How Sustainable is Antarctic Krill as a Raw Ingredient?

[skjl47]

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.

Hello; back when i was a child a signal of wealth was to have a mink coat or some other such animal fur. Never had such. Got to a point where such was shamed and slowly such furs went away as popular items. The furs of animals such a leopard becoming even more out of fashion. Some took it too far and wanted to ban hides from cattle. No animal skins at all.
Part of the idea was to not be a part of the killing of a wild animal for its fur. I agree with that sort of notion. Same sort of notion behind not owning ivory or rhino horn. If I do not participate in the trade of such things my existence is clear of guilt. Such has been among the foundations of my life style. A notion that at the end of my days fewer negative actions and such things will have attached.
For some reason a silly ad came to mind. A person is covered with "to-do" lists stuck onto him in the form of sticky notes. I forget what was being sold in the ad. I will not end my days absent of such "environmental sticky notes". Some accumulate from a time before I became aware.
Some environmental sticky notes accumulate just because it is difficult to live without having an environmental impact. I was not interested in living like a monk, having just enough to stay alive. In my animal skin example, I do not include cattle leather. We use the animals for food. It would be wasteful to not use the leather. I am not a vegetarian.

My point being things i have done such as being childless have not made a difference overall about overpopulation. Others have more than made up the difference exponentially. I do not carry the __________ ( burden, shame, blame, or __________. insert you favored term) attached to my life. My legacy may be tarnished from other choices, but not that one.

So yes, I would likely quit the hobby if such would help save a whale. To be more clear I would try to avoid krill consumption even knowing my tiny action has no chance of helping a whale. I would prefer that particular sticky note not be attached to my personal legacy.

 

[jjohnwm]

My focus was not on the percentage of catch that was wasted; that was merely an obvious caution that leapt to mind when I read the comment regarding it. There are words and phrases (such as "up to" and "may") that have come to mean "Caution!" to me when I hear them being (over)used. And I freely admit that I didn't and won't watch the video. I find myself embarrassed at the amount of time I spend surfing the net while reclining in the den; the older I get the more of this I do, and I don't like it. I'm just not interested in hunting down and consuming all the inflammatory crap that's out there, posted by both sides of every debate.

I was merely pointing out that I find it increasingly difficult to trust what I see and hear and read here in the Age of Information...or is it Misinformation? Statements that have no basis in fact, and cannot be proved or disproved, but which use language that carefully skirts around dishonesty. Detailed pictures and videos of events that didn't happen and things that don't exist. Any idea and any viewpoint can be and usually is presented somewhere, by someone, as being The Way Of Truth. It's like the line from the Dire Straits song: "Two men say they're Jesus; one of 'em must be wrong!" Who to trust? More to the point...how to trust?

If I can be made to believe that this or that or the other thing can actually be the correct way to halt or at least slow down the inevitable decline in the health of the world, I like to think that I would act accordingly. I have not used any sorts of pesticides or herbicides or insecticides or any other 'cides since I moved out of my father's house...that's awhile ago. I practice reduce/re-use/recycle religiously. I am a confirmed carnivore but I do virtually nothing to support the meat industry as it exists today. These things seem obviously "correct" to me...but there is simply so much contradictory "info" out there on virtually every topic that believing any of it becomes increasingly difficult. Most people are simply so busy virtue-signalling and pushing their own personal agendas on me...or just as often, pushing the agendas that they are paid to espouse... that I tend to listen and then smile and say "MmmHmmm...yes...I see...that's nice..." and then just go with my gut.

Enough for and from me. I'm gonna make a nice smoked whale-meat sandwich on rye with organic mustard and sit down in the den to enjoy it. Maybe wash it down with a krill smoothie...

 

[RD.]

Well the good news is, there are numerous formulas of tropical pet fish food on the market, that don’t contain krill. Some don’t even contain any form of animal protein, marine or otherwise. Some even consist of nothing but lower cost, highly sustainable, cheap terrestrial based byproducts.

 

[HUKIT]

Well the good news is, there are numerous formulas of tropical pet fish food on the market, that don’t contain krill. Some don’t even contain any form of animal protein, marine or otherwise. Some even consist of nothing but lower cost, highly sustainable, cheap terrestrial based byproducts.

I didn’t start keeping fish until the early 80’s and Tetramin was the first food my parents purchased for me at the LFS. But, this picture you posted always make me chuckle.

 

[skjl47]

ords and phrases (such as "up to" and "may") that have come to mean "Caution!" to me when I hear them being (over)used.

I freely admit that I didn't and won't watch the video.

f I can be made to believe that this or that or the other thing can actually be the correct way to halt or at least slow down the inevitable decline in the health of the world, I like to think that I would act accordingly

gonna make a nice smoked whale-meat sandwich on rye with organic mustard and sit down in the den to enjoy it. Maybe wash it down with a krill smoothie...

