Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-024-09836-4

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Seafood in Argentina: marine fish species, seasonal presence

and prices
Jorge A. Hirt‑Chabbert · Alejandro S. Mechaly ·
Ciro Tapia

Received: 25 October 2023 / Accepted: 16 January 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

Abstract Argentina is among the 20 largest seafood
producing countries in the world, with an annual fish
capture of about 800,000 tons. However, national
annual fish consumption is low, about 5 kg per cap-
ita, and the domestic seafood market is little known.
The objective of this study was to contribute to the
characterization of seafood in the Argentine mar-
ket. Monthly landings, presence at points of sale and
prices of seafood were analyzed. The seafood data
were gathered from official statistics of the Under-
secretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture, statistics
from the Central Market of Buenos Aires and surveys
conducted in fish shops in the city of Mar del Plata.
J. A. Hirt‑Chabbert (*)
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero
(INIDEP), Paseo Victoria Ocampo N˚1, P.O. Box 175,
7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
e-mail: hirt.chabbert@gmail.com
Based on the monthly seasonal index (SI), price vari-
ations throughout the year were studied. Likewise,
relative fish prices were determined by using as unit
the price of Argentine hake (Merluccius hubbsi),
which is the most consumed fish in the country. This
study identified the marine species most present in the
domestic market and their prices. The presence of the
different fish species at the points of sale could not be
directly associated with their landing seasons. There
was also no direct link between fish prices and quan-
tities landed. No significant seasonal fluctuations in
prices were found on seafood products (SI = 90–110),
with the exception of hake fillet (SI = 80–113). Many
finfishes had a price peak during Easter week. Over-
all, price patterns suggest that seafood prices in
Argentina are mainly determined by demand rather
than supply. Further research on seafood traceability
and fish consumption is needed to advance the under-
standing of the seafood market in Argentina.

J. A. Hirt‑Chabbert · A. S. Mechaly
Centro Científico Tecnológico, Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET),
Moreno 3527 Piso 3, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina

A. S. Mechaly
Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad
y Biotecnología (INBIOTEC), Vieytes 3103,
7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina

C. Tapia
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional
de Mar del Plata (FCA-UNMdP), Ruta 226 km 73,5,
7620 Balcarce, Argentina

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Graphical abstract chain with less waste and better distribution channels
in the modern seafood industry (Naylor et al. 2009;

OECD 2015; FAO 2018; OECD/FAO 2019; Costello

et al. 2020).
Keywords Fisheries · Aquaculture · Domestic Argentina is an important producer of seafood at
market · Export · Consumption global scale. It is among the 20 largest fisheries pro-
ducers in the world (FAO 2022). The country has
about 4000 km of marine coastline with an extensive
continental shelf, where a fishing fleet of 1020 vessels
Introduction
operates under national and provincial fishing per-
mits (Bevilacqua 2019). Three marine species clearly
Seafood plays an essential role in nutrition and food
dominating the captures: Argentine red shrimp (Ple‑
security in much of the world, and will become even
oticus muelleri), Argentine shortfin squid (Illex
more important in the near future to meet the needs of
argentinus), and Argentine hake (Merluccius hubbsi)
a population projected to grow to about 10,000 mil-
(SAGyP 2022). Argentine seafood is strongly ori-
lion people by mid-century (World Bank 2013; Olsen
ented towards the external market. It is estimated that
2015; UN 2019; Searchinger et al. 2019). Today,
up to 90% of the national fish captures are exported
aquatic foods provide an average of 17% of the ani-
(Sesar et al. 2015; Llamazares Vegh et al. 2021). In
mal protein consumed by the global population (over
2022, about 490,500 tons of marine products were
50% in some regions), and are a valuable source
exported with a total value of about USD 1823 mil-
of nutrients and micronutrients that are extremely
lion (SAGyP 2022). However, most Argentine prod-
important for a diversified and healthy diet (FAO/
ucts offered in the international market have a low
WHO 2011; Béné et al. 2015; Thilsted et al. 2016;
level of processing. They are sold frozen as whole
Troell et al. 2019). Annual world fish consumption
fishes or fillets; there is a deficit of high value-added
(including finfishes, crustaceans and molluscs) has
products (e.g. canned, smoked, and pickled products)
increased from about 9.0 kg per capita in 1961 to
with high market value (Pagani and Gualdoni 2018).
20.2 kg in 2020, and is projected to reach 21.4 kg in
Although the fishing industry is structurally in sur-
2030 (FAO 2022). This increase is driven mainly due
plus, the value of exported seafood products is about
to population growth, urbanization and a preference
10 times higher than of imported ones, Argentina has
for healthy food, but also by an improved production
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
to import many highly industrialized seafood prod-
ucts to meet domestic demand (Carciofi et al. 2021).
In contrast to a well-established national fishing
industry, aquaculture in Argentina has no significant
production and focuses almost exclusively on fresh-
water species. In 2021, the country’s total aquaculture
production was 3,690 tons, with the rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the pacú (Piaractus mes‑
opotamicus) accounting for 2177 tons and 1246 tons
respectively, and less than 100 tons represented by
marine species (mussels and oysters) (INDEC 2023a,
b). However, during the last two years there have been
important advances in trout production, achieving the
export of 5000 tons of trout to the United States for
the first time in 2023 (Trout farming in Patagonia).
Argentina’s abundance of natural resources and well-
established research groups in science and technol-
ogy offer the country great potential for progress in
Fig. 1  Main fishing ports in Argentina. Buenos Aires, the
capital city, is the most important fish consumption area in the
country and Mar del Plata is the main port. The values indicate
the average landings for the period 2016–2022 in each port.
Based on information from SAGyP (2023)
this industry. Despite these opportunities, the expan-
sion of aquaculture has been delayed by multiple fac-
tors. These include the low domestic consumption
of fish, the lack of specific regulations for the sector,
the insufficient awareness of potential entrepreneurs
about this activity who leads to limited productive
investments, and the scarcity of promotional tools
(Carciofi and Rossi 2021).
The city of Mar del Plata is the main fishing port
in Argentina, following in decreasing order of land-
ings by Puerto Madryn, Puerto Deseado and Ush-
uaia (SAGyP 2023) (Fig. 1). The port of Mar del
Plata supplies most of the fresh marine products that
are sold in the country (Pagani and Gualdoni 2018;
Mateo 2018). Until 1991, some fish volumes and
prices could be estimated from the statistics of the
Mar del Plata Seafood Market (MCMdP- Mercado
Concentrador del Puerto de Mar del Plata in Spanish)
and the Central Market of the city of Buenos Aires
(MCBA, Mercado Central de Buenos Aires) (Ber-
tolotti et al. 2010). However, as part of the national
process of deregulation of the economy, the MCMdP
was closed by Decree 2284/91 (InfoLEG 2023) and
the mandatory commercialization of all seafood
products entering the city of Buenos Aires through
the MCBA was abolished (Bertolotti et al. 2010).
Consequently, the domestic market is characterized
by a high degree of commercial informality and the
absence of systematized official data (Onestini et al.
2002; Bevilacqua and Pizzo 2017). Moreover, mis-
labeled seafood, especially fresh fillet, is relatively
common in fish shops (Delpiani et al. 2020).
Currently, little information is available on the
Argentine domestic seafood market. An accurate cal-
culation of national seafood consumption is not possi-
ble, but the most recent official data from Argentina’s
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and FisheriAes
of Argentina (MAGyP—Ministerio de Agricultura,
Ganadería y Pesca in Spanish) placed the apparent
annual consumption about 4.8 kg per capita (MAGyP
2019). The low consumption of fish in Argentina is
mainly related to the dietary habits of the population
and the price. Historically, Argentina has been char-
acterized by a high consumption of meat, especially
beef, and a very low proportion of fish and eggs in
the daily diet (MS 2020). Beef consumption predomi-
nates (about 60 kg per capita), followed by poultry
(about 43 kg per capita) and pork (about 11 kg per
capita) (Bevilacqua and Pizzo 2017). In general,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Argentinians know little about the different marine
species suitable for consumption and how to cook
them, and they choose cheaper proteins than fish
(Bertolotti 1996; Bevilacqua and Pizzo 2017; López
et al. 2021).
In order to achieve a healthier diet for the Argen-
tine population, and promote the development of
the domestic seafood market, the government has
launched the “Eat Argentine Fish” (“Comé pes-
cado argentine”) campaign to encourage the inclu-
sion of aquatic species in the Argentine diet. This is
a challenging task that requires an interdisciplinary
approach and a long-term vision. Since there is very
little information on the Argentine seafood market,
one of the first necessary steps is to achieve a better
understanding of the marine products currently sold
in the country. Therefore, the objective of this study is
to contribute to the characterization of seafood prod-
ucts in the Argentine domestic market. With this pur-
pose, the main marine species landed, their quantities,
availability throughout the year and seasonal price
fluctuations were analyzed.
Material and methods
Data sources
Official statistics from the Undersecretariat
of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Argentina (SPyA,
Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura in Spanish)
The SPyA reports monthly landing and export statis-
tics for the main fisheries in Argentina. The informa-
tion presented comes from the National Institute of
Statistics and Census database and the Argentine Cus-
toms Authority. The following documents were ana-
lyzed in this study: (1) Landings of marine captures
(Desembarques de Capturas Marítimas in Spanish),
(2) Monthly reports on seafood landings and exports
(Informes de Coyuntura in Spanish), and Fisheries
exports and imports (Exportaciones e Importaciones
Pesqueras in Spanish).
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
Statistics from the central market of Buenos
Aires (MCBA, Mercado Central de Buenos Aires
in Spanish)
The MCBA is the largest wholesale market for
fruits, vegetables, flowers and seafood in Argentina.
It supplies the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires
(CABA, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires in
Spanish) and its surrounding area, Greater Buenos
Aires (GBA, Gran Buenos Aires in Spanish), with
food from all over the country. The population of
CABA and GBA as a whole is 14 million people,
which is almost one-third of the total population
of Argentina (INDEC 2022). In addition, CABA
and GBA are the two most important metropolitan
areas of seafood consumption in Argentina (Errazti
et al. 1995; Bertolotti et al. 1996). These centers are
characterized by offering a greater variety of prod-
ucts, whereas marine fish consumption in the rest
of the country (with the exception of Mar del Plata)
is mostly limited to a single species, the Argentine
hake (Bertolotti et al. 1996). The vast majority of
seafood present in the MCBA is marketed fresh
and comes from the port of Mar del Plata, national
products from aquaculture are not sold (Bevilacqua
2019); therefore, the MCBA seafood statistics can
be considered a good indicator of the domestic sea-
food market for most of the country.
Survey of fish shops in Mar del Plata
Outdated information places Mar del Plata as the
third city in fish consumption after CABA and GBA
(Errazti et al. 1995). It is likely that the city will con-
tinue to maintain the same position because the port
of Mar del Plata is where most seafood destined for
the domestic market comes from (Bertolotti et al.
1996, 2010; Pagani and Gualdoni 2018), and it has
a large population of about 682,000 inhabitants
(INDEC 2022).
Between January 27 and November 1, 2018, seven
surveys were conducted in fish shops of Mar del Plata
(MdP-FS). In each of these surveys, between six and
nine fish shops were visited and the presence and
price of fish products were documented. Information
was obtained through interviews with fish sellers and
posterior analysis of photographic records of the sea-
food displayed in the MdP-FS. The total number of
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
fish shops in Mar del Plata cannot be precisely deter-
mined, but the city’s Commercial Directory Guide
shows 35 stores (Páginas Amarillas—Accessed on
June 2023). Although the number of MdP-FS was
limited, they can be considered a representative
sample of the shops in Mar del Plata, since they are
among the most popular fish point of sales, and are
located in different areas of the city.
Data analysis
Landings and exports of marine species
The most important commercial catches of the
Argentine fleet were identified. A global analysis of
national landings (quantities) and exports (quantities
and prices) of marine species caught in Argentina in
the last two decades was conducted. Subsequently,
the study focused on the period 2016—2022, analyz-
ing landings in Argentina and in the port of Mar del
Plata by species group (finfishes, molluscs and crus-
taceans), by fleet type (fresh vessels and freezer ves-
sels) and by the main species caught.
Presence of marine species at points of sale
in Argentina
The presence of the different species sold in the
MCBA from January 2016 to December 2022 was
analyzed for each of the months. For the overall anal-
ysis of the seven-year period, any species found in a
given month for at least three years was marked as
present. In some special cases where the species was
found in two years but not in 2018, and it was pre-
sent in the 2018 MdP-FS survey, the species was also
marked as present. Only the presence was analyzed,
without considering volumes sold, since the available
information on quantities was limited to a few spe-
cies. In addition, for the same period, monthly land-
ings of the main commercial marine species in Argen-
tina were analyzed. Three color scales were used to
represent the fluctuations in landings throughout the
year: dark grey (highest landings: peak season), light
grey (average landings: evenly distributed throughout
the year) and white (very low or no landings).
Prices of fish products at points of sale in Argentina
Seasonal variations in prices for the main marketed
species in the MCBA were analyzed using the sea-
sonal index price method for a five-year period
(2017–2021) (Campos 1991; Wickrama et al. 2021).
This is a statistical technique used for identify-
ing and analyzing seasonal patterns in commod-
ity prices to determine the regular price fluctuations
that occur due to seasonal variations in supply and/
or demand. The analysis of seasonal Index prices
was approach through the monthly centered moving
average method. It involves calculating the moving
averages for each month by considering the values
of prices in the current month and a certain number
of months before and after it. This method helps to
smooth out random fluctuations and highlight the
underlying seasonal patterns. The following steps
were taken to determine the seasonal patterns of
fish prices using the monthly centered moving aver-
age method: (1) Data collection: historical fish price
data for most species presented in the MCBA were
gathered from July 2016 to June 2022 to analyze the
period 2017–2021; (2) Identifying and fixing missing
values: missing values were handled by using three
different techniques. Linear interpolation, K-Nearest
Neighbords (KNN) imputation and discovering price
by using a related price (for instance, getting whole
price of a fish by using the price of fillet for same
month and the historic average rate between whole
and fillet product) (Donner 1982); (3) Constant prices
estimation: current prices were adjusted by inflation
using the IPIM (wholesale prices index) from the
INDEC; (4) Moving Average Calculation: calculating
the centered moving average for each month by aver-
aging the prices for the current month and 5.5 months
before and after it. Thus, the average was centered on
every month (centered moving average); (5) Average
Price calculation: Calculating the average price for
each month by summing up the prices and dividing
by the 5 years considered; (6) Seasonal Index calcu-
lation: dividing each centred moving average by the
corresponding average price and multiply by 100 to
obtain the seasonal index. The seasonal index repre-
sents the relative price level compared to the average
price; (7) Average Seasonal Index calculation: Calcu-
lating the average seasonal index for each month by
averaging the seasonal indices over multiple years.
A seasonal index above 100 indicates that prices are
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

