I have always been interested in the relative efficiencies of different food production sytems.
I wrote and posted the piece on fishing last night (Let them eat fish)while trying to come to terms with how much money the Australian government is spending to close down a perfectly sustainable fishery – all in response to environmental campaigning driven by a belief we should not fish Great Barrier Reef waters.
The Australian aquaculture industry’s share of the $2.2 billion Australian commercial fishery has been steadily increasing and now represents around 34 per cent,
http://www.abareconomics.com/research/fisheries/fisheries.html .
I guess the trend is to close down ‘wild fisheries’ and eat more from ‘aquaculture’. But is this efficient?
I have been shown around aquaculture facilities and they seem really energy intense. We are taking the pressure off wild populations in building these facilities I am told.
But where is the balance between sustainably harvesting wild populations and energy intense aquaculture?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jen,
That’s an interesting point. Can you provide any more detail on which parts of the operation were energy intense?
You wouldn’t count the fish processing parts I’m thinking, since these would also apply to fish caught in the sea. You would just count the energy in nurturing the fish and taking them from the water.
How do you think it would compare to the fuel consumption involved with sending boats out to sea and back with hauls of fish?
Lighting, aeration, fish/prawn food, warming, cooling – the whole setup is very artificial. I am thinking of a particular prawn farm. I have also visited an inland fish farm. I don’t have any data.
Hmmm, its a good question. My gut feeling is that the energy used in running diesel boat motors (how big are they? About 500+kW?) would be significantly more than running lights and air-conditioning, and i wouldn’t think pumps for aeration would be that huge.
But it’s hard to say. At the least, it does suggest that if sustainability is the deciding factor, you’d want your fish farm to run as efficiently as possible.
Is it cost benefit or energy eficiency that is in question?
I dont think you can separate the two, average fishermans age is getting higher, boats are older and with imports holding prices down and fuel costs rising they have to think twice before going to sea. Those that I know say it is very hard to just break even.
Other areas have had commercial fishing banned, Lake Macquarie is one which has had a resurgence in fish numbers since the Lake’s closure to commercial fishers. It is good for the amateur, there are a lot of recreational fishermen and they all vote.
Market forces are working against the commercial fishermen.
Zoning the GBR to increase its “protection” is another victory to the science-green forces that have dominated the GBR since the campaigns to “save the GBR” in the 60’s and early 70’s.
In response to the comment about the commercial fishing buy-out, I think it might have been prudent for the govt to do their homework first to understand the true value of the fishery to the country before closing areas of the GBR to fishing. If this had been done then the amount of compensation available to fishermen would have been known within certain bounds and more importantly the industry would have had a chance to negotiate how best this might be managed to ensure people did not suffer from the changes. If science was as accountable to the industry and the communities that wear the costs of decisions like the GBR green zones, that businesses and families have to be to the banks and tax office, then maybe a fairier result would have been achieved. There needs to be greater transparency in the use of science and for science to be accountable to the industry and community and not just serve the interests of government departments.