tuna will be considered vAien discussing consumption. V/herever tuna con- 

 sumption without qualification is mentioned, it will be synonymous with 

 canned tuna consumption. 



A comparison of data on consumption of tuna and of other protein 

 foods and of over-all fish consumption reveals just how tuna fits into the 

 general protein food consumption picture. Table 2 shows per capita con- 

 siunption of meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and cheese from 1909 through 1952. 

 Although there are many ups and downs in the various series of data it 

 will be noted that there has been, in recent years, a relatively high a- 

 bundance of competitive protein foods such as meats of various kinds, 

 poultry, eggs, and cheese. 



The degree of abundance will register more strikingly upon an in- 

 spection of table 3 which shows the net food supply per person in various 

 countries of the world. The section of that table which shows the per- 

 centage of total calories consumed per day obtained from livestock pro- 

 duction indicates that the United States and New Zealand are the leading 

 nations of the world in this respect in the most recent years shown in 

 the table. 



The abundance of other competing protein foods as shown in table 2 

 reacts to the disadvantage of the marketing of fish in general and has 

 a like effect on the marketing of tuna. It can also be seen from table 

 2 just how small fish consumption, and tuna consumption in particular, is 

 compared to the other principal protein foods. Unfortunately, the various 

 statistics are not calculated on exactly comparable bases. Meat con- 

 sumption is given in carcass weight , from v*ich there is considerable waste 

 such as bones and trimmings. Fish consumption is given on an edible weight 

 basis. Poultry consumption is given on a dressed weight basis (unevis- 

 cerated). Egg consiimption is given on a farm weight basis and cheese con- 

 sumption on a primary market weight basis. To get all fish consumption as 

 near to the bases of the other items in the table as possible the data for 

 fish should be increased 30 percent as studies of the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service indicate that the marketed weight of all fish is about that much 

 greater than the edible weight . Using this conversion factor on the 1952 

 data for total fish consumption (edible wei^t) would result in about 15 

 pounds per capita on a marketed wei^t basis. This is still a relatively 

 small itan compared to meat and the total of all other non-fish items in 

 the table. As for tuna, the marketed wei^t is the same as the edible 

 wei^vt . The round weigh t or live weight of tuna consumed in the United 

 States would have amounted to about 3 = 4 pounds per capita in 1952. 



So it can be seen that while this Nation consumes a great amount of 

 protein, a relatively small share is obtained from fishery resources. Far 



40 