above average, while an index below 100 indicates
that prices are below average.
A general price trend throughout the year 2018 was
analyzed for the seafood products most frequently
found in the MdP-FS. Prices (AR$) of each product
were calculated as the average values among the dif-
ferent fish shops for each survey visit. Because the
MdP-FS data were limited to seven days during the
year, detailed analysis of price movements to detect
unusually large fluctuations (peaks or valleys) in a
specific week of the year was not possible. However,
since it is know that demand for seafood is particu-
larly high during the Easter period, one visit to MdP-
FS was made before Easter and the next visit during
Easter week to analyze price fluctuations at that par-
ticular time.
To compare the prices of different seafood prod-
ucts, a Relative Price (RP) approach was used (Parks
1978; Alvarez et al. 2019; Douglas 2020). The RP
allowed comparing seafood prices from different
periods without the influence of the inflationary com-
ponent and the exchange rate of the Argentine Pesos
(AR$) against the United State Dollar (USD). As a
reference for future research, a USD = 1 had a value of
Fig. 2  Total landings and export of seafood in Argentina between 2002 and 2022. Based on information from SAGyP (2023)
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
AR$ = 18.76 at the beginning and AR$ = 38.89 at the
end of year 2018 (Website Quotation dollar—https://​
www.​cotiz​acion-​dolar.​com.​ar/​dolar-​histo​r ico-​2018.​
php). The price of Argentine hake was taken as the
reference unit (value = 1), since it is the best known
and most consumed marine species in the country
(Ortega and Álvarez 2016; Bevilacqua 2019). The
whole finfishes were referenced to the price of hake-
whole corresponding at the same period (month and
year for the MCBA, and survey event for the MdP-
FS), while fillets and shellfishes to the price of hake-
fillets. In addition to the national marine species, the
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), an imported species,
was also studied, as it is in high demand in Argentina.
Statistical analysis
The analysis of annual quantities of seafood landed
versus exported was conducted using the Spearman`s
correlation method. Seasonal index prices of the main
sold species in the MCBA were analyzed by non-
parametric Kruskall-Wallis test. In cases where a sig-
nificant difference was observed among groups, indi-
vidual means were compared using Dunn’s multiple
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
comparison test. All analyses were performed using
Prism 8.0 software (Graph Pad Software Inc.). Null
hypotheses were rejected at a significance level of
P < 0.05.
Results
Landings and exports of marine species
A list of the main commercial marine fish species
landed in Argentina is shown in Appendix 1.
Over the last two decades, the total landings of
seafood in Argentina have been between 700,000 and
1,100,000 tons per year, with the highest landing dur-
ing the period 2002–2008 and with quite stable land-
ing about 800,000 tons per year in the last six years
(Fig. 2). There is a strong correlation between quan-
tities landed and exported ­(rs = 0.77), where the total
volume of exported products (processed and unpro-
cessed) have represented between 51 and 65% of total
landing, with values ≥ 60% since 2008 (Fig. 2). Dur-
ing 2016–2022, marine products were exported with
a total value ranged between USD 1.7 billion and
USD 2.1 billion (Fig. 2).
For the period 2016–2022, between 54 and 44% of
all annual national catches were landed in the port of
Mar del Plata, with finfishes accounting for an aver-
age of 67% (range: 65–72%), molluscs 57% (range:
37–77%) and crustaceans 6% (range 4–8%) of these
national landings. There was a ratio of approximately
50:50 between the total quantities of fresh and frozen
products landed at national level. In Mar del Plata,
landings of fresh fish predominate, but there is a ten-
dency for the freezer fleet to be on the rise. In 2016,
39% of landings in Mar del Plata were frozen prod-
ucts, while in 2022 this proportion raised to 45%.
Three species clearly dominate the marine land-
ings in the country: Argentine hake, Argentine
shortfin squid and Argentine red shrimp. During
2016–2022, the three species together accounted for
79.7% of the total national landed, with 36.7% of
hake, 15.3% of squid and 27.7% of shrimp. Whereas
in Mar del Plata, these species accounted for 77.9% of
total landings in the local port, with 57.2% for hake,
17.5% for squid and only 3.2% for shrimp (Fig. 3).
Almost all main commercial finfishes have their big-
gest landings in the port of Mar del Plata, with only
a few underrepresented species. The main species
unloaded at Mar del Plata showed the following per-
centages in relation to total national landings: Argen-
tine hake (75.0%), whitemouth croaker (Micropogo‑
nias furnieri) (52.7%), skates nei (95.2%), stripped
weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa) (82.8%), Atlantic
chub mackerel (Scomber colias) (98.7%), Argentine
anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) (73.1%), Brazilian
flathead (Percophis brasiliensis) (98.1%), red porgy
(Pagrus pagrus) (98.8%) and flatfishes nei (93.4%)
(Fig. 3). During these period, three important fin-
fish species were practically not landed in Mar del
Plata: Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius autra‑
lis) (0.3%), Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus elegi‑
noides) (0.3%) and longtail hake (Macruronus magel‑
lanicus) (4.9%) (Fig. 3).
Presence of marine fishes at points of sale
Table 1 shows the main commercial marine species
commercialized in the Argentine domestic market
grouped by their presence throughout the year. Three
groups were identified: (1) Presence all year round,
(2) Presence part of the year, and (3) Sporadic pres‑
ence or absence. Some species clearly belong to a
specific group, but others were more difficult to cat-
egorize. The criterion used to define monthly pres-
ence or absence was a subjective approach; however,
it allows defining limits among the groups. Neverthe-
less, different limits can be used based on the infor-
mation of Table 1. Overall, the presence of the dif-
ferent fish species at the points of sale could not be
directly associated with their landing seasons.
The Presence all year round group identified the
main species marketed in the Argentine domestic
market. It included the three species with the highest
catches by far in Argentine waters: Argentine hake,
Argentine red shrimp and Argentine shortfin squid.
Most of the species in this group had landings all year
round and a season with highest catches (Table 1).
Under this behavior could be found Argentine hake,
Argentine red shrimp, whitemouth croaker, stripped
weakfish, flatfishes nei, pink cuskeel (Genypterus
blacodes), smoothhound (Mustelus schmitti), angel
shark (Squatina spp.), elephant fish (Callorhinchus
callorynchus), Argentine seabass (Acanthistius
patachonicus), Argentine sandperch (Pseudopercis
semifasciata), sharks and parona (Parona signata).
On the other hand, a few species had a well-defined
high landing season with very low or no catches
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Fig. 3  Landings of the main marine species in Argentina and SAGyP (2023). As a point of reference, for the same period,
Mar del Plata between 2016 and 2022. Quantities are the aver- an average of 2992 thousand tons of beef with bone were pro-
age annual landings for the period. Based on information from duced per year in Argentina SAGyP (2024)

