Nutrient footprint versus EPA + DHA security in land-locked regions—more of local pond farmed, imported marine fish or fish oil capsules?

EPA + DHA intake in land-locked central Europe (CE) is barely fulfilled. Imported marine fish/farmed salmonids are likely the backbone of an ailing EPA + DHA security. Supplementing with captured marine fish oil capsules (~0.5 g up to 1.6 g CO(2)-eq. mg EPA + DHA(−1)) could be comparable in GHG emissions with fish consumption itself (~1 g to as low as 0.6 g CO(2)-eq. mg EPA + DHA(−1)). But synergistic benefits of EPA + DHA intake by consuming fish protein need consideration too. Taking semi-intensive pond carp and intensively farmed salmon as models, we analyzed footprint, eco-services, and resource use efficiency perspectives of achieving EPA + DHA security in a CE region. Despite a lower production footprint, pond-farmed fish greatly lag in EPA + DHA supply (carp 101–181 mg 100 g(−1) < salmon 750–1300 mg 100 g(−1)). It doubles-to-quadruples footprint ‘per mg’ of EPA + DHA: nitrogen (carp 18.3 > salmon 8.7 mg N), phosphorus (carp 6.8 > salmon 1.6 mg P), and climate change (carp 1.84 > salmon 0.8 g CO(2)-eq.). With enhancements in pond carp (>300 mg EPA + DHA 100 g(−1)), these differences may cease to exist. Harnessing EPA + DHA bioaccumulation pathways active in ponds, finishing feeding strategies, and polyculture, the EPA + DHA content in pond fish may be increased. Ecosystem services with EPA + DHA mining from pond food web or high EPA + DHA output-to-input ratio (pond carp 1–200 > RAS salmon 0.75) make ponds an eco-efficient system. As fish consumption in CE must improve, pond-farmed fish would be needed to complement (but not substitute) salmonid/marine fish/oil capsules consumption. Achieving EPA + DHA security with minimum pressure on the environment or global resources.