone into the creeks. The high Sulphur coal beds leaked into the water. Eventually restrictions went into effect about the way such was done. A bit too late. Some operators took their money and went to live in fine homes in Powell Valley TN or Knoxville TN long before the law caught up with them. The mines were left "orphaned" and it was the taxpayer who picked up the tabs for cleanup.
I read Silent Spring in high school or soon after in the 1960's. My hometown, Middlesborough KY, has turned out to be a meteor crater. I could look at the ridges circling the town back then and see the strip-mine scars. Decided to major in Biology and along the way took ecology classes. Did not take too long to figure a potential future. You recently point out my decision to be childless as a commitment to the environment. Then chided me for not doing my filter floss the way you do. I am filling up landfills with the few ounces of floss I toss each year.
My question a few posts ago was will any of us give up the hobby if harvesting krill is become closely tied to the hobby. I am going to, perhaps falsely, assume you are a no. I am a maybe to even likely if no sustainable option can be found to feed my fish.
Nice sentiments, but get real. If every hobbyist in the world decided to call it a day do you think the krill industry would suffer? There will be no change whatsoever.
If you look down a list, and it's long, of products that krill goes into, yes, aquarium fish food is on that list, but % wise it will be absolutely no where near the levels going into animal foods and health product foods, amongst others.
For a real impact everyone on the planet would have to stop eating sea food of any type, get rid of all their pets, and stop eating meat, and taking health care supplements, and maybe stop doing a bunch of other stuff too!
That might cause a bit of a downward spike in krill production.