during some part of the year, but still they were well (Urophycis brasiliensis). The Atlantic salmon is also
represented at points of sale all year round, such as included in this group, even though it is not a wild-
Argentine shortfin squid, red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), caught species in Argentina, it was always present in
cornalito (Odontesthes incisa) and Brazilian codling the domestic market.

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Table 1  Presence of the main commercial marine species in (MCBA) for the period 2016–2022, and the fish shops of Mar
the domestic market of Argentina. Grouped by their presence del Plata (MdP-FS) in 2018
throughout the year in the Central Market of Buenos Aires
Species Monthly landings and presence at points of ­salea,b,c % ­exportedd
Presence all year ­rounde
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Argentine hake 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 7+ 7 36% W, M

Argentine red shrimp 7+ 6 7+ 7+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 6+ 7 75% W, exc.W
Argentine shortfin squid 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 6 6+ 6 86% W, V, T
Whitemouth croaker 6+ 5 7+ 5+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 6 6+ 6 88% W
Stripped weakfish 3+ 2 6+ 2+ 4+ 4 5+ 7+ 6 6 4+ 5 94% W, F
Scallop 3+ 3 3+ 4+ 4+ 4 5+ 6+ 3 5 4 4 98% Callus
Red porgy 5+ 5 7+ 7+ 7+ 6 6+ 6+ 6 7 7+ 5 40% W
Flatfishes nei 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 6+ 7 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 30% F
Smoothhound 7+ 6 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 7+ 6 4% W, F, M
Pink cuskeel 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 39% W, M
Angel shark 7+ 4 7+ 6+ 6+ 7 6 6+ 6 6 6+ 6 12% F
Elephant fish 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 7 7 6 5 5 1% F, M
Argentine seabass 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 6+ 6 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 42% W, F
Argentine sandperch 6+ 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 7 7+ 6 8% W
Sharks nei 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 7 5 6 4 6 0%
Bluefish 6+ 6 6+ 6+ 6+ 7 5+ 6+ 7 6 6+ 6 5% W
Parona leatherjack 4+ 3 5+ 5+ 5 5 6 7+ 6 5 4+ 3 22% W
Cornalito 3+ 7 7+ 6+ 7+ 5 7+ 7+ 6 4 5+ 5 0%
Mullet 2 3 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 25
Argentine stiletto shrimp 3 + 3 3+ 6+ 4+ 4 4+ 3+ 4 4 4+ 4 0%
Brazilian codling 3+ 4 6+ 7+ 6+ 5 5+ 5+ 6 6 5+ 5 0%
Wreckfish 2+ 2 4+ 3+ 4+ 5 5+ 5+ 5 4 4+ 4 0%
Atlantic ­Salmon f 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 6 6+ 6 Imported
Presence part of the year
Skates nei 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 54% W, M
Atlantic chub mackerel 6 5 6 5 1 1 4 6 4 6 5 5 3% W, M
Argentine anchovy 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 44% H&G brine
Brazilian flathead 2+ 2 2+ 1+ 1+ 4 3 5+ 4 5 4 5 33% F
Black drum 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 0%
Silverside 1+ 3 3+ 3+ 5+ 5 5 5+ 4 2 3+ 3 0%
Red mullet 4+ 4 5+ 6 5+ 5 4 4 3 4 2 2 0%
Crabs 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 6 6 0%
Patagonian squid 1+ 4 2+ 3+ 2+ 3 3+ 3+ 2 3 5+ 1 0%
Argentine conger 2 0 5 3 3 3 5 4 2 3 1 1 0%
Sporadic presence or absence
Longtail hake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20% F, HGT, M
Southern blue whiting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16% M, HGT
Patagonian toothfish 0+ 0 0+ 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0 ¿? W, M, F
Southern king crab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61% Legs
White bream 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3% W
Southern hake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53% H&G

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Table 1  (continued)
Species Monthly landings and presence at points of ­salea,b,c % ­exportedd
Presence all year ­rounde
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Argentine croaker 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 71% W

Castaneta 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21% W
Atlantic bonito 1 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Sea snail nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Yellowtail amberjack 1 0 0+ 0+ 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0%
a
The chromatic scale represents the variation in quantities landed over the year. Dark-grey: highest landings; light-grey: intermediate
landings; white: very low or null landings
b
The numbers quantify the presence in the MCBA. For the seven years analyzed in the MCBA, a value of seven indicates full pres-
ence and zero absence during the entire period
c
The symbol “ + ” indicates presence in the MdP-FS
d
Percentage exported of landed without conversion by processing (Total exported (tons)* 100/Total landed (tons)). PRODUCTS:
H&G = Head & Gutted; HGT = Head & Gutted & Tailed; W = whole and/or H&G and/or HGT; M = meat; V = vaina; T = tentacles;
F = fillet
e
Species with presence values ≥ 3 or 2 + for each month. Exceptions: stripped weakfish, mullet and wreckfish
f
Not a wild-caught species from Argentina, but a cultured species from Chile. About 8000 tons/year are estimated to be imported

The Presence part of the year group included
species that had different types of behavior between
quantities landed and commercial presence. For
example, Argentine anchovy had important catches
(> 8000 tons/year) which were landed almost exclu-
sively in spring, in line with the season found in the
MCBA. On the contrary, Atlantic chub mackerel also
had high catches (> 8000 tons/year) concentrated
mainly in spring, but its presence in the MCBA was
common for most of the year. Likewise, Brazilian
flathead, skates nei and scallop (Zygochlamis patago‑
nica) were not always present in the MCBA and the
MdP-FS, although they had catches higher than 4000
tons/year and landings distributed all year round.
Fishes with landings of less than 400 tons/year (black
drum (Pogonias cromis), silverside (Odontesthes
spp.), red mullet (Mullus argentinae), crabs nei and
Argentine conger (Conger orbignyanus) were only
landed and marketed for part of the year.
The Absent or only sporadic presence group
included species with low landings, but also with very
important landings. For instance, over 31,000 tons of
longtail hake, 12,000 tons of Southern blue whiting,
2,000 tons of Southern king crab (Lithodes santolla)
and 600 tons of Southern hake (Merluccius australis)
were landed annually; however, they were absent in
the MCBA and the MdP-FS. Patagonian toothfish and
white bream (Diplodus argenteus), with landings over
3,500 and 1,000 tons per year respectively, were pre-
sented only very sporadically at points of sale. Spe-
cies with annual catches below 50 tons (e.g. castaneta
(Nemadactylus bergi), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda),
Yellowtail amberjack (Seriola lalandi) were sporadi-
cally present at points of sale.
Prices of fish products at points of sale
Seasonal prices at the MCBA
Price patterns of nine of the ten most sold species (by
quantity) in the MCBA were analyzed (Ortega and
Álvarez 2016). The Argentine red shrimp was the
exception, as it had a wide variety of product pres-
entations (e.g. tail, whole, whole raw, whole cooked,
raw peeled, cooked peeled) but none of them with
sufficient data for analysis.
Among fillet products, with the exception of
Argentine hake, the seasonal indexes were within
the 110–90 range all year round without a clear price
pattern but with lowest values in spring (Fig. 4).
Argentine hake fillet showed the highest price vari-
ations with a maximum value of 113 in April and
a minimum of 84 in December (Fig. 4). It was the

