Aquaculture Magazine December 