Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸, thanks for your comment!

We do calculate both "total" (including feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) and "direct" (excluding feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) numbers of animals and days of suffering, and that data is in the sheets on the OSF page!

We also differentiate fish by species which are commonly farmed (e.g. salmon) vs. species which are commonly wild-caught (e.g. tuna), and wild-caught species get 1 day of suffering per animal life (i.e. the day they get fished). 

As feed, wild-caught fish are overwhelmingly used in aquaculture (92%), and then a little bit in pigs (5% IIRC) and poultry (3% IIRC), so those are the species driving that number (cows are not commonly fed fish.)

On the broader point about the counterfactual impact on wild animal suffering -- I'm afraid that is mostly a factor that this model does not consider, but is a great candidate for a feature to add in future versions. 

My ill-informed read is that the ultimate net impact on wild animal suffering would be extremely difficult to predict. For example, tuna (mostly wild-caught) are carnivorous, so the counterfactual there is that they'd be eating many times more fish -- but then some of those fish also eat other fish! So the whole thing feels quite intractable quite quickly, but as I say, I don't know a ton about this topic, so maybe that's a cop-out...!

I hope this was helpful, and I'd be happy to be corrected on the tractability of considering net impact on wild animal suffering!