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
Fig. 4  Seasonal index prices of the best-selling fish fillets in the Central Market de Buenos Aires (MCBA) for the period 2017–
2021. Seasonal index = mean, and regularity index = standard deviation. Fish images sourced from INIDEP website
only product with significant seasonal price variation
(P < 0.0001), April was statistically different from
October-December, and March from December.
Whole finfish products presented a price pattern
similar to fillets, with low fluctuation (range 110–90)
and mostly lowest values in spring (Fig. 5). No sig-
nificant price fluctuations were found for these prod-
ucts in the year (P > 0.05). Price peaks in April was
observed in Argentine hake and pink cuskeel, and in
minor extension in Atlantic salmon (Fig. 5). Whole
hake showed less price variation (range 109–91) and
different pattern than hake fillet (Fig. 5).
Two shellfish products were analyzed, the whole
Argentine shortfin squid and the squid tube (just the
mantle of the squid). They also showed no signifi-
cant price fluctuation all year round (range 107–92),
but unlike finfishes they lowest values were not asso-
ciated to spring (Fig. 6). A price peak was observed
in March for the whole product but not for the squid
tube (Fig. 6).
Price trend at the MdP‑FS
The price trend (in AR$) of a limited number of
fish products are shown in Fig. 7, but they represent
the different patterns observed. All products had
a price rise throughout the year, but with uneven
increases. Many of the fillet products showed a sig-
nificant price peak during Easter week (March 25 to
April 1st), among these species are: flatfishes nei,
pink cuskeel, smoothhound, Argentine hake, angel
shark, stripped weakfish and whitemouth croaker. In
contrast, the Atlantic salmon fillet had a price drop
at Easter, and then rose sharply until the end of the
year. The price evolution of whole fishes was more
fluctuating than fillets along the year, and did not
show a price peak at Easter with the exception of
Argentine sandperch and Argentine hake. In gen-
eral, shellfish prices were higher than finfishes with
the Argentine red shrimp being the most expensive
shellfish. The Easter peak was not clearly observed
on shellfishes, but a few product had a slight
increase at this time of the year (e.g. whole shrimp,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Fig. 5  Seasonal index prices of the best-selling whole finfishes in the Central Market de Buenos Aires (MCBA) for the period 2017–
2021. Seasonal index = mean, and regularity index = standard deviation. Fish images sourced from INIDEP website

squid tube, peeled mussel). On the contrary, peeled
Argentine red shrimp experienced a drop price at
Easter.
Relative Prices at the MCBA and the MdP‑FS
Fillet products showed similar ranges of price varia-
tion (distance between the bottom (Q1) and top (Q3)
lines of the box) in the MCBA and the MdP-FS. On
the other hand, whole finfish and shellfish products
generally had lower price variations in the MCBA
than in the MdP-FS.
Atlantic salmon fillet was the most expensive fil-
let sold in Argentina. This product had a RP with an
interquartile range (IQR = Q3-Q1) of 3.3—3.8 times
higher than the hake fillet in the MCBA (Fig. 8a), and
of 2.8—3.8 in the MdP-FS (Fig. 8b). In the MCBA,
they were followed in descending order of RPs by
flatfishes nei, pink cuskeel and Argentine seabass
with IQRs within the range of 1.6–2.3, (Fig. 8a). In
the MdP-FS, it was also observed that flatfishes nei

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Fig. 6  Seasonal index prices of the best-selling shellfish products in the Central Market de Buenos Aires (MCBA) for the period
2017–2021. Seasonal index = mean, and regularity index = standard deviation. Fish images sourced from INIDEP website

Fig. 7  Price trends of seafood products in the fish shops of Mar del Plata throughout the year 2018. Easter week: March 25 to April
1st

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Fig. 8  Relative prices of fish fillets at: a Buenos Aires Cen-
tral Market (MCBA) for the period 2017–2022, b fish shops of
Mar del Plata (FS) in 2018. The unit is the value of the hake
ranked as the second product with the highest price,
followed by pink cuskeel and wreckfish (Polyprion
americanus) (IQRs 1.3—2.3) (Fig. 8b). The RPs
of silverside and seabass fillets were higher in the
MCBA than in the MdP-FS (Fig. 8a and b). RPs
where the IQRs were within the range of 1.0—1.5
at both points of sale were the Brazilian codling,
smoothhound, elephant fish and Argentine sandperch
(Fig. 8a and b). The fillets of stripped weakfish and
Brazilian flathead at the MCBA (Fig. 8a), and the
whitemouth croaker and stripped weakfish at the
MdP-FS had RPs < 1.0 (Fig. 8b).
Like fillets, the most expensive species sold among
whole products was the Atlantic salmon. Their RPs
had an IQR of 4.2—5.4 in the MCBA (Fig. 9a), and
4.8 – 5.2 in the MdP-FS (Fig. 9b). In the MCBA, after
Atlantic salmon, the whole products with highest
value were the wreckfish (IQR 2.4 – 3.0), the cartilag-
inous fish group (smoothhound, angel shark, elephant
fish and sharks nei – IQR 2.0 – 2.4) and the flatfishes
nei (IQR 1.6 – 2.1); followed in descending order
by the pink cuskeel, the cornalito and the Argentine
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
fillet. The bottom and top lines of the box are the lower (Q1)
and the upper (Q3) quartiles respectively. The line inside repre-
sents the median (Q2)
sandperch (Fig. 9a). Species with RPs slightly higher
than hake were the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),
red porgy, Atlantic chub mackerel and whitemouth
croaker (IQR 1.0 – 1.3); while the parona had a RP
pivoting around 1.0 and the stripped weakfish was
the only fish product with a RP < 1.0 (Fig. 9a). In
the MdP-FS, the whole cartilaginous fishes were not
included in the analysis due to these products were
rarely observed. Like the MCBA, after the Atlantic
salmon, the wreckfish was the whole product of high-
est price (IQR 1.7 – 2.8) in the MdP-FS (Fig. 9b).
Then, in descending order, the RPs of whole fishes
were cornalito, Argentine sandperch and pink cus-
keel (Fig. 9b). The bluefish and silverside presented
a wide range of RPs (IQR of 1.0 – 2.0) and red porgy
(IQR 1.1–1.5) (Fig. 9b). Among the products with
RPs slightly higher or similar than hake were white-
mouth croaker, Argentine seabass and parona; while
the angel shark and stripped weakfish had the lowest
values (mainly < 1.0) (Fig. 9b).
Most shellfishes had a RP clearly higher than
hake fillets. In the MCBA, the three shellfish
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
Fig. 9  Relative prices of whole finfishes at: a Buenos Aires
Central Market (MCBA) for the period 2017–2022, b fish
shops of Mar del Plata (FS) in 2018. The unit is the value of
products with highest prices were the callus of scal-
lop (IQR 2.7—4.7), the Argentine stiletto shrimp
(Artemesia longinaris) peeled (IQR 3.0—3.6) and
the Argentine red shrimp peeled (IQR 2.6 – 3.4)
(Fig. 10a). In the MdP-FS, the scallop was not
included in the analysis due to the low number of
records (n = 16) and very high prices variation
among shops. The Argentine stiletto shrimp peeled
(IQR 2.6 – 3.2) was also one of the most expensive
product in the MdP-FS, together with the Argen-
tine red shrimp peeled (IQR 2.5 – 3.1) (Fig. 10b).
Among bivalves, mussel peeled was the cheapest
product, with PRs mostly between 1.2 and 1.6 in
the MCBA and between 1.8 and 2.1 in the MdP-FS
(Fig. 10a and b). Squid products showed the low-
est prices, with the exception of squid tube that had
RPs mostly around 2.0 and 2.5 at both points of
sale. Whole Argentine shortfin squid and its tenta-
cles presented prices similar to hake in the MCBA
and the MdP-FS (Fig. 10a and b). Patagonian squid
(Doryteuthis spp.) was observed only in the MdP-
FS, and had a large range of price variation with
the whole hake. The bottom and top lines of the box are the
lower (Q1) and the upper (Q3) quartiles respectively. The line
inside represents the median (Q2)
values above and below the hake price (IQR 0.5—
1.7) (Fig. 10b). In the MCBA, the only shellfish
product found almost always cheaper than hake was
the fins of Argentine shortfin squid (IQR 0.5—0.9)
(Fig. 10a).
Discussion
First at all, it is important to highlight that despite
the context of the global pandemic COVID-19 (dur-
ing 2020 and part of 2021), the volumes of national
landings and exports from 2017 to 2022 were sta-
ble; with annual values pivoting about 789,000 tons
and 491,500 tons, respectively. However, a decrease
in export prices was observed in 2020 (USD 1,720
million), compared to 2019 (USD 1,863 million)
and 2021 (USD 1,990 million). Clearly, the Argen-
tine seafood is strongly oriented towards the exter-
nal market. A very rough estimate based on the data
presented in this study (Table 1) seems to confirm
that about 90% of landed fish end up in international
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Fig. 10  Relative prices of shellfishes at: a Buenos Aires Cen-
tral Market (MCBA) for the period 2017–2022, b fish shops of
Mar del Plata (FS) in 2018. The unit is the value of the hake
markets, which is consistent with Sesar et al. (2015)
and Llamazares Vegh et al. (2021).
The marine species with the highest presence in
the national market were: Argentine hake, Argen-
tine red shrimp, Atlantic salmon, pink cuskeel, flat-
fishes nei, smoothhound, Argentine shortfin squid,
Argentine seabass, whitemouth croaker, angel shark,
Argentine sandperch, bluefish, elephant fish and Bra-
zilian codling. This is in line with other studies on the
Argentine seafood market. Ortega and Álvarez (2016)
reported that the MCBA sells about 3,600 tons of fish
products per year, and that Argentine hake and Atlan-
tic salmon alone account for more than 50% of total
sales. In addition, a survey of fish shops from CABA
and GBA found also that hake and Atlantic salmon
topping the ranking of best-selling fish, followed
by smoothhound and Brazilian codling among fin-
fishes, and shrimp and squid among shellfishes (Vila
2017). Bertolotti et al. (2010) reported for the period
1992–2008 that the top main chilled marine prod-
ucts destined for the domestic market sourced from
Mar del Plata were Argentine hake (53.7%), squid
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
fillet. The bottom and top lines of the box are the lower (Q1)
and the upper (Q3) quartiles respectively. The line inside repre-
sents the median (Q2)
(18.0%), smoothhound (8.0%), pink cuskeel (3.3%),
flatfishes (2.0%).
In general, no direct association was found
between the landing times of the different spe-
cies throughout the year and their presence at the
points of sale. Many different sales approaches were
observed. Some species were well represented in
the domestic market all year round, but their land-
ings were very low or zero during part of the year
(e.g. Argentine shortfin squid, red porgy, cornalito
and Brazilian codling). This could be due to the
fact that these species were stored frozen and then
thawed and offered during periods when no land-
ings occurred. On the other hand, some species with
very high landings were not presented or were pre-
sented only sporadically at the points of sale (e.g.
longtail hake, Southern blue whiting, Patagon-
ian toothfish, Southern king crab); which could be
explained by the fact that they export almost all of
their seafood products. It was also observed species
where the lowest presence was associated with the
highest landings (e.g. Brazilian flathead); which
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
could also be related to international sales. A poster
has been published on the marine species that can
be found in the points of sale and their seasons, to
promote fish consumption in Argentina (Poster—
Marine species by season); however, it should be
noted that their seasons refer mainly to the times of
greatest landings.
Seafood prices in Argentina must be analyzed
in the context of a country whose economy has his-
torically be affected by high inflation (general and
persistent increase in prices in the economy). In the
period 2016–2022, the annual inflation was succes-
sively 34.6%, 24.8%, 47.7%, 53.8%, 36.2%, 50.9%
and 94.8%, with a strong component associated with
food prices (INDEC 2023b). Inflation impacts peo-
ple’s income, eroding their purchasing power. It has
a stronger effect especially among the lower-income
social strata, where the consumption of food and
beverage accounted for between 34.5% and 27.7%
of their incomes in 2017–2018 (INDEC 2019). The
price of food has a fundamental impact on fish con-
sumer preference. In a seafood survey, Erratzi et al.
(2004) reported that 75% of the Mar del Plata popu-
lation said that fish was expensive for their budgets,
regardless of their socio-economic level. Other sur-
veys conducted in the city also show that price is a
limiting factor for higher consumption (Riba 2010;
Rodríguez et al. 2015). Clearly, Argentine hake is the
most consumed product in all socioeconomic strata,
although in higher income households the share of
other marine products more expensive than hake
increase (e.g. salmon, flatfishes, shrimp, etc.) (Errazti
et al. 1995, 2004; Bertolotti et al. 1996; Tomac and
Yeannes 2017; Bevilacqua 2019). The leadership
position of hake fillet as the best-selling seafood in
Argentina can be explained by the fact that it is a
product familiar to all consumers, always present in
points of sale, and economically affordable.
MCBA analysis of different fish products found
that seafood prices in Argentina do not fluctuate much
throughout the year, except for Argentine hake fillet
(SI range 84–113), where significant seasonal dif-
ferences were recorded. The reason for this different
behavior in the price of hake fillet could be associated
with an inelastic demand at Easter (March–April),
when the price of fish rises. As mentioned before,
Argentinians know little about the different marine
species suitable for consumption and most only buy
hake fillet; they do not have a substitute product. Even
considering hake fillet, seasonal seafood prices con-
trast sharply with those of other food products sold in
Argentina, such as fruits and vegetables, where prices
can have very significant differences throughout the
year. For instance, Tapia (2022) found the following
ranges on SI prices: 54–194 (strawberry), 72–149
(tomato) and 71–135 (bell pepper). Therefore, for
practical purposes for the consumer, this significant
fluctuation in the hake fillet price seems to be lim-
ited to the higher prices during Easter, but there is no
well-marked seasonality as in some fruits and vegeta-
bles. No direct link was found between fish prices and
quantities landed for any of the species studied. For
some species, landings were similar all year round,
which could explained the lack of pronounced price
fluctuations; however, other species have a clearly
defined high and/or low landing season and yet sea-
sonal price fluctuations showed no significant differ-
ences (except hake fillet).
MdP-FS analysis of retail price trends of marine
products in 2018 shows that all products increased in
value during the year, which was to be expected in the
context of a country with an annual inflation of 47.7%
in 2018. Many, but not all, finfish products showed a
significant price peak during Easter week, which can
be associated with higher demand. Overall, the price
peak was mostly for fillet products and for popular or
low-priced species. In contrast, the two most expen-
sive products, Atlantic salmon (fillet) and Argentine
red shrimp (peeled), experienced a price decrease
at Easter. This price drop could be a strategy by the
retailer to increase sales of expensive products by
making them more competitively priced at the time of
greatest demand. All these price patterns suggest that
seafood prices in Argentina are mainly determined by
demand; however, further research on seller strate-
gies and consumer behavior as price determinants is
needed.
Relative price analysis can help consumers better
understand the price range of different fish products
in relation to Argentine hake and expand the range
of seafood options within different budgets. The RP
dispersion of fillet products had similar ranges in
the MCBA and the MdP-FS, while whole-finfish
and shellfish products had larger dispersions in the
MdP-FS than MCBA. These larger RP dispersion
values in the MdP-FS could be associated with less
data and large dispersion of prices among different
fish shops. Since fish fillets are the most purchased
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

