Trophic relationships between people and resources: fish consumption in an artisanal fishers neighborhood in Southern Brazil

Abstract

The study of dietary consumption is important to understanding the relationship between eating habits and natural resources, which may reflect adjustments and adaptations demanded by local environmental changes. This study aimed to understand the trophic relationships between the local families' diets and the ichthyofauna present in an urban neighborhood of artisanal fishers in southern Brazil (Tijucas, Santa Catarina). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews in 88 households who reported the consumption of 62 types of fish, where the most consumed were the mullet (Mugil spp.) and croaker (Micropogonias furnieri). Fish is still an important source of animal protein for local families. Preferences and aversions observed can be explained by the relationship between environmental factors and cultural aspects that relate to the economic and social context of the community. In the last decade fish consumption was affected by local immigration and by contextual changes affecting local fisheries.

Trends in Medicinal Uses of Edible Wild Vertebrates in Brazil

“…The predominance of fishes and mammals in the Brazilian Traditional Medicine confirms our expectations, given that those groups comprise major targets in Brazil [25–28]. Although these two taxa have been primarily harvested for alimentary purposes, they generate a series of the inedible parts [such as bone, skin, tail, feather, liver, and bile (“fel”)], rattle (from rattlesnakes), spine, scale, penis, carapace, beak, teeth, head, nails, and horn that can be used in popular medicines.…”

180 years of marine animal diversity as perceived by public media in southern Brazil

“…Stock monitoring data are regionally and chronologically dispersed [20][21][22][23], and mostly limited to the second half of the 20th and the first decade of the 21st centuries [20,[24][25][26][27]. In Brazil, there has been an increased effort to expand stock reconstructions with data collected from local fisheries [28][29][30][31][32][33] and seafood wholesale market data [34,35], but these approaches are inherently limited to only the most recent decades affected by large national fisheries subsidies, specifically from the 1960's to 1970's [36]. Overall, little is known about the diversity of targeted species and their socio-cultural, economic and market values before more recent political and financial support were introduced to the fishing industry.…”