I recently learned that tunas are among the big Kahunas of the ocean. That is, they are predator fish at the top of the food-chain. IIRC, anchovies are toward the bottom. Sardines feast on anchovies such that 100 lbs of them becomes 1 lb of sardines. Enter the tuna, and he’ll eat 100 lbs of sardines to gain a pound of bulk.
Recently I have really enjoyed my tuna, especially the Sunkist lemon-dill flavor, add a little salt and some mayo and you’ve got a tasty, fishy lunch. But frankly I didn’t realize I was eating off the top of the ocean’s food chain. Much like it takes 10 lbs of grain to produce a pound of beef, and eating lower on the food chain therefore requires less energy input, eating lower on the ocean’s food chain… well, that’s the question. It accomplishes what?
I can’t see myself sitting down to an entire serving of anchovies, though I can see taking it even a step further and chomping on some plankton or seaweed. I’ve been known to do just that, but motivated only my my omnivorousness. Sardines are about as tasty as tuna though (I like the kind in mustard), but does this move actually help anything? We have to grow the grain, and then we have to feed the beef; where the ocean is concerned the fish are pretty much just there, and one in the net is pretty much the same as another(?). But then there is fish farming- I don’t know if tuna or sardines are farmed at all, or how it would compare to turf grub in energy terms. And my numbers are all from memory and probably incorrect.
I hope this makes sense. I want to know if this move actually does any good, but more broadly I need some clarification of ocean food-chain food source issues.
What I get from this is that by eating one tuna, you’re saving 100,000 sardines from a horrible death.
Seriously, though, this is a definitional problem: what do you mean by “helping?” Helping with what? Overfishing? Cross-catch (killing undesired fish caught while trying to catch something else)? Energy (and if so, by what measure)? Total number of animals harmed? The answer changes depending on which if these you care about.
Why is eating a fish at the top of the food chain “bad” in this sense? If a given species is being overfished, then it’s probably a bad idea to keep eating them at that rate, assuming you care about having them available for another generation. If they’re plentiful (skipjack (canning) tuna is, many other varieties of tuna aren’t), then why not eat them? This is independent of their position on the food chain.
It’s not like on land where eating meet has high costs in terms of energy and arable land resources to produce the meat, i.e. where we really are trading a lot of one limited resource to get a little bit of another. We’re not worried about running out of plankton, seaweed, anchovies, and sardines; they’re plentiful in the ocean ecosystem.
The smell and look of sardines turn me off to start. With the bigger fish such as tuna, I only see a part of the fist. It’s more like steak! Since you are burying it in mustard and salt, you have the taste and look somewhat overcome. I can’t take that route as my blood pressure would skyrocket.
Consider yourself lucky to consume any of that stuff. I don’t think it makes a difference to the ecology of the ocean. I mean you may be consuming some poor tuna’s dinner, but who cares? However, Sponge Bob would not approve.
The data is only a few months old. My blood pressure is very good. My pulse is rather slow. Athletic, you could say. But the doctor talked about athletes whose genetics around subjects like mitochondria are several standard deviations from the norm- genetic freaks who enjoy very specific athletic benefits as a result. I am not one of those guys AFAICT. But I don’t think twice about consuming a can of sardines either, FWIW.
I did finally try sardines, though, and I’m hooked on 'em now. They’re actually much milder than tuna, very light and not overly fishy at all. Nowadays, I looooove me some sardines.
I have no clue if they save the world or make me healthier; I just think they taste good.
I don’t think sardines are farmed at all (there’s loads of little herring-like fish that get canned and sold as sardines or pilchards). If you ever get the chance to have a fresh one grilled, yum.
That is kind of the question: helping with what? I seem to have got it in my head that lower on the food chain is somehow ‘better’.
‘Canning tuna’ is plentiful? Good news- I didn’t know that. If so, maybe I am not, I don’t know, ‘stressing’ the ocean ecosystem by eating it.
Then there is this. Remember the actor in Mamet’s plays who had recently become successful and treated himself to sushi twice a day, every day? He got mercury poisoning and dropped out. Mamet remarked that he “retired from acting to pursue a career as a thermometer.” I don’t want to be that guy.
Let’s see, mercury climbs the food chain; dioxin is the same. What else?
