ReviewScience advances2024
Feeding global aquaculture.
Review in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Valorization of Pink Salmon (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Global nutritional equity of fishmeal and aquaculture trade flows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Effect of IgY antibody coated fish feed in preventing motileFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Occupational Health Issues in the Seafood Industry Due to Biological Exposures: A Narrative Review.Safety and health at work · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the Multivalent Immunoprotective Effects of Protein, DNA, and IgY Vaccines AgainstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Gene Expression Study in Gilthead Seabream (International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Transparency in aquaculture subsidy reporting urgently needed.Science advances · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growth of animal aquaculture requires ever more feed. Yet, fish and crustacean farming is argued to be sustainable because wild fish use is low and has improved over time. Here, accounting for trimmings and by-products from wild fish in aquaculture feed, and using four different sources of industry-reported feed composition data, we find ratios of fish inputs to farmed outputs of 0.36 to 1.15-27 to 307% higher than a previous estimate of 0.28. Furthermore, a metric that incorporates wild fish mortality during capture and excludes unfed systems raises the wild fish mortality-to-farmed fish output ratio to 0.57 to 1.78. We also evaluate terrestrial ingredients in aquaculture feeds. Widely cited estimates of declines in wild fish use from 1997 to 2017 entailed a trade-off of more than fivefold increase in feed crops over the same period. Our assessment challenges the sustainability of fed aquaculture and its role in food security.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.