and well-known products by consumers, their prices
could be more stable among different retailers in
order to be more competitive. Overall, there is a simi-
lar pattern between the RPs of products in the MCBA
and the MdP-FS, with the exceptions of angel shark
and silverside.
It is striking that the most expensive fish sold in
Argentina is an imported species produced by aqua-
culture in Chile: the Atlantic salmon. Salmon is
imported mainly as fresh fish, but also as fresh or
frozen fillets. In 2019, 6,806 tons were imported for
USD 41.5 million and in 2020 the quantity increased
to 8,305 tons (despite the pandemic context), but the
decrease in prices led to a decrease in value to USD
34.8 million (Carciofi and Rossi 2021). As men-
tioned previously, other salmonid of high-quality, the
rainbow trout, are already produced by aquaculture
in Argentina. Trout farming has great potential for
expansion in the domestic market as a substitute for
Atlantic salmon. The northwestern area of Patago-
nia (Neuquén and Río Negro provinces) has artificial
lakes in the Limay River where trout production has
grown significantly in the last two years. It has been
calculated that the Limay River basin has the capac-
ity to increase production to almost 7,000 tons/year
with only the concessions already granted, and up to
almost 30,000 tons/year if all the concessions cur-
rently available were granted (Carciofi and Rossi
2021).
National seafood products with the highest prices
were: scallop (callus), Argentine stiletto shrimp
(peeled), Argentine red shrimp (peeled), flatfishes
nei (fillet), pink cuskeel (fillet), seabass (fillet) and
wreckfish (whole). Argentine hake (fillet and whole)
was one of the cheapest species found in Argentina
and very familiar to all consumers. There were few
products with very similar or lower prices than hake:
stripped weakfish (fillet and whole), whitemouth
croaker (fillet), parona (whole), Brazilian flathead
(fillet) and Argentine shortfin squid (whole, fins and
tentacles).
Conclusion
This study identified the marine species with the
highest presence in the domestic market. Argentine
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
hake fillet is by far the best-selling seafood in Argen-
tina, followed by Atlantic salmon, an imported fish
produced by aquaculture. Surprisingly, Argentine
hake is one of the cheapest marine species sold in the
domestic market, while Atlantic salmon is the most
expensive. In general, no direct association was found
between the landing times of the different species and
their presence at the points of sale. No significant sea-
sonal prices were found for the different fish products
with the exception of hake fillet. Likewise, there was
no direct link between fish prices and landed quanti-
ties for any of the species studied. Many finfish prod-
ucts showed a significant price peak during Easter
week, especially fillets of popular or low-priced spe-
cies. These price patterns suggest that seafood prices
in Argentina are mainly determined by demand rather
than supply (landed quantities). Further research
on seafood traceability and fish consumption in the
Argentine seafood market is needed to advance the
understanding of the seafood market in Argentina.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Fed-
erico Bianca for his help with the surveys of fish shops in Mar
del Plata, and the fish sellers who generously sharing their
knowledge and experience on seafood. We also thanks the staff
of the Central Market of Buenos Aires for providing us with
their seafood statistics. We thanks Gorka Merino for his help
with the figures.
Author contributions Conceptualization: Jorge Hirt-Chab-
bert; Methodology: Jorge Hirt-Chabbert, Ciro Tapia; Alejan-
dro Mechaly; Formal analysis and Investigation: Jorge Hirt-
Chabbert, Alejandro Mechaly, Ciro Tapia; Visualization: Jorge
Hirt-Chabbert, Alejandro Mechaly; Writing—original draft
preparation: Jorge Hirt-Chabbert; Writing—review and edit‑
ing: Jorge Hirt-Chabbert, Alejandro Mechaly, Ciro Tapia.
Funding No funding was received for conducting this study.
Data availability Data will be made available on reasonable
request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests
to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Appendix 1
See (Table 2).
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Table 2  Commercial marine species of Argentina. Based on Cousseau (2010), SAI (2017) and FAO (2023)
Finfishes
English name Spanish name Scientific name Alfa-3 FAO code

