- A new study shows that farmed and wild seafood and fish have a much lower carbon footprint than meat or dairy
- Beef accounts for one-sixth of the carbon emissions associated with wild seafood, one-fifth of lamb and half of cheese.
- A single burger produces the equivalent CO2 of 9 pounds of wild sardines
- Salmon and trout use the least amount of land and water, while silver and behead carp have the lowest greenhouse gas levels
- Overall, seaweed is cultivated and the environmental impact of bivalves such as clams and mussels is minimal.
Eating a diet rich in fish and seafood is not only healthier for humans, but it can also reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental diseases, a new study says.
The research, which compared the effect of beef, chicken and other proteins to those of wild-caught and farmed marine life, found that the so-called ‘blue food’ had a much lower carbon footprint than red meat.
Beef accounted for one-sixth of the carbon emissions associated with wild seafood, one-fifth of sheep and half of cheese.
Farmed and wild fish and seafood use little or no land for farming, compared to beef, which requires more than five square feet of land to produce one gram of protein.
scroll down for video
Farmed and wild fish and seafood use little or no land for farming compared to beef, which requires more than five square feet of land to produce one gram of protein.
According to a June 2021 report in the journal, current agricultural and food production practices are responsible for up to 40 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions. environmental research paper.
With the global population expected to grow by 2 billion by 2050, food production will require to increase by 70 percent To meet the increased demand.
According to a blog post by the Ocean Advocacy Group, ‘increased demand for dairy and red meat means fewer trees, less arable land, less fresh water, and more planet-warming gases that are released into the atmosphere. Oceana.
American University researchers analyzed greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use, and nitrogen and phosphorus emissions of 23 marine species, which account for about three-quarters of the species consumed by humans.
Carbon emissions associated with bead production are six times higher than those from wild seafood, according to a new study
A graph showing the amount of carbon dioxide produced to produce one gram of different protein sources. Emissions associated with wild fisheries account for one-sixth of beef, one-fifth of sheep and half of cheese.
He compared those levels to those required for beef, mutton (lamb), pork, cheese and other agricultural staples.
Wild fisheries produce 39.5 grams of CO2 per gram of protein, compared with 238 grams for cattle and 200 for mutton and sheep. Cheese also takes 84 grams of carbon dioxide to make one gram of protein.
Aquaculture produced only 24 grams of CO2, but this is a far higher demand for freshwater – using 13.15 liters for every gram of protein, compared to 11.19 for pork, 8.48 for beef, about 7 for cheese and wild fish. Zero to follow.
The study was published this month in the journal Nature.
Of the wild seafood the researchers analyzed, cultivated seaweed and bivalves such as clams, mussels and scallops had the smallest effect.
However, when the amount of edible biennial is included, its environmental cost increases five-fold.
After taking into account greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use, and nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, bivalves such as mussels, clams, and oysters (above) had the smallest combined impact on the environment
Anchovies, herring, mackerel and other small pelagic (open-sea) fish also had a smaller carbon footprint – a hamburger had about the same CO2 emissions as nine pounds of wild sardines.
Among farmed fish and crustaceans, salmon and trout used the least land and water, while silver and beheaded carp had the lowest greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions levels, but the highest water use.
Over 3,000 species of seafood Fish are being caught commercially or cultivated through aquaculture around the world.
In the US, shrimp is by far the most popular, with the average American consuming 6.4 pounds of crustaceans per year, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
When it came to land use, the study found that producing one gram of beef protein required more than five square feet of land—and about seven feet for lamb.
Rivers, lakes and oceans apparently take up no land, while aquaculture demands about half a foot of protein per gram.
When it comes to land use, animal farms use about 14 times as much space as aquaculture farms to grow a gram of protein.
“Marine fisheries currently play a role in food security and nutrition for more than 700 million people worldwide, and a restored ocean could feed seafood to 1 billion people every day,” Oceana said.
The sustenance that comes from aquatic animals, plants and algae is called ‘blue food’, and includes both farmed fish and shellfish and those caught in open water.
“The food system occupies half of all ice-free land and is responsible for three-quarters of global water use,” wrote lead author Jessica Geffert, an environmental scientist at American University.
Geffert wrote, ‘As an important source of nutrition producing relatively low average environmental stresses, blue foods present an opportunity to improve nutrition with less environmental burden. ‘Foods in the blue already have great potential to reduce food system environmental stresses.’
To enhance the anti-climate change benefits of blue food, Oceana suggests eating local fare to limit emissions associated with shipping and transportation.
a concurrent Nature The study found that leaning into seafood production was also good for human health – the top seven categories of nutrient-rich animal foods were all aquatic – including bivalves, pelagic fish and salmonids such as salmon, trout and char.
Researchers determined that blue foods could become even more affordable with better management of fisheries…