دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مقایسه برداشت غذا در برابر تغذیه در مقیاس جهانی به همراه ترجمه فارسی
| عنوان فارسی مقاله: | برداشت غذا در برابر(خوراک)تغذیه: مروری بر شیلات پرو در مقیاس جهانی |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | Harvesting for food versus feed: a review of Peruvian fisheries in a global context |
| رشته های مرتبط: | منابع طبیعی، کشاورزی، سیاست و توسعه کشاورزی و شیلات |
| فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند |
| کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله خوب میباشد |
| توضیحات | ترجمه چندین صفحه از ترجمه موجود نیست |
| نشریه | اسپرینگر (Springer) |
| کد محصول | F113 |
|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
| جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات |
|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی: چکیده |
|
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Abstract Peru is the top exporter of fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) worldwide and is responsible for half and a third of global production, respectively. Land- ings of ‘‘anchoveta’’ ( Engraulis ringens ) are used nearly exclusively for FMFO production, despite a proactive national food policy aimed at favoring the direct human consumption of this inexpensive species. It may be surprising that in a country where malnu- trition and caloric deficit constitute major issues, a low-priced and highly nutritious fish such as anchovy does not have stronger domestic demand as a food fish. Here, we review and assess eight potential politico- socio-economic processes that can explain this situa- tion. The main explanation are dietary habits, the preference for broiler and the higher profit from anchovy sold as feed fish compared to its use as a food fish due to historically high FMFO prices, boosted by an increasing demand for aquaculture in a context of finite forage and trash fish resources. In addition, the recent introduction of an individual quota system has shifted bargaining power from processors to fishers, thereby increasing competition for the raw material. This competition results in an increase in anchovy prices offered by the feed fish industry due to its onshore processing overcapacity, which is detrimental to the food fish industry. In the end, although the dominant use of anchovy for fish feed is largely explained by integrating these market mechanisms and other minor ones, this use raises other issues, such as rent redistribution through public policies, employ- ment, equitability and utility (low social costs), and resource management (threats to ecosystems or global change). Different policy scenarios are proposed in relation to these issues. Keywords Fisheries management Politico-socio-economic processes Sustainable development Food security Seafood Feed fish Introduction An old and unresolved debate is raging around the best use of primary production by agriculture to feed humanity. Crops can either be consumed directly as food or converted to animal proteins for use as feed stuff. However, farmed animals are associated with low food conversion efficiency because many kilos of feed are required to produce 1 kilo of animal meat (e.g., Leitch and Godden 1941 ; Brown 1997 ; Bradford 1999 ; Smil 2002 ). This debate is becoming even more current because of global population growth and corresponding food security issues, such as climate change and distributional issues. In developing coun- tries the poorest cannot afford to buy the available, but expensive, food (Alexandratos 1999 ) or cannot access this food (Sen 1981 ). Seafood is increasingly recognized as being an important part of global food security (Smith et al. 2010 ; Tveteras et al. 2012 ). Similar to production of agricultural crops, seafood production does not escape the food versus feed debate, since approximately a third of landed fish catches were used for animal feed in recent years (Tacon et al. 2011 ). Marine feed inputs are mainly derived from the transformation of forage and trash fish into fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) (Tacon and Metian 2009 ), while a smaller part is derived from fish trimmings. Controversies exist over what the best use of forage fish is, i.e., for either direct human consumption (DHC or food fish) or indirect human consumption (IHC or feed fish) through the feeding of farmed animals, with the associated loss of yield for human consumption (Welch et al. 2010 ). The global demand for marine ingredients for feed has grown so fast in recent years that it has raised concerns about the sustainability of marine fisheries (e.g., Naylor et al. 2000 , 2009 ; Smith et al. 2010 ). Furthermore, because a large share of forage and trash fish is harvested in developing countries, some authors feel that the production of animal feed diverts scarce food fish away from the poor in favor of high-paying consumers in emerging and developed economies (Kent 1997 ; Gillet 2008 ). In contrast, other authors argue that hardly any local demand for direct consumption exists for certain forage fish species. Instead, the transformation of fish to FMFO generates economic benefits for both producers and buyers (i.e., the aquaculture industry; Wijkstro ̈ m 2009 ). Smith et al. ( 2010 ) argue that net seafood exports can still contribute to food security in developing countries by generating income and livelihoods. This argument can also be extended to export-oriented forage fisheries industries (see Discussion ). The question of how to best use scarce fish resources is further complicated by structural changes in the demand for FMFO. Animal proteins are not used to feed bovines anymore, and the proportion of FMFO in poultry and swine feed has decreased drastically over the last decade (Tveteras and Tveteras 2010 ). In contrast, FMFO usage in aquaculture feeds has grown rapidly since the 1990s for two reasons. First, in some aquafeeds, the proportion of fishmeal (up to 36 %) and fish oil (up to 26 %) is typically much higher than that in poultry and pig feed (2–3 %). Second, global aquaculture production is growing quickly (FAO 2011a ). However, this growth in aquaculture produc- tion is no longer resulting in an equivalent growth in the use of FMFO due to an increasing use of substitutes, as detailed below. Food supply chains are becoming increasingly globalized and many of them produce a commodity, hence the term ‘‘global commodity chain’’ (GCC) proposed by Gereffi ( 1994 ). Gereffi classified GCCs into two broad categories according to their gover- nance structure: ‘‘producer-driven chains’’ and ‘‘buyer-driven chains’’. The former category is found in sectors where production is capital- and technology- intensive, such as automobiles and computers. In contrast, the latter category appears in activities that are more labor-intensive, including most agricultural commodity chains (Ponte 2002 ). In the case of long- established and complex food chains, such as seafood, clear patterns of governance are less easy to establish than in the case of fresh products from the agricultural sector (Wilkinson 2006 ). Whether fish supply chains for global commodities such as FMFO are ‘‘producer- driven’’ or ‘‘buyer-driven’’ has implications for price formation at the micro-economic level of the food fish market. This distinction also has strong implications at the macro-economic level because Peru has a ‘‘com- modity-dependent economy’’ (CDE) through |