Worryingly headlined and repeated throughout the morning:
‘If the Scottish salmon industry wants to meet its expansion targets it’ll need three hundred thousand tonnes more wild fish every year JUST to make into feed. That’s according to the environmental campaign group ‘Feedback’. The group is warning that if its projections are correct by 2030 the amount of wild fish will be roughly equivalent to ALL the salmon landed by UK vessels in one year alone. Scottish salmon producers say new methods of using plant-based ingredients would help ensure sustainability.’
It’s a familiar pattern with some worrying news about anything at all Scottish that we might take confidence from, based on one partisan source and with a wee hint of the truth of the matter, tagged on at the end in case anyone accuses them of imbalanced reporting.
Their own guidelines warn against relying on a single source as they did in this:
3.4.1: We should try to witness events and gather information first hand. Where this is not possible, we should talk to first hand sources and, where necessary, corroborate their evidence. We should be reluctant to rely on a single source. If we do rely on a single source, a named on-the-record source is always preferable.
Most important, why was the industry suggestion on plant-based alternatives not explored to inform the viewer? I found this in seconds:
‘The results of this study suggest that feeding a diet containing low levels of fish meal and moderate levels of fish oil does not significantly affect ω3 fatty acid composition in muscle. Fish meal could be reduced to 5% without affecting growth as long as there was a minimum of 5% fish oil, and animal by-products did not exceed 26% of the diet.’
So, if the above peer-reviewed research is correct:
‘If the Scottish salmon industry wants to meet its expansion targets it looks eminently feasible?’