Angel shark Pez ángel Squatina spp. RNZ, SWV

Argentine anchovy Anchoíta Engraulis anchoita ANA
Argentine conger Congrio Conger orbignyanus COS
Argentine croaker Pargo Umbrina canosai CKY
Argentine hake Merluza hubbsi Merluccius hubbsi HKP
Argentine sandperch Salmón de mar Pseudopercis semifasciata UPR
Argentine seabass Mero Acanthistius patachonicus BSZ
Atlantic bonito Bonito Sarda sarda BON
Atlantic chub mackerel Caballa Scomber colias VMA
Black drum Corvina negra Pogonias cromis BDM
Blackbelly rosefish Rubio Helicolenus dactylopterus BRF
Bluefish Anchoa de banco Pomatomus saltatrix BLU
Brazilian codling Brótola Urophycis brasiliensis HKU
Brazilian flathead Pez palo Percophis brasiliensis FLA
Brazilian menhaden Saraca Brevortia aurea MHS
Castaneta Castañeta Nemadactylus bergi CTA​
Cornalito Cornalito Odontesthes incisa SIL—Atherinidae nei
Elephant fish Pez gallo Callorhinchus callorynchus CHJ
Flatfishes nei Lenguados nep BAX—Pleuronectiformes
Grenadier nei Granadero nep MCC, CQF
King weakfish Pescadilla real Macrodon ancylodon WKK
Longtail hake Merluza de cola Macruronus magellanicus GRM
Mullet Lisa Mugil liza MUL, MUB
Parona leatherjack Palometa pintada Parona signata PAO
Patagonian blennie Róbalo Eleginops maclovinus BLP
Patagonian cod Bacalao austral Salilota australis SAO
Patagonian toothfish Merluza negra Dissostichus eleginoides TOP
Pink cuskeel Abadejo Genypterus blacodes CUS
Red mullet Trilla / Salmonete Mullus argentinae MWU
Red porgy Besugo Pagrus pagrus RPG
Rough scad Jurel Trachurus lathami RSC
Sea catfish Bagre de mar Genidens barbus CAX—Sea catfishes nei
Sharks nei Tiburones nep SKX Elasmobranchii—SKH sharks
Silver warehou Savorín Seriollela porosa SEO
Silverside Pejerrey Odontesthes spp. SIL Atherinidae nei
Skate nei Rayas nep RAJ—Rays and skates nei
Smoothhound Gatuzo Mustelus schmitti SDP
Southern blue whiting Polaca Micromesistius autralis POS
Southern hake Merluza austral Merluccius australis HKN
Southwest Atlantic butterfish Pampanito Stromateus brasiliensis TMB
Stripped weakfish Pescadilla Cynoscion guatucupa YGC​
Tope shark Cazón Galeorhinus galeus GAG​
White bream Sargo Diplodus argenteus DIG
Whitemouth croaker Corvina rubia Micropogonias furnieri CKM

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Table 2  (continued)
Finfishes
English name Spanish name Scientific name Alfa-3 FAO code

Wreckfish Chernia Polyprion americanus WRF

Yellowtail amberjack Pez limón Seriola lalandi YTC​
Crustaceans
Argentine red shrimp Langostino Pleoticus muelleri LAA
Argentino stiletto shrimp Camarón Artemesia longinaris ASH
Crabs nei Cangrejos nep CRA Brachyura
Southern king crab Centolla Lithodes santolla KCR
Molluscs
Argentine shortfin squid Calamar Illex Illex argentinus SQA
Patagonian squid Calamarete Doryteuthis spp. SQP
Sea snails nei Caracoles nep ZDF, RPN, DVX
Clams nei Almejas nep CLV Veneridae
Cockle Berberecho Donax hanleyanus DHK
Mussels Mejillon Mytilus platensis MSR
Octopus nei Pulpos nep Octopus spp. OCZ Octopodidae
Scallop Vieira Zygochlamis patagonica ZYP

References CCE No 13, septiembre de 2021, Consejo para el Cam-

Alvarez F, Beraja M, Gonzalez-Rozada M, Neumeyer PA
(2019) From hyperinflation to stable prices: Argen-
tina’s evidence on menu cost models. Quart J Econ
134(1):451–505
Béné C, Barange M, Subasinghe R, Pinstrup-Andersen P,
Merino G, Hemre GI, Williams M (2015) Feeding 9 bil-
lion by 2050—putting fish back on the menu. Food Secur
7:261–274. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12571-​015-​0427-z
Bertolotti M, Errazti E, Pagani A (1996) La comercialización
de productos pesqueros. Promoción del consumo de pes-
cado en el mercado interno. Faces 2(2):7–25
Bertolotti M, Buono J, Errazti E, Pagani A, Gualdoni P (2010)
El mercado interno de productos pesqueros marinos enfri-
ados: Puerto de Mar del Plata, principal proveedor. In:
Informe de Investigación INIDEP N˚005/2010, p 16
Bevilacqua M, Pizzo F (2017) Informes de cadena de valor.
In: Pesca y Puertos Pesqueros. Ministerio de Hacienda.
Año 2-No 27—Abril 2017. 47 pp. https://​www.​argen​tina.​
gob.​ar/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​sspe_​cadena_​de_​valor_​pesca_y_​
puert​os_0.​pdf
Bevilacqua M (2019) Informes de cadenas de valor: Pesca—
Septiembre 2019. In: Subsecretaría de Programación
Microeconómica. Ministerio de Hacienda, Argentina, p
26. https://​www.​argen​tina.​gob.​ar/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​sspmi​
cro_​caden​as_​de_​valor_​pesca_0.​pdf
Campos J (1991) A brief look on the literature on deseasonali-
zation. Braz Rev Econom 11(2):217–236
Carciofi I, Rossi L (2021) Acuicultura en Argentina: red de
actores, procesos de producción y espacios para el agre-
gado de valor. En búsqueda del impulso exportador para
los productos acuícolas. In: Documentos de Trabajo del
bio Estructural—Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo de
la Nación. ISSN 2718-8124. p 34. https://​www.​argen​tina.​
gob.​ar/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​2021/​03/​dt_​13_-_​acuic​ultura.​pdf
Carciofi I, Merino F, Rossi L (2021) El sector pesquero argen-
tino: un análisis de su potencial exportador. In: Documen-
tos de Trabajo del CCE No 2, marzo de 2021, Consejo
para el Cambio Estructural—Ministerio de Desarrollo
Productivo de la Nación. ISSN 2718-8019, p 36. https://​
www.​argen​tina.​gob.​ar/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​dt_​2_-_​el_​sector_​
pesqu​ero_​argen​tino.​pdf
Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S, Cisneros-Mata MA, Free CM,
Froehlich HE, Lubchenco J (2020) The future of food
from the sea. Nature 588(7836):95–100. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41586-​020-​2616-y
Cousseau MB (2010) Fishes, crustaceans and molluscs of the
Southwest Atlantic, between 34˚S and 55˚S, with indica-
tion of important fishing species. INIDEP Informe Téc-
nico 5. ISSN 0327-9642, p 134
Delpiani G, Delpiani SM, Deli Antoni MD, Ale MC, Fischer L,
Lucifora LO, Díaz de Astarloa JM (2020) Are we sure we
eat what we buy? Fish mislabelling in Buenos Aires prov-
ince, the largest seafood market in Argentina. Fish Res
221:105373. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fishr​es.​2019.​105373
Donner A (1982) The relative effectiveness of procedures com-
monly used in multiple regression analysis for dealing
with missing values. Am Stat 36:378–381
Douglas RD (2020) The role of relative prices (in Market-based
Economies). http://​www.​digit​aleco​nomist.​org/​micro​econo​
mics/​relat​ive_​prices.​html Accessed on January 2024
Errazti E, Bertolotti M, Aubone A (1995) Características del
consumo de productos pesqueros en el área urbana de Mar
del Plata. Rev FACES 1:21–38

