Abstract Full Text:PDF Recommended articles Mail to Author How to Cite

¹ Fisheries Faculty, Department of Aquaculture, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Türkiye
² Fisheries Faculty, Department of Aquaculture, Munzur University, 62000 Tunceli, Türkiye
³ Fisheries Faculty, Department of Fish Processing, Munzur University, 62000 Tunceli, Türkiye
⁴ Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, U.K. DOI : 10.4194/TRJFAS27643 Viewed : 57 - Downloaded : 69 There has been much discussion about which is better, farmed (= aquaculture) or wild-caught fish (= capture-fisheries), with supporters and opponents of both approaches. On balance, aquaculture should be the better option because of the ability to control all aspects of production. The result is that farmed products are often cheaper than wild-caught equivalents. However, there are negative aspects to aquaculture, including habitat destruction, for example the removal of mangroves for the construction of shrimp farms, the effect of escapees on native fish populations, and the possible negative impact of pollution from organic material, pathogens and antimicrobial compounds. The use of wild-caught `trash` fish as a source of protein and oil for the diets of carnivorous fish species in aquaculture is unsustainable. In contrast with wild-caught fish, there is greater variability in supply because of overfishing, quotas imposed by governments, and the effects of adverse weather. Moreover, fishing in distant waters is expensive and hazardous. Certainly, the quality of the product is more difficult to control because the history of the catch is largely unknown. However, there are concerns about illegal fishing activities, and the capture of undersized specimens which impacts negatively on future stocking levels. For the forseeable future, there will be roles for both aquaculture and capture-fisheries to meet the increasing global demand for aquatic food. Keywords : Aquaculture Sustainability Health Freshness Nutrition Fisheries