I’m skeptical about this.
My understanding is that the most profitable aquaculture species are carnivorous fish, meaning that aquaculture has long been a net consumer of fish - it takes more weight of wild caught prey to feed farmed fish than the weight of fish produced.
I don’t see any mention of that in the data or analysis.
From other sources, one third of aquaculture (in weight) is algae.
Is algae for fish food or is it something I didn’t know it was in?
The Nori you eat with sushi is farmed, but quite a lot of aquafulture goes to the production of Carrageenan. That is used in tons for things from milk and meat products, to sex lubes, and toothpaste.
Damn, aquaculture looks like it absolutely stopped an increase of wild catch, which is impressive!
I am surprised that wild catch numbers didn’t really ever drop, given the massive increase of aquaculture (also surprised at aquacultures plateau).
I wonder how accurate the wild catch figures are considering the amount of illegal fishing done. Maybe the plateau of wild catch has less to do with aquaculture and more to do with the ocean not having any more to give 💀
I’m skeptical that aquaculture stopped the increase as it could have been the wild catch has been over fished so hard it can’t supply more.
Wild stocks get killed off by aquaculture. Period.
