Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

hakaimagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#11

Post by Mordisquitos »

ojhughes wrote: post #7

Another thing British and Americans have a different name for. We call them fish fingers. If you ask for fish sticks in the UK you will probably get the pinkish crab sticks that don’t have breadcrumbs

Indeed. Although I'm mostly aware of the American equivalents of British terms, in this case it caught me off guard. Seeing the headline I had no idea what it was talking about, and I thought it might mean "fish sticks" as in fishing using spears! I wonder what my American counterpart might have thought if the headline used "fish fingers" instead... maybe that the article was about the unlikely evolutionary success of vertebrate fingers‽

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#12

Post by dfan »

screye wrote: post #10

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints) Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more…

"Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit?"

Yes.

"Unlike previous studies that have largely overlooked the downstream processing activities associated with Alaskan pollock, this study examined all the components of the supply chain, from fishing through the retail display case." [https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/01/mckuin-fish.html]

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#13

Post by screye »

dfan wrote: post #12
screye wrote: post #10

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints) Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more…

"Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit?" Yes. "Unlike previous studies that have largely overlooked the downstream processing activities associated with Alaskan pollock, this study examined all the components of the supply chain, from fishing through the retail display case." [ https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/01/mckuin-fish.html ]

Thanks for adding that, will edit it into my post.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#14

Post by runawaybottle »

There’s a class of adult baby food that fish sticks fall under. It’s food that’s conceptually shaped for kids but adults have no problem eating this stuff with a straight face. Wendy’s nuggets look like chicken feet.

I think as we figure out how to make protein alternatives that taste like meat, we’ll see a small rise in adult baby food, things shaped like a slim jim, etc.

Then we can finally fulfill our prophecy of being adults that wear children’s winter jackets and eat food that’s shaped like toys, and just really come full circle with the aging into infancy.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#15

Post by GavinMcG »

_Microft wrote: post #3

Above all I find fish sticks convenient . I can take only as many as needed out of the box and put the rest back into the freezer for next time. They only take a few minutes to fry and go well with a variety of side dishes which gives flexibility. I do not even mind putting them on burgers instead of patties when I am not willing to make some (I usually cook freshly and do not like pre-made patties at all) (-> flexib…

Such an improvement over fishbricks:

> Birdseye developed a novel freezing technique...but when used on fish, the method created large blocks of intermingled fillets that, when pried apart, tore into “mangled, unappetizing chunks” .... The fishing industry tried selling the blocks whole, as fishbricks. These were packaged like blocks of ice cream, with the idea that a housewife could chop off however much fish she wanted that day.

What a world.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#16

Post by revax »

screye wrote: post #10

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints) Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more…

>Beef also primarily produces methane, so I'm not sure if the co2 impact of beef is the proportional impact in methane or actual co2. Methane has a much shorter term. impact vs co2.

It is most certainly accounted for. The correct unit is CO2-equivalent and the time horizon commonly used is 100 years.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#18

Post by sampo »

screye wrote: post #10

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints) Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more…

> Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more harmful fuels than the gas used on roads.

Those more harmful fuels don't produce extra CO₂, though. Marine diesel engines burn less clean oils, and thus produce other pollutants (such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate emission), but the energy content and CO₂ emissions are same as with e.g. gasoline.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#19

Post by drewzero1 »

nostromo wrote: post #6

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram. That's fascinating. I wish they'd explain why.

I've mostly seen statistics about water usage for dairy milk production, but it takes a lot of water and food to raise a cow to maturity. Fish (if harvested sustainably) care for themselves until caught, so it makes some sense to me that planting, growing, harvesting, and processing soybeans into tofu would have similar impact to fleets of ships traveling the ocean catching fish.

A few years ago I read and enjoyed the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. The author follows three different meals from farm to table as completely as possible given the nature of modern food production. It's a great read for someone who wants to know more about where food comes from and how it gets here, and it's definitely made me think about what I'm eating.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#20

Post by GavinMcG »

runawaybottle wrote: post #14

There’s a class of adult baby food that fish sticks fall under. It’s food that’s conceptually shaped for kids but adults have no problem eating this stuff with a straight face. Wendy’s nuggets look like chicken feet. I think as we figure out how to make protein alternatives that taste like meat, we’ll see a small rise in adult baby food, things shaped like a slim jim, etc. Then we can finally fulfill our prophecy of…

Why on earth should adults care what shape their food is?

The childish thing is judging adults by completely substanceless distinctions like this.

Post reply on HN