I'm not a biologist. I confess I don't understand the fine points of the problems related to the Gulf dead zone. The basic facts are pretty clear. There appear to be several places in the world where nutrients flowing into the ocean cause anoxic conditions near the ocean bottom. This can happen in lakes and rivers too. This is a very odd circumstance, it seems to me. Agriculture thrives on nutrients, generally applied by the farmer in some way. If nutrients are valuable when applied to the farmer's field, why must they be so bad in the water? Before dwelling further there, I would change the subject for just a moment. I want to talk about meat production in the U.S. and worldwide. Here are some numbers. World annual meat production _http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB/PBch8_ss4.htm_ (http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB/PBch8_ss4.htm) Ocean fishing..........91 million tons Pork.......................94 Beef.......................58 aquaculture.............38 All+fish&dairy .......500+ Grain used for feed......700 million tons Fish are the # 1 source of protein in the world. There is one major farm fish in the U.S.-- U.S. catfish output....0.24 million tons Total U.S. farm fish production is probably under 500,000 tons currently. Currently, we get about 30 pounds of usable protein per acre per year from livestock. Here are some specific numbers-- Soybeans...................263 lb /acre ( 29 gm/sq.m.) Milk.............................75 ( 8.4 ) Eggs...........................71 ( 8.0 ) Beef...........................15.6 ( 1.72 ) Catfish.......................150 ( 16.5 ) This is my guess. It should be checked. NOTE: These are (dry weight of protein) x (biological value). Don't compare to meat tonnage above. Okay, here comes my question-- All across the Mississippi drainage, we have nutrient-rich water running off of farms and ending up in the Gulf of Mexico where the nutrients just cause trouble. Could the Midwest farmers "mine" the nutrients from the water with fish ponds and create a new profit center? Catfish might not be the right choice. A kind of fish that is native and herbivorous should be better. There are several native minnows that could fill the bill. A fish that eats zooplankton, the paddlefish, has been suggested as a good commercial fish, producing a good white meat and fish roe (caviar) besides. Combining fish species in a pond can improve results. We could probably increase farm fish production by 100 times, and it would free up about 100 million acres of farmland in the U.S. And, we would probably increase water quality in the process.
What do you think? Can we clean the water and get a bonus of lowered fishing pressure in the oceans? Ponds in the upper Midwest? Large lakes attached to the lower Mississippi? And, if I am guessing right, this could have a substantial benefit in slowing destruction of tropical forest, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and even slow down the loss of topsoil? Mitigate the Gulf dead zone? Or, am I just dreaming? (To check my math, cleaned fish is 15.5 gm of protein per 100 gm. About 2,000 lb of cleaned catfish /acre.) Ernie Rogers **************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