Hello; I do get your stance. That it is becomes a very convenient way to opt out of taking a stance is not misunderstood. Since some folks may be trying to persuade me with trickery, then I do not have to believe anyone. The age-old dilemma of having to make decisions using incomplete information. I do not know if Attenborough is become corrupted. By corrupted I mean so caught up in a belief system that he fudges the content of the programming. So throw Attenborough under the bus. I do not much mind anymore when I am thrown under the bus.

I have watched Attenborough's programs for decades. I get he has an agenda. I tend to dismiss bits such as the obligatory global warming comments thrown in pretty much all modern nature programming. I have a notion or two about natural climate change. Having drug a few heavy chains along the ground I have a reference. The images in the video looked real. The logic fits. The goal is to harvest a mollusk which lives on the bottom. Dragging a very heavy chain or metal bar across the ocean bottom ought to look the way it does in the video.

I am not too worried about recovery of the ocean fisheries in a long term. At some point the diminishing catches and the cost of operating the trawlers will take the inevitable toll. Trawlers will go away or be greatly reduced in numbers. I am a bit concerned about the intermediate side effects. Large amounts of food proteins will be lost to humans. Enough to contribute to starvation & deaths. A secondary effect will be the habitat destruction from bottom dragging trawling.
Some trawling does not drag nets along the bottom. More circling a large area of open ocean and catching everything. That seems to fit the krill harvest method. Not clear to me how much krill winds up in people foods, but for sure winds up in pet foods, domestic animal foods, fish farms for shrimp, salmon, and catfish and more. I imagine krill might replace corn or other grains in animal feeds.

A thing is the human population is become too large to be fed using "traditional" farming - harvesting techniques. Estimates read have set around five billion people as an upper limit which could be fed using the older traditional techniques. The population is well beyond that. By up to three billion but for sure more than five billion total population..
It was, seems to me, a self-generating phenomenon. Steam tractors, trains and ships along with highways resulted in an abundance of food. Not a some time abundance but a reliable every year abundance. Then diesel/gasoline powered equipment expanded all of the above.
Add to that center pivot irrigation pumps which have been depleting vast aquifers but significantly adding to the overall food supply for many decades. The extra food directly has contributed to an increased human & pet population.

I throw the next comment out with a caution. The issue with extensive trawling in the oceans and center pivot irrigation is they can go on for a long time. A long enough time for the population of humans and some animals to increase to big numbers. That has already happened. The failure of trawling & center pivot irrigation seems inevitable. Both appear destined to collapse and collapse before too long. Decades at best is my take. Might be sooner.

I watched a nature series a few days ago THE AGE OF NATURE. Part of the first episode was about the Cod fishery collapse. Started decades ago. Cod was harvested in huge numbers for many years. Some thought could never be exhausted. Then the Cod populations collapsed. Fishing had to be stopped (there were not enough to catch anyway) This stoppage of fishing lasted for years. Now the Cod are coming back. I can find it at Kroger's. Good that the fishery came back, but not the point.
The point being what will happen when trawling and/or center pivot irrigation do collapse. Sure, given enough time both the oceans & the aquifers could come back. It is the years before they recover which will be the issue. An interim period where a substantial amount of food stocks will be gone. A portion of the population will be without.
The caution I mentioned is I do not have a crystal ball. Something may happen to alter the scenario. Something such as the way artificial fertilizer did years ago.

 

[jjohnwm]

The movie Soylent Green was set in the year 2022.

Perhaps we need a similar real-life corporation to be formed. Between hiring people as employees...and recruiting more people as raw materials...such an enterprise could change the face of human society, allowing us to continue our rat-like overpopulation and overexpansion for awhile longer.

Hmmm...who to cull...who to cull...?

 

[skjl47]

Hmmm...who to cull...who to cull...?

Hello; Several fiction stories about such a scenario. One short story, do not recall the name, set a random cull into effect. I cannot recall the details but the idea was everyone had to travel thru tunnels. Every now and then a tunnel would be closed and folks eliminated.
Somehow those with power and/or wealth would find a way to get fed.
The movie GREENLAND was about a different sort population reduction.

From my observation the culling is already underway. Happened a while back when corn was diverted from being food over to a fuel additive. The sudden grain shortage caused a level of food shortage with some malnutrition and if I recall correctly some increase in deaths. I do not think it will be some sudden event that happens in days or even weeks.
We have already exchanged on the topic some time back. In a thread about how food stuff given to pet dog & cats could go toward feeding lots of people.

Even a few decades ago the idea floated around that doing away with meat could free up food stocks to feed lots more people. Grain fed beef use up something like ten pounds of feed to yield one pound of food meat. Pork is some better at some six or so pounds of feed to yield one pound of meat. Chicken being the champs at about 2 1/2 pounds of feed to yield a pound of meat. Old figures from memory.

Already prices at the grocery store are having an impact on who gets beef, pork or chicken.

So, we could be a long way off from culling people directly.

