I never said I was the marketing guru, just they should get one...

I never said I was the marketing guru, just they should get one

The point that most people miss in these simplistic articles is that: the scale of your view matters. If one draws a boundary around 'salmon farming in Australia' and then compares one type with another, sure RAS looks better (if it was economically viable). If one draws a boundary around only 'marine health' as the environmental degradation of concern, then sure salmon looks worse than prawns (not sure where cod or trout sits). Though I think this is fundamentally flawed.

First, if one is to compare salmon farming, they should compare it to global industry standard and factor in any economic and environmental cost of importing from other places such as Norway or Chile. I would be GOBSMACKED if that came up with 'Salmon imported from Chile is better than Tasmania', but let's compare.

Second, this is the market for protein. People throw in their trolleys salmon, other fish, chicken, pork, etc. We should be comparing against all proteins that people consume, as this is what our food supply systems look like.

Thirdly, one should compare against all the environmental, social and economic metrics across the entire value chain (all inputs including feed and fertilizer). Carbon emissions, water use, water quality impacts, soil loss, biodiversity impacts, animal cruelty, and social impacts. For example, some prawns ponds in Asia are grown from fingerlings that children capture from the wetlands; putting salmon in concrete tanks surely is akin to 'cage poultry' versus ocean pens being 'free range'; etc.

Tasmanian salmon will win and lose on some of that. But it's not a black and white 'salmon is bad' argument. Get a guru who can demystify all that, and market it to the masses.