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
Errazti E, Bertolotti M, Pagani A, Gualdoni P (2004) Caracte-
rísticas del consumo de productos pesqueros de los resi-
dentes y turistas de Mar del Plata. Faces 10(20):7–26
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations) (2018) The State of World Fisheries and Aqua-
culture 2018—Meeting the Sustainable Development
Goals, Rome, p 227. http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​i9540​en/​I9540​
EN.​pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations) (2022) The State of World Fisheries and Aqua-
culture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation, Rome, p 266.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4060/​cc046​1en
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(2023) ASFIS list of species for fishery statistics pur-
poses. In: Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Rome.
https://​www.​fao.​org/​fishe​ry/​en/​colle​ction/​asfis/​en
FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations/World Health Organization) (2011) Report of the
joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on the risks and ben-
efits of fish consumption. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquacul-
ture Report No. 978, Rome, p 50, 25–29 Jan 2010. https://​
www.​fao.​org/3/​ba013​6e/​BA013​6E.​pdf
INDEC (Instituto de Estadística y Censo) (2019) Encuesta
Nacional de Gastos de los Hogares 2017–2018: informe
de gastos/1a ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.
https://​www.​indec.​gob.​ar/​f tp/​cuadr​os/​socie​dad/​engho_​
2017_​2018_​infor​me_​gastos.​pdf
INDEC (Instituto de Estadística y Censo) (2022) Censo
Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2022. https://​
www.​argen​tina.​gob.​ar/​pais/​pobla​cion. Accessed on June
2023
INDEC (Instituto de Estadística y Censo) (2023a) Producción
por acuicultura, precios por kilogramo entero y valor de
la producción, según especies. Total del país. Año 2021.
Producción agropecuaria: Pesca y silvicultura. INDEC.
Available at: https://​www.​indec.​gob.​ar/​indec/​web/​Nivel4-​
Tema-3-​8-​89. Accessed on August 2023
INDEC (Instituto de Estadística y Censo) (2023b) Índice de
precios al consumidor (IPC). https://​www.​indec.​gob.​ar/​
indec/​web/​Nivel4-​Tema-3-​5-​31. Accessed on August
2023
InfoLEG (Información Legislativa) (2023) Decreto DNU
2284/1991: Desregulación Económica, Reforma Fiscal.
Poder Ejecutivo Nacional (P.E.N.). Ministerio de Justicia
y Derechos Humanos. http://​servi​cios.​infol​eg.​gob.​ar/​infol​
egInt​ernet/​verNo​rma.​do?​id=​7539. Accessed on June 2023
Llamazares Vegh S, Avigliano E, Thompson GA, Volpedo A
(2021) Elementos traza en peces comerciales de Argen-
tina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias
Veterinarias. Invet, vol 23 no 1, pp 1–15. http://​hdl.​handle.​
net/​11336/​184367
López FR, Álvarez M, Volpedo A (2021) Catálogo de identi-
ficación de filetes de pescados del Mar Argentino. 1a ed.
- Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Agri-
cultura, Ganadería y Pesca. Instituto de Investigaciones en
Producción Animal-INPA, 2021. ISBN: 978-987-47917-
1-9. https://​www.​magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/_​pdf/​Catal​ogo-​de-​
Ident​ifica​cion-​de-​Filet​es.​pdf
MAGyP (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca) (2019)
Resolución 42/2019. https://​www.​bolet​inofi​cial.​gob.​ar/​
detal​leAvi​so/​prime​ra/​216613/​20190​916. Accessed on
June 2023
Mateo JA (2018) La sustitución de importaciones pes-
queras y el desarrollo de la pesca comercial marítima en
Argentina (1930–1965). https://​doi.​org/​10.​22199/​issn.​
0718-​1043-​2020-​0023
MS (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación) (2020) Guías Alimen-
tarias para la población Argentina. Buenos Aires 2020. p
264. https://​bancos.​salud.​gob.​ar/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​2020-​
08/​guias-​alime​ntari​as-​para-​la-​pobla​cion-​argen​tina.​pdf
Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M et al
(2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources.
Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(36):15103–15110. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1073/​pnas.​09052​35106
OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (2015) Green Growth in Fisheries and
Aquaculture OECD Green Growth Studies. OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​agr_​outlo​
ok-​2019-​en
OECD/FAO (The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development / Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations) (2019) OECD-FAO Agricultural Out-
look 2019-2028. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1787/​agr_​outlo​ok-​2019-​en
Olsen Y (2015) How can mariculture better help feed human-
ity? Front Marine Sci 2:46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fmars.​
2015.​00046
Onestini M, Gutman G, Palos C (2002) Integrated assessment
of trade liberalization and trade-related policies: a country
study on the fisheries sector in Argentina. United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP), Centro de Estudios
Ambientales (CEDEA) New York and Geneva. 118 pp.
https://​digit​allib​rary.​un.​org/​record/​470970?​ln=​es
Ortega M, Álvarez M (2016) El comercio de pescados y mari-
scos en el mercado interno de argentina. Mercado Central
de Buenos Aires (MCBA). Informe PCRVM N 1. p 9.
https://​www.​magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​promo​cion_​consu​
mo/​infor ​mes/_​archi​vos/​160900_​Merca​do%​20Cen​tral%​
20de%​20Bue​nos%​20Air​es.​pdf
Pagani A, Gualdoni P (2018) Sector pesquero – Mar del Plata
entre todos. 2do. Informe de Monitoreo Ciudadano. p
248–259. https://​marde​lplat​aentr​etodos.​org/​infor​me
Parks RW (1978) Inflation and relative price variability. J Polit-
ical Econ 86(1):79–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1086/​260648
Riba G (2010) Consumo de pescado en Mar del Plata. Observa-
torio de la Ciudad. Universidad Fasta. http://​www.​ufasta.​
edu.​ar/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​CONSU​MO-​DE-​PESCA​DO-​
EN-​MAR-​DEL-​PLATA.​pdf
Rodríguez EM, Lupín B, Alfonso NM, Bertoni M, Gualdoni P,
Pagani AN, Testa J, Rodríguez JA, Alzola A, Santacrose
S, Olivieri G (2015) Alimentación saludable: preocu-
pación mundial y situación de nuestros hogares marplat-
enses. Enlace Universitario, vol 9, no 19, pp 10–12. ISSN
1850-2490. http://​nulan.​mdp.​edu.​ar/​2426/
SAGyP (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca) (2022)
Informe de coyuntura. Diciembre de 2022. Subsecreta-
ría de Pesca y Acuicultura. Dirección of Planificación
Pesquera. p 33. www.​magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​pesca_​
marit​ima/​infor​mes/​coyun​tura/_​archi​vos//​220000_​2022/​
221201_​Infor ​me%​20de%​20Coy​untura%​20-%​20Dic​iem-
bre%​202022.​pdf
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

SAGyP (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca) (2023).
Pesca marítima. Informes. Website: https://​www.​magyp.​
gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​pesca_​marit​ima/
SAGyP (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca) (2024)
Principales indicadores del sector bovino 1990–2022.
Coordinación de Análisis Pecuario. p 6. https://​www.​
magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​bovin​os/​infor​macion_​secto​rial/.
Accessed on January 2024
SAI (Secretaría de Agroindustria) (2017) Listado de especies
de la estadística pesquera nacional. Subsecretaría de Pesca
y Acuicultura. p 2. https://​www.​magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​
pesca_​marit​ima/​desem​barqu​es/_​evolu​cion/​Lista​do3.​pdf?​
lista​do
Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J, Dumas P,
Matthews E (2019) Creating a sustainable food future:
a menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by
2050. World Resources Institute. Full report, pp 564.
https:// ​ a grit ​ r op. ​ c irad. ​ f r/ ​ 5 93176/ ​ 1 / ​ W RR_ ​ F ood_ ​ F ull_​
Report_​0.​pdf
Sesar GE, Guadix, D, Feldman G (2015) Estudio de mercado
de la cadena de suministro del pescado blanco proveniente
de la República Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fundación Vida Silvestre. p 108. https://​wwfar.​awsas​
sets.​panda.​org/​downl​oads/​estud​io_​de_​merca​do_​de_​la_​
cadena_​de_​sumin​istro_​de_​pesca​do_​blanco_​prove​niente_​
de_​la_​republ.​pdf
Tapia C (2022) Informe de precios Frutihortícolas. Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias Balcarce, Universidad Nacional de Mar
del Plata, Cátedra Comercialización de productos e insu-
mos agropecuarios
Thilsted SH, Thorne-Lyman A, Webb P, Bogard JR, Subasin-
ghe R, Phillips MJ, Allison EH (2016) Sustaining healthy
diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for
improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy
61:126–131. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2016.​02.​
005
Tomac A, Yeannes MI (2017) Frecuencia de consumo de pro-
ductos pesqueros en Mar del Plata, principal puerto pes-
quero de Argentina. La Industria Cárnica Latinoamericana
N 205: 42–46. https://​www.​publi​tec.​com/​wp-​conte​nt/​
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
View publication stats
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
uploa​ds/​Frecu​encia-​de-​consu​mo-​de-​produ​ctos-​pesqu​eros-​
en-​Mar-​del-​Plata.​pdf
Troell M, Jonell M, Crona B (2019) The role of seafood in sus-
tainable and healthy diets. The EAT-Lancet Commission
report Through a Blue Lens. Stockholm: The Beijer Insti-
tute. https://​eatfo​rum.​org/​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2019/​11/​Seafo​
od_​Scopi​ng_​Report_​EAT-​Lancet.​pdf
UN (United Nations) (2019) World Population Prospects 2019:
Highlights. United Nations, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). ST/ESA/
SER.A/423. https://​popul​ation.​un.​org/​wpp/​Publi​catio​ns/​
Files/​WPP20​19_​Highl​ights.​pdf
Vila MN (2017) Relevamiento de información en pescaderías
y supermercados de Buenos Aires y CABA. Dirección de
Acuicultura. https://​www.​magyp.​gob.​ar/​sitio/​areas/​acuic​
ultura/​difus​ion/_​archi​vos//​000000_​Docum​entos%​20de%​
20Com​ p etit​ i vidad%​ 2 0sec​ t orial/​ 1 70925_​ D irec​ c ion%​
20de%​20Acu​icult​ura%​20-%​20Rel​evami​ento%​20de%​20inf​
ormaci%​C3%​B3n%​20en%​20Pes​cader​ias%​20(CABA).​pdf
Wickrama PSSL, Koralagama DN, Sandika AL (2021) Assess-
ing seasonal price behaviour of selected dried fish varie-
ties in Sri Lanka. Trop Agric Res Ext 24(1):21–34. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​4038/​tare.​v24i1.​5505
World Bank (2013) Fish to 2030: prospects for fisheries and
aquaculture. World Bank Report Number 83177-GLB.
Washington, p 102. http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​i3640e/​i3640e.​
pdf
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2024) 34:775–779
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-024-09851-5

CORRECTION

Correction: Seafood in Argentina: marine fish species,

seasonal presence and prices
Jorge A. Hirt‑Chabbert · Alejandro S. Mechaly ·
Ciro Tapia

Published online: 26 March 2024

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

Correction to: Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11160-​024-​09836-4
In this article, the Tables 1 and 2 were published with
few typo errors listed below.
In Table 1, the shades of white, light-grey or dark-
grey colour associated with the presence at point of
sales numbers were missed out in the original article.
In Table 2, the heading "Finfishes" should be moved
inside the table immediately above "Angel Shark".
The headings such as “Finfishes”, “Crustaceans”
and “Molluscs” should be in bold. The heading “Fin-
fishes” should be deleted as a heading in Table 2
(continued).
The corrected Tables 1 and 2 are given in this Correc-
tion article. The original article has been corrected.

