Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-FSH-19 standard review
Does fish farming help wild fish stocks? (2000)
Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies.
Overview
Naylor RL et al.. Nature 2000 · PMID 10890435 · DOI 10.1038/35016500
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
Plain-language summary
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 in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MC, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M
- Journal
- Nature
- Year
- 2000
- Identifier
- PMID 10890435 DOI 10.1038/35016500
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
Does aquaculture relieve pressure on wild fisheries?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Review of aquaculture effects on world fish supplies
- Country
Global
- Period
2000
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Aquaculture types
- Endpoints
Net fish supply
5. Actual results
- Results
Farming carnivorous species requires large wild fish inputs; 'On balance, global aquaculture production still adds to world fish supplies'.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Must reduce wild fish inputs in feed.
6. Strengths
- Nature; influential
7. Weaknesses
- Old (2000)
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
I-FSH-01 (feed change).
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
Environmental, not health.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | very indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | partly correct but over-interpreted |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Farming carnivorous fish species depletes the wild fish stocks used as feed rather than relieving pressure on the oceans. – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Naylor showed in Nature that farming carnivorous species actually depletes wild stocks used as feed.
- A. What was actually studied?
Net fish supply.
- B. What did the authors find?
Carnivorous species depend on wild inputs; overall aquaculture still adds supply.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Reduce wild inputs.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Ecological failure argument.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Partly: archive omits that overall aquaculture adds to supply.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- partly correct but over-interpreted