Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19805247›Full record

ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2009

Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources.

Rosamond L Naylor, Ronald W Hardy, Dominique P Bureau, Alice Chiu, Matthew Elliott, Anthony P Farrell, Ian Forster, Delbert M Gatlin, Rebecca J Goldburg, Katheline Hua and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 217 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
217citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

217 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Isolation an Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile ofVeterinary medicine international · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

157 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rosamond L NaylorProgram on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Encina East 404, Stanford, CA 94035, USA. roz@stanford.edu
Ronald W Hardy
Dominique P Bureau
Alice Chiu
Matthew Elliott
Anthony P Farrell
Ian Forster
Delbert M Gatlin
Rebecca J Goldburg
Katheline Hua
Peter D Nichols

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aquaculture's pressure on forage fisheries remains hotly contested. This article reviews trends in fishmeal and fish oil use in industrial aquafeeds, showing reduced inclusion rates but greater total use associated with increased aquaculture production and demand for fish high in long-chain omega-3 oils. The ratio of wild fisheries inputs to farmed fish output has fallen to 0.63 for the aquaculture sector as a whole but remains as high as 5.0 for Atlantic salmon. Various plant- and animal-based alternatives are now used or available for industrial aquafeeds, depending on relative prices and consumer acceptance, and the outlook for single-cell organisms to replace fish oil is promising. With appropriate economic and regulatory incentives, the transition toward alternative feedstuffs could accelerate, paving the way for a consensus that aquaculture is aiding the ocean, not depleting it.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAquacultureFisheriesFish OilsFish Oils

Identifiers

PMID19805247
PMCPMC2741212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.