Mostly true True only under certain conditions Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-FSH-11

Farming carnivorous fish species depletes the wild fish stocks used as feed rather than relieving pressure on the oceans.

In short: This claim is mostly true for carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp, which still use most of the world's fishmeal and fish oil from wild fish, although feed efficiency has improved; it is an environmental argument, not a health one.
Conclusion: Largely correct for carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp, which still depend on wild forage fish despite better feed efficiency; this is an environmental, not a health argument.

Original statement

استزراع الأنواع المفترسة يستنزف الأرصدة البريّة كأعلاف

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Farming carnivorous fish species depletes the wild fish stocks used as feed rather than relieving pressure on the oceans.

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (eltayebat.com)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/farmed-fish/
Attribution uncertainty
Archive editorial narrative and featured-study cards, written by the archive operators; study selection is the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's.
Claimed mechanism

Wild fish used for fish meal/oil.

Claimed health effect

Ecological (not health).

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

Aquaculture of carnivorous species depletes wild stocks.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Naylor et al. 2000 stated that the opposite of relieving pressure is true 'for some types of aquaculture', especially carnivorous species (A-FSH-19).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The archive omits that the same paper concludes that aquaculture overall still adds to world fish supplies. Since 2006, salmon feeds have replaced much fish oil with plant oils (I-FSH-01).

4. What remains unclear?

Current net balance.

5. Which studies support it?

A-FSH-19; I-FSH-118 (Majluf 2024: carnivorous aquaculture consumes most of the world's fishmeal and fish oil; the FIFO metric understates wild-fish use).

6. Which studies contradict it?

A-FSH-19 (overall conclusion), I-FSH-01, I-FSH-114 (Naylor 2021: fish-in-fish-out ratio lowered for all fed species, though dependence on marine ingredients persists).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Much farmed salmon sold in Europe is Atlantic salmon; since 2006 its feeds have replaced much fish oil with plant oils (I-FSH-01), which reduces wild-fish inputs.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Tilapia is mostly omnivorous; this argument applies less to Egyptian tilapia farming.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

This is an environmental, not a health argument.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Based on a 2000 Nature review; feed composition has since shifted toward plant ingredients (I-FSH-01), which lowers wild fish inputs. The same review states that 'on balance, global aquaculture production still adds to world fish supplies'.

Source quality

Highly cited review.

Regional transferability

Global.

Individual exceptions

Not applicable.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

True only under certain conditions – The claim holds only for certain doses, groups of people, preparations or circumstances.

Research question: Does farming carnivorous fish deplete wild fish stocks used as feed rather than relieve pressure on the oceans?

Research question in detail (PECO)
Population
Wild forage fish stocks
Intervention or exposure
Carnivorous aquaculture
Comparison
Capture fisheries
Geographic scope
Global
Outcomes
  • Wild fish used per unit farmed fish

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Carnivorous aquaculture still depends heavily on wild forage fish; feed efficiency has improved, but how much is disputed.

Why some studies weigh more

Two recent reviews disagree on how to interpret FIFO; both agree dependence persists.

Is a causal relationship established? Probable Fishmeal comes mainly from small pelagic fish.

Remaining uncertainty

Net balance per species.

Justified conclusion

Largely correct for carnivorous species; an environmental, not a health argument.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

I-FSH-114 (industry-based FIFO improvements) and I-FSH-118 (FIFO misleading) use different accounting of by-products and averaging across species.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Not applicable.
Eating habits
Not applicable.
Origin of the food
Global feed markets.
Contaminants
Not applicable.
National production conditions
Egyptian tilapia is mainly omnivorous.
Legal rules
None.
Actual monitoring data
Not applicable.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Wild fish dependence of carnivorous aquaculture
Starting level
low (observational studies)
Reasons for downgrading
  • inconsistency in metrics
Result
low

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026("fish-in-fish-out" OR "forage fish" OR "fish meal") AND (salmon OR aquaculture) AND (wild fish OR marine ingredients) AND (net OR dependency)both directions267
PubMed26 October 2026efetch PMID 33762770 (Naylor 2021, 20-year update of the archive-cited Naylor 2000)contradicting evidence1

Open questions

Species-level net balance.

How deeply was this checked?

