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

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#91

Post by isleyaardvark »

tashoecraft wrote: post #25
flakiness wrote: post #2

As a someone who came from a fish-eating nation (Japan), it's great to know that fish sticks are sustainable. The collective memory there was that Japan was condemned as fish abuser. People felt unfair but also were ashamed at the same time. (Over-fishing was/is at least partly true after all.) However, I don't have any memory around fish sticks associated from my childhood in Japan. Fried (frozen) fish fillets are p…

If Seaspiracy is to be believed, there's no such this as sustainable fishing at scale. In order to catch this much fish, you're going to kill tons of other animals, discard tons of nets and other fishing equipment, saying it's "sustainable" is probably a lie in most every sense.

If marine biologists are to be believed, Seaspiracy is not a reliable source of information.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#92

Post by odiroot »

sampo wrote: post #21

> 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. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1]…

> These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60

Still, we'd be much better off, had we stopped eating beef (and other ruminants) and instead switched to pork, poultry and fish.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#93

Post by jdminhbg »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #68
narag wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1953 I seriously doubt there was so much concern about it, much less in an advertisment directed to consumers.

Note the oxymoron in that advert: "Fresh Frozen!".

That's not an oxymoron. It means they were frozen right away after being caught. A similar term today used especially for things like shrimp is "Individual Quick Frozen" or IQF. Shrimp are frozen on the boat that catches them.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#94

Post by _puk »

twic wrote: post #29
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

If you go somewhere upmarket in the UK, they will be cod goujons, and will be an artfully irregular shape.

Had a chuckle that the local Asda (owned by Walmart until late last year) might be considered upmarket!

They have cod goujons, and they are indeed respectably artful in their irregular shape.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#95

Post by tashoecraft »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #74
shkkmo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there is some confusion as to what you are trying to say. 1) There is no way to catch the amount of fish we catch in a sustainable manner. (No sustainability at our current scale.) 2) There is no way to catch any amount of fish sustainably. (No sustainability at any scale.) I think people are intrepreting you as saying #2 when you are really saying #1. The answer would appear to be that if that we need t…

As far as I understand it, Seaspiracy claims that 2) is the case and we should all stop eating fish entirely.

I interpreted it as unless the fishing are doing is entirely local (the example in the movie being the African fisherman) it can be sustainable, but really and type of fish most of us buy is definitely not sustainable no matter what organization says. That sustainable fishiers fudge the numbers to work and farming produces it’s own set of problems

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#96

Post by robocat »

xyzzyz wrote: post #39
sampo wrote: post #21

> 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. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1]…

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

Firstly you are presuming cattle are grass fed with no fertilizer used. Nitrogen fertilizer and stock feeds use petrochemicals directly or indirectly.

> If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time

Cattle numbers are mostly static. The amount of methane produced is not trivial, although as you point out not the same class of problem as CO² since CO² is cumulative. Was your 40 year figure the half-life?

For comparison, CFCs break down over many decades (I couldn't find reliable figures) but the ozone hole is still a serious problem (it seriously affects us in New Zealand where I live).

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#97

Post by barbazoo »

Nullabillity wrote: post #75
drewzero1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

But presumably the fish still does need to eat, which you'd need to keep in mind for the calculation?

Not for the purpose of making a carbon footprint calculation I believe.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#98

Post by barbazoo »

xyzzyz wrote: post #39
sampo wrote: post #21

> 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. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1]…

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

> as it forms closed cycle

Wouldn't that require the grass to grow more to compensate for the increase in CO2?

Post reply on HN