Sustainable Feeds- working with markets

A clear trend at this year’s Seafood Expo Global (SEG), held from April 26 to 28 in Barcelona, is how markets are tracking use of sustainable ingredients in aquaculture production.

At the Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) panel session. Aquaculture already has a low carbon footprint, but needs improvements to maintain its position as a climate-friendly food production option.

Asian feed producers have conflicting interpretations on what sustainability means for them. Sustainable feed is generally interpreted as one with a low carbon footprint, includes sustainable raw materials and energy saving feed processing methods to produce safe and environmentally friendly and healthy feed.

Some producers think that the timing is not yet right to consider feed sustainability and that its aquafeed industry is not well developed enough to include the need for feed sustainability. What is more important is having a competitive edge. If sustainable feed ingredients mean more expensive products, it is not a win-win situation amidst a competitive environment and current situation with high feed raw material costs. While industry leaders encourage feed producers to use renewable protein resources, feed producers favour the need for feed quality and consistency while protecting the ecosystem by adopting lesser polluting processing methods. A commercial Future of Fish Feed (F3) feed is available in Vietnam but needs a market pull for adoption by farmers.

At SEG, three separate sessions focussed on sustainable feeds. The panel on how to measure and reduce carbon emissions in tropical aquaculture addressed the issues brought up from the IDH aquaculture working group focussing on environmental footprint of aquaculture of the whole value chain, especially on aquafeed.

IDH facilitates a pre-competitive Aquaculture Working Group to improve the methodologies for measuring and reducing the environmental footprint of aquaculture. Methodologies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, water use and eutrophication are being developed; currently members involved in methodology development are from companies in the shrimp, tilapia and pangasius value chain. The panel discussed how carbon along their supply chains can be measured, where carbon hotspots are in tropical aquaculture supply chains, and how the footprint of aquaculture products can be evaluated. Some points raised included the use of soy in aquafeed; carbon footprint of fishmeal and fish oil; and how to get feed producers, feed suppliers and producers to the table.

The Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) panel stressed that, in addition to setting climate targets, it must ensure that the targets are achievable. There are lessons here to learn from salmon aquaculture. The industry already has a low carbon footprint, but improvements are still needed to maintain its position as a climate friendly option. Sophie Ryan, CEO, GSI, said that despite companies with GSI being fierce competitors, her job is to bring competitors into one group, working together for the benefit of the whole industry. Common metrics are needed.

Carlos Diaz, CEO, BioMar said that it sets science-based and realistic targets. By 2030, 50% of raw materials will be circular and restorative ingredients. “Although Grieg Seafood is already far ahead, it still needs to improve,” said Kristina Furnes, Group Communication Manager. Across species, Diaz said improvements are happening fast, such as in marine fish and marine shrimp and across countries, in China and in Vietnam, the latter with ASC certification.

GSI has been working in partnership with WWF to establish an accounting framework for greenhouse gas emissions for the farmed salmon sector, from feed to consumer. Some 60-70% of farm gate emissions are from feed and if the feed includes soy produced from deforestation and conversion in Brazil, then it could add more emissions to the embedded carbon in salmon (WWF-US). Cont’d on page 6.