4 linked studies: 1 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 3 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (low)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (low)
    New reviews point in both directions; verdict unchanged.
    New sources: I-FSH-114 I-FSH-118

In plain language

A 2000 review in Nature found that farming carnivorous fish like salmon needs a lot of wild fish as feed. The same review said that fish farming overall still adds to the world's fish supply. Feeds have changed since then. This is about the environment, not about whether the fish is healthy to eat.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (2)

  • Does fish farming help wild fish stocks? (2000)

    Naylor RL et al.. Nature 2000 · PMID 10890435 · DOI 10.1038/35016500
    Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    Farming carnivorous fish uses many wild fish as feed, but aquaculture overall still adds fish.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess supply effect.

    How was the study done?

    Review.

    What was actually found?

    Mixed effect.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Environmental issue.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Old.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Health effects.

    Scientific details →

  • Fish farming still eats a lot of wild fish

    Majluf P et al.. Sci Adv 2024 · PMID 39413173 · DOI 10.1126/sciadv.adn5650
    Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Farmed carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp use most of the world's fishmeal and fish oil, made mainly from small wild fish; the usual efficiency metric hides this.

    Carnivorous species consume most FMFO; FIFO understates wild-fish use.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Review FMFO use and the FIFO metric.

    How was the study done?

    Review.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Global feed data.

    What was actually found?

    Carnivorous aquaculture uses most FMFO; FIFO is misleading.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not in abstract.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Farming carnivorous fish still depends on wild fish.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Abstract only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports the claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Exact net balance per species.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

  • Omega-3 in Scottish farmed salmon 2006-2015

    Sprague M et al.. Sci Rep 2016 · PMID 26899924 · DOI 10.1038/srep21892
    Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Omega-3 in farmed Scottish salmon roughly halved from 2006 to 2015 (2.74 to 1.36 g per 100 g), but it still had more omega-3 per 100 g than the wild salmon tested (0.76 g) and most other foods.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Track omega-3 over time.

    How was the study done?

    Fatty-acid analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    >3000 salmon.

    What was actually found?

    EPA+DHA fell from 2.74 to 1.36 g/100 g; plant fatty acids doubled; wild salmon tested had 0.76 g/100 g.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Double portion needed vs 2006.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Still a rich omega-3 source.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Industry-supplied samples; only 21 wild salmon (mostly Pacific); Scotland only; data to 2015; no funding statement.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports decline; contradicts 'benefit disappears'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Health outcomes; the omega-3:omega-6 ratio figures claimed by the archive.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

  • Aquaculture 20 years on

    Naylor RL et al.. Nature 2021 · PMID 33762770 · DOI 10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6
    Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Fish farms now need less wild fish per kilogram of farmed fish, but still rely on marine feed ingredients.

    FIFO lowered; marine dependence persists.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Review 20 years of aquaculture.

    How was the study done?

    Narrative review.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Global.

    What was actually found?

    Lower fish-in-fish-out ratio; persistent marine dependence.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not in abstract.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    The feed problem has shrunk but not disappeared.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Abstract only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    The claim is dated.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    The net balance for salmon today.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Much farmed salmon sold in Europe is Atlantic salmon; since 2006 its feeds have replaced much fish oil with plant oils (I-FSH-01), which reduces wild-fish inputs.

Egypt

Tilapia is mostly omnivorous; this argument applies less to Egyptian tilapia farming.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly true Largely correct for carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp, which still depend on wild forage fish despite better feed efficiency; this is an environmental, not a health argument.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
  • Animal husbandry and feed

Fish and seafood

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies.. Naylor RL et al.. Nature 2000 · PMID 10890435 · DOI 10.1038/35016500
  2. A review of the global use of fishmeal and fish oil and the Fish In:Fish Out metric.. Majluf P et al.. Sci Adv 2024 · PMID 39413173 · DOI 10.1126/sciadv.adn5650
  3. Impact of sustainable feeds on omega-3 long-chain fatty acid levels in farmed Atlantic salmon, 2006-2015.. Sprague M et al.. Sci Rep 2016 · PMID 26899924 · DOI 10.1038/srep21892
  4. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture.. Naylor RL et al.. Nature 2021 · PMID 33762770 · DOI 10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6

← Back to overview