The original article can be found online at https://​doi.​org/​

10.​1007/​s11160-​024-​09836-4.

J. A. Hirt‑Chabbert (*)
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero
(INIDEP), Paseo Victoria Ocampo N˚1, P.O. Box 175,
7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
e-mail: hirt.chabbert@gmail.com

J. A. Hirt‑Chabbert · A. S. Mechaly
Centro Científico Tecnológico, Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET),
Moreno 3527 Piso 3, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina

A. S. Mechaly
Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad
y Biotecnología (INBIOTEC), Vieytes 3103,
7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina

C. Tapia
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional
de Mar del Plata (FCA-UNMdP), Ruta 226 km 73,5,
7620 Balcarce, Argentina

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 776 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2024) 34:775–779

Table 1  Presence of the main commercial marine species in (MCBA) for the period 2016–2022, and the fish shops of Mar
the domestic market of Argentina. Grouped by their presence del Plata (MdP-FS) in 2018
throughout the year in the Central Market of Buenos Aires

Species Monthly landings and presence at points of sale a,b,c % exported

d

e
PRESENCE ALL YEAR ROUND
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Argentine hake 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 7+ 7 36% W,M
Argentine red shrimp 7+ 6 7+ 7+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 6+ 7 75% W, exc.W
Argentine shortfin squid 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 6 6+ 6 86% W,V,T
Whitemouth croaker 6+ 5 7+ 5+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 6 6+ 6 88% W
Stripped weakfish 3+ 2 6+ 2+ 4+ 4 5+ 7+ 6 6 4+ 5 94% W,F
Scallop 3+ 3 3+ 4+ 4+ 4 5+ 6+ 3 5 4 4 98% Callus
Red porgy 5+ 5 7+ 7+ 7+ 6 6+ 6+ 6 7 7+ 5 40% W
Flatfishes nei 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 6+ 7 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 30% F
Smoothhound 7+ 6 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7 7 7+ 6 4% W,F.M
Pink cuskeel 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 39% W,M
Angel shark 7+ 4 7+ 6+ 6+ 7 6 6+ 6 6 6+ 6 12% F
Elephant fish 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 7 7 6 5 5 1% F,M
Argentine seabass 7+ 7 7+ 6+ 6+ 6 7+ 6+ 7 7 7+ 7 42% W,F
Argentine sandperch 6+ 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 7 7+ 6 8% W
Sharks nei 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 7 5 6 4 6 0%
Bluefish 6+ 6 6+ 6+ 6+ 7 5+ 6+ 7 6 6+ 6 5% W
Parona leatherjack 4+ 3 5+ 5+ 5 5 6 7+ 6 5 4+ 3 22% W
Cornalito 3+ 7 7+ 6+ 7+ 5 7+ 7+ 6 4 5+ 5 0%
Mullet 2 3 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 25
Argentine stiletto shrimp 3+ 3 3+ 6+ 4+ 4 4+ 3+ 4 4 4+ 4 0%
Brazilian codling 3+ 4 6+ 7+ 6+ 5 5+ 5+ 6 6 5+ 5 0%
Wreckfish 2+ 2 4+ 3+ 4+ 5 5+ 5+ 5 4 4+ 4 0%
f 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 7+ 7 7+ 7+ 6 6 6+ 6
Atlantic Salmon Imported

PRESENCE PART OF THE YEAR

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Skates nei 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 54% W,M
Atlantic chub mackerel 6 5 6 5 1 1 4 6 4 6 5 5 3% W,M
Argentine anchovy 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 44% H&G brine
Brazilian flathead 2+ 2 2+ 1+ 1+ 4 3 5+ 4 5 4 5 33% F
Black drum 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 0%
Silverside 1+ 3 3+ 3+ 5+ 5 5 5+ 4 2 3+ 3 0%
Red mullet 4+ 4 5+ 6 5+ 5 4 4 3 4 2 2 0%
Crabs 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 6 6 0%
Patagonian squid 1+ 4 2+ 3+ 2+ 3 3+ 3+ 2 3 5+ 1 0%
Argentine conger 2 0 5 3 3 3 5 4 2 3 1 1 0%

SPORADIC PRESENCE OR ABSENCE

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Longtail hake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20% F,HGT,M
Southern blue whiting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16% M, HGT
Patagonian toothfish 0+ 0 0+ 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0 ¿? W,M,F
Southern king crab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61% Legs
White bream 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3% W
Southern hake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53% H&G
Argentine croaker 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 71% W
Castaneta 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21% W
Atlantic bonito 1 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Sea snail nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Yellowtail amberjack 1 0 0+ 0+ 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0%
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2024) 34:775–779 777

Table 1  (continued)
a
The chromatic scale represents the variation in quantities landed over the year. Dark-grey: highest landings; light-grey: intermediate
landings; white: very low or null landings.
b
The numbers quantify the presence in the MCBA. For the seven years analyzed in the MCBA, a value of seven indicates full pres-
ence and zero absence during the entire period.
c
The symbol “ + ” indicates presence in the MdP-FS.
d
Percentage exported of landed without conversion by processing (Total exported (tons)* 100/Total landed (tons)). PRODUCTS:
H&G = Head & Gutted; HGT = Head & Gutted & Tailed; W = whole and/or H&G and/or HGT; M = meat; V = vaina; T = tentacles;
F = fillet.
e
Species with presence values ≥ 3 or 2 + for each month. EExceptions: stripped weakfish, mullet and wrechfish.
f
Not a wild-caught species from Argentina, but a cultured species from Chile. About 8,000 tons/year are estimated to be imported.

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 778 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2024) 34:775–779

Table 2  Commercial marine species of Argentina. Based on Cousseau (2010), SAI (2017) and FAO (2023)
English name Spanish name Scientific name Alfa-3 FAO code

Finfishes
Angel shark Pez ángel Squatina spp. RNZ, SWV
Argentine anchovy Anchoíta Engraulis anchoita ANA
Argentine conger Congrio Conger orbignyanus COS
Argentine croaker Pargo Umbrina canosai CKY
Argentine hake Merluza hubbsi Merluccius hubbsi HKP
Argentine sandperch Salmón de mar Pseudopercis semifasciata UPR
Argentine seabass Mero Acanthistius patachonicus BSZ
Atlantic bonito Bonito Sarda sarda BON
Atlantic chub mackerel Caballa Scomber colias VMA
Black drum Corvina negra Pogonias cromis BDM
Blackbelly rosefish Rubio Helicolenus dactylopterus BRF
Bluefish Anchoa de banco Pomatomus saltatrix BLU
Brazilian codling Brótola Urophycis brasiliensis HKU
Brazilian flathead Pez palo Percophis brasiliensis FLA
Brazilian menhaden Saraca Brevortia aurea MHS
Castaneta Castañeta Nemadactylus bergi CTA​
Cornalito Cornalito Odontesthes incisa SIL—Atherinidae nei
Elephant fish Pez gallo Callorhinchus callorynchus CHJ
Flatfishes nei Lenguados nep BAX—Pleuronectiformes
Grenadier nei Granadero nep MCC, CQF
King weakfish Pescadilla real Macrodon ancylodon WKK
Longtail hake Merluza de cola Macruronus magellanicus GRM
Mullet Lisa Mugil liza MUL, MUB
Parona leatherjack Palometa pintada Parona signata PAO
Patagonian blennie Róbalo Eleginops maclovinus BLP
Patagonian cod Bacalao austral Salilota australis SAO
Patagonian toothfish Merluza negra Dissostichus eleginoides TOP
Pink cuskeel Abadejo Genypterus blacodes CUS
Red mullet Trilla / Salmonete Mullus argentinae MWU
Red porgy Besugo Pagrus pagrus RPG
Rough scad Jurel Trachurus lathami RSC
Sea catfish Bagre de mar Genidens barbus CAX—Sea catfishes nei
Sharks nei Tiburones nep SKX Elasmobranchii—SKH sharks
Silver warehou Savorín Seriollela porosa SEO
Silverside Pejerrey Odontesthes spp. SIL Atherinidae nei
Skate nei Rayas nep RAJ—Rays and skates nei
Smoothhound Gatuzo Mustelus schmitti SDP
Southern blue whiting Polaca Micromesistius autralis POS
Southern hake Merluza austral Merluccius australis HKN
Southwest Atlantic butterfish Pampanito Stromateus brasiliensis TMB
Stripped weakfish Pescadilla Cynoscion guatucupa YGC​
Tope shark Cazón Galeorhinus galeus GAG​
White bream Sargo Diplodus argenteus DIG
Whitemouth croaker Corvina rubia Micropogonias furnieri CKM
Wreckfish Chernia Polyprion americanus WRF

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2024) 34:775–779 779

Table 2  (continued)
English name Spanish name Scientific name Alfa-3 FAO code

Yellowtail amberjack Pez limón Seriola lalandi YTC​

Crustaceans
Argentine red shrimp Langostino Pleoticus muelleri LAA
Argentino stiletto shrimp Camarón Artemesia longinaris ASH
Crabs nei Cangrejos nep CRA Brachyura
Southern king crab Centolla Lithodes santolla KCR
Molluscs
Argentine shortfin squid Calamar Illex Illex argentinus SQA
Patagonian squid Calamarete Doryteuthis spp. SQP
Sea snails nei Caracoles nep ZDF, RPN, DVX
Clams nei Almejas nep CLV Veneridae
Cockle Berberecho Donax hanleyanus DHK
Mussels Mejillon Mytilus platensis MSR
Octopus nei Pulpos nep Octopus spp. OCZ Octopodidae
Scallop Vieira Zygochlamis patagonica ZYP

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard

to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

Vol.: (0123456789)
13