I know what me newest neighbor will do if she can afford it. She has three dogs. Nice quiet dogs. I do not think she would give up even one dog. last year one of her old dogs died of old age. She immediately got a new puppy. Already on a tight budget. i do not know the sort of food used but likely not kibble.

 

[esoxlucius]

So, we could be a long way off from culling people directly.

Culling people? You're joking aren't you? It seems every other day on the radio or TV you hear about the latest scientific breakthrough in this, that the other regarding cancers and other life reducing conditions.

We are definitely going through an era of keep people alive at all costs!! It's as if we can't wait to hit the 9...10....15....20 billion global population figures.

And then the next item on the news bulletin after the medical breakthroughs are reports that the National Health Service can't cope and that the pension system can't go on as it is, it's costing more and more as people live longer!! Duh!

Any "culls" will come from global starvation events, wars, or, the big one, an asteroid hit, and the latter we are long overdue!

The human race needs a bit of a reset, and we're currently rushing head first into it.

 

[skjl47]

Culling people? You're joking aren't you? It seems every other day on the radio or TV you hear about the latest scientific breakthrough in this, that the other regarding cancers and other life reducing conditions.

We are definitely going through an era of keep people alive at all costs!! It's as if we can't wait to hit the 9...10....15....20 billion global population figures.

And then the next item on the news bulletin after the medical breakthroughs are reports that the National Health Service can't cope and that the pension system can't go on as it is, it's costing more and more as people live longer!! Duh!

Any "culls" will come from global starvation events, wars, or, the big one, an asteroid hit, and the latter we are long overdue!

The human race needs a bit of a reset, and we're currently rushing head first into it.

Hello; So far this discussion has stayed within a fairly narrow boundry of ideas, not a reflection of real world contradictions. Several conflicting ideologies in play. There are what Ithink of as engeenering types who see overpopulation as challenge to address specific problems rather than too many people. Highways are a good example. If you are older it is likely there have been several interations of highway building which were supposed to relieve congestion.
Say the proposial is to go from two lane roads to four lane roads based on the population of the moment. Some ten or more years later when most roads are finally fourlanes the congestion is as bad or even worse. They should have figured for six or eight lanes but the numbers of the time did not justify it.

Over the years when I talked to people about population theee have been many who see no limit to overall population numbers. An imaginary horn of plenty Earth with no real limits. Sometime back in the 1980's or so someone determined there were more people alive at the moment than had ever lived and died. I had to assume they meant the modern human physiotype and did not include pre human humaniods. But even if not correct the population was growing exponentially. I think the 1960's may have been when I first saw the graph of human population growth which became known as the hockey stick graph.
Yes the same shapped graph climate change alarmist use in their presentations. A fact seems to be any thing associated with population numbers ought to have such a curve.

As a young public school teacher I noticed that older teachers retired with a pension somewhat adequate for the first few years of retirement. If they lived long enough inflation outstripped any cost of living increase. The longer you live the smaller a pension becomes compared to the cost of living. I do not know about 401K's .

There has been a debate about what influenced longgetivity. Some credit medicine nd medical care. Others credit agriculture. I tend to give sanititation a lot of credit. Indoor plumbing, refigeration of food and safe food handling practices.

I do tend to agree that any population culling will happen outside of human control. One of my high school teachers was lazy. his idea of a lesson was to have lots of newspapers & magizines and have us just read. I recall reading of a famine in some part of Africa resulting in starvation. I had not yet made the connection of overpopulation and how that can over strip the land. Anyway the article spoke of an aid organization sending shiploads of USA food stocks in to relievee the starvation. I thought great. Then not many years later more famine in the news in the same area. More food shipped in. I finally caught on. The people were living in numbers greater that the local area could support with crops or hunter/garthering. The shipping in of outside foods was actually increasing the population was an irony. Outside foods allowing a population increase in a land area already populated beyond the carrying capacity of the land area.

I do not know how to evaluate which is worse. A sudden catastropic event such as an asteroid or the slow grinding starvation already underway. We are sort of in a scenario from the bomb shelter movies of the 1950's and 60's. The sort wher a family unit made it to their stocked shelter in time and suddenly neighbors are pounding on the door. Do you let them in so all can starve equally or do you keep them out knowing you have just enough for the family to survive????

The USA is divided right now over a similar situation. Some want open doors while others understand the carrying capacity of even a great sovergin nation is limited.

 

[taroStreamx]

I think the bigger issue is less about whether krill fishing exists at all, and more about where and when it is concentrated. Even a fishery that is sustainable on paper can still create local ecosystem pressure if too much biomass is removed from feeding hotspots used by whales, penguins, and seals during key seasons. That seems more important to me than the simple total global catch number. From a hobby perspective, I don’t think krill needs to be treated as either evil or perfectly fine. It’s just one ingredient. If a food uses it in moderation for species that genuinely benefit from it, fine. But when it becomes a cheap marketing ingredient added to everything, that’s where I start to question it.

Personally I’d rather reserve krill-based foods for fish that really gain something from it, and use other protein sources for everyday staple feeding.