CHAPTER VI
SAVING THE SCRAP FROM THE SEA
If the human race be extravagant in one, more than in any other direction, it is undoubtedly in connection with the utilization of the harvests of the sea. It is a failing as strongly asserted by the primitive as by the cultured races. The aborigine, when there is a big run, will trap as many fish as he can, not for consumption, but apparently for the mere sake of catching his prey. He will select what he requires and leave the remainder to rot. His civilized brother pursues a broadly similar course, only in this event decomposition may not be permitted to run its course without fulfilling a beneficial purpose. The process can be harnessed, as it were, to a more or less useful function.
Improvidence in the consumption of fish is particularly noticeable among those nations which are able to point to an extensive salt-water front, combined with a densely-settled population within a relatively small area. It becomes accentuated when the country is possessed of an intricate and excellent system of rapid inland transportation, allowing the prompt movement of the catches from the points of landing to the centres of consumption.
Such a country is Great Britain. With us fish is an exceedingly cheap food and one which, normally, is readily procurable in adequate quantities. The “long haul” by rail occasions no apprehensions, inasmuch as the railway transport problem, so far as fish is concerned, has been magnificently solved, it being possible to move consignments four hundred, even six hundred miles within a few hours.
The sea’s contribution to the table is prolific. At the same time it is variable. This factor in itself conduces towards pronounced wastage. We seem to have failed lamentably in our efforts to cope with the alternating spells of plenty and relative scarcity in a scientific manner. We have not mastered the adjustment of seasonal gluts, arising from the periodic massed movements of the fish, to shortages in order to maintain a steady and uniform supply the whole year round. In view of the immense strides which have been made in the art of preserving perishable foodstuffs, this deficiency is certainly somewhat remarkable.
The extremely low prices at which the bulk of the food from the sea, particularly of herring and sprat—occasionally mackerel—is available, are primarily responsible for the extravagance which rules. This state of affairs offers another interesting illustration of the fact that extremely cheap living promotes waste. We need only to recall the experience of the war to assure ourselves upon this point. Under the system of price control, coupled with abnormally high rates, fish purchases had to be conducted by the trade with extreme caution to obviate financial losses, while, similarly, the consumer was compelled to be more economic and less fastidious in his, or her, tastes. Under such conditions far less of the single fish was wasted, while greater ingenuity was exercised in the preparation of the less attractive edible portions for the table.
Nevertheless, no matter how extreme the care or economy manifested, a certain degree of wastage is unavoidable. For the most part the offal, which in itself is appreciable in volume, is regarded as irreclaimable and valueless except as a fertilizer. But this reasoning is fallacious. Fish-waste is capable of furnishing raw material in several forms to feed other industries. As yet this notable circumstance has not become fully appreciated in these islands, the practicability of using such refuse only having been established during the past few years.
Ability to turn fish offal to distinct profitable advantage not only solves the problem in its economic aspect, but at the same time indicates a promising outlook for glut catches and to which the ordinary markets are often denied. In this country the conventional disposal of surplus fish is decidedly deplorable for the reason that it follows the line of least resistance. A glut or late catch is generally sold at an absurd price in bulk to serve merely as manure.
If the fish could be turned directly into the soil such a use might not be exposed to severe condemnation, although it is to be deprecated because it represents a serious misuse of valuable food. But, as a rule, this cannot be conducted with the essential promptitude for obvious reasons. Then the farmer suffers a heavy loss. Vigilant gulls and other birds having a well-defined penchant for fish diet raid the land to enjoy a Gargantuan feast with the minimum of effort on their part. The birds will even follow a train, or road wagons, bearing a manurial consignment of their food, for miles from the point of landing and then, after it has been dumped, will swoop down to gorge themselves to the full. In many instances a farmer has been known to lose at least 50 per cent. of his purchase in this manner. He may essay alert and effective measures to combat the birds’ attacks, but he will find it an unequal contest. In one instance, which came before my notice, the insatiable birds, catching sight of one or two open trucks laden with a freshly-landed catch en route to the land, attacked the wagons so vigorously as to cause a very perceptible shrinkage in the load before it reached its destination. Another farmer, who had been persuaded to buy two or three truckloads of freshly-landed fish just because it was cheap, subsequently expressed his doubt as to whether he had driven a good bargain after all. The birds attacked the field over which the loads were distributed in such overwhelming numbers as to prompt the opinion that the field really contained more gulls than fish! So, after all, it is extremely questionable whether the purchase of a bumper catch for use as a fertilizer is really such a bargain as it may appear from a cursory reflection.
In our large cities and towns the treatment of fish offal and surplus supplies drawn from the markets, stores, and retail shops, as well as the hotels, restaurants, and clubs, for industrial exploitation, should present no difficulty whatever. It is an offal apart and a noisome one. Its susceptibility to rapid decomposition and the emission of obnoxious odours during the process demand its prompt removal. It cannot be handled with other refuse owing to its offensiveness. Consequently the system of special collection by vehicles of the closed tank type has become the general practice. In this manner the disconcerting factor pertaining to the utilization of organic waste—effective segregation at the source—is assured.