Table 1 Breakdown of aquatic food sources and EPA + DHA supply patterns in land-locked Czechia (typical for Central Europe).

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

Rank

Item

mg EPA + DHA content g−1

g capita−1 day−1 consumed (% of total)

mg EPA + DHA capita−1 day−1 supplied (% of total)

1.

Herring

26.6

2.25 (13.5%)

59.93 (27.5%)

2.

Fish oil capsules

250

0.20 (1.2%)

50.00 (23%)

3.

Mackerel

24.5

1.45 (8.7%)

35.45 (16.3%)

4.

Salmona

15.1

1.73 (10.4%)

31.41 (14.4%)

5.

Sardine

28.8

0.61 (3.7%)

17.52 (8%)

6.

Trout

21.4

0.30 (1.8%)

6.45 (3%)

7.

Carpa

1.5

4.00 (24%)

6.00 (2.8%)

8.

Tuna

2.5

1.58 (9.5%)

3.94 (1.8%)

9.

Pangasius, tilapia

1.03

1.89 (11.4%)

1.95 (0.9%)

10.

Cod

2.3

0.71 (4.2%)

1.62 (0.7%)

11.

Surimi

2.5

0.44 (2.6%)

1.10 (0.5%)

12.

Hake

0.90

1.00 (6%)

0.90 (0.4%)

13.

Oyster, clam

28.8

0.16 (1%)

0.74 (0.3%)

14.

Shrimp

2.1

0.19 (1.2%)

0.40 (0.2%)

15.

Pike, perch, catfish

2.83

0.14 (0.8%)

0.34 (0.2%)

Total

16.6b (100%)

217.8c (100%)

  1. Items are ranked in descending order of EPA + DHA supply on the food plate.
  2. aSelected for case study (see Methods).
  3. bCorresponds to 6 kg fish consumption capita−1 year−1.
  4. cFulfilling 87% of minimum recommended daily EPA + DHA intake (250 mg).
  5. Boldfaced items are selected for case study.