Yes, eating food that’s lower in the foodchain has less ecological impact.
Being lower in the foodchain tends to mean it’s cheaper. Sardines and mackerel can be FAR cheaper than tuna.
More than one species of fish is canned as “tuna”. In a culinary sense, this is bad, because it means you have less control over the taste and texture. And compared to frozen or fresh tuna? Those are tasty! Canned tuna is just awful in comparison.
Canned tuna is overcooked. Try draining the water from a can, and eating it straight. That much overcooking? At an expensive restaurant, you’d return it. The overcooking is disguised when tuna is packed in oil, or when its heavily mixed with mayonnaise. (Sardines and mackerel do not need the extra oil.)
Those oil calories to hid the overcooking … are very high. The tuna may be good for you, but chances are the oil that’s added to make it edible is not good.
Someone commented that the taste is too strong. Sardines and marckerel do have a less bland taste, but that’s not such a big deal if selecting good brands (and good brands don’t necessarily cost much more.)
Sardines and mackrel come with easy-to-remove bones. The punchline is: You may want to leave them, or at least part of them they’re a good source of calcium.
Aldi sell sardine sprats with hot chili. You drain off the oil, mash them up with a fork and spread them on a piece of toast. If you can’t get already chilified ones your bottle of Cholula solves the problem.
Well, for one bit of data you can refer to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch. Basically they research different sorts of seafood to give straightforward answers about which sorts are “good” or “bad” to eat, usually from an ecological perspective. For instance, they tell you to avoid eating tuna from most sources, since some populations are overfished and most are caught using methods that create a lot of bycatch and other environmental damage. However they do endorse eating tuna from certain populations that are caught with low-bycatch methods. See here for more details.
They also endorse all sorts of sardinesand similar small fish. Sardines reproduce rapidly and their populations are very robust, and there’s not much bycatch.
For the most part healthy adults don’t have to worry much about mercury poisoning from tuna unless they’re pregnant or consuming huge quantities of highly contaminated fish.
There are varieties of oil-packed tuna, and many are both delicious and nutritious, while being a touch higher in calories vs. watery tuna (which oft requires one to hide the watery fishiness with mayo, etc).
Tuna packed in sunflower or, even better, olive oil can be drained and still be a low-calorie, high protein food that can out pace water packed tuna, because the oil packed tuna is much more likely to be consumed straight.
As for eating down the food chain: I would suggest that, as a general approach, you eat from various parts of the food chain, not get fixated on one type of quality food, species, etc. Whatever you find is nutritious, have a few servings a week and continue to keep a diverse/colorful diet. This is a theme that has developed whenever discussing healthy eating.
It probably bodes well for the environment, too, from a perspective of how that environment serves human needs.
Wow, thanks for all the great answers. I obtained a bottle of Cholula and will be on the lookout for some fresh grilled sardines. At the market I saw some Wild Herring Fillets in Cabernet Wine Sauce, 4 bucks, so what the heck. Figuring they would skimp on the sauce, I picked up a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon and some sheep’s milk cheese that goes well with it. While setting it up (no candles) I saw the TED video- very entertaining.
It is a little absurd, but food is fun! And it is the new year after all.
I’ll disagree here. In my experience canned tuna is worse than canned sardines, mackerel and salmon. All fish are worse canned, but tuna is the extreme. (Actually, canned crab can be flat out awful, but that’s OT.)
When I was younger, before I’d learned to cook much, I was afraid of fresh fish. Shopping at our local oriental market – with live fish – finally convinced me that I needed to learn.
Fresh or fresh frozen tuna cooked with a little care is, to my taste, better than any steak.
Sashimi grade tuna is so good both during eating and following, that I’ll get it, regardless of the expense, to settle stomach problems.
Canned tuna compared to fresh??? No comparison at all. Canned tuna is one of the most loathsome adulterations in the entire food industry.
I’ll just add that ‘pregnant’ here includes both currently pregnant, and will be pregnant in the medium-term future (couple of years, say). Unlike alchohol or most other drugs that can harm a fetus, mercury hangs around.
Again, even for pregnant women, the advice is to be careful and limit the amount of tuna and swordfish, so you don’t have to worry about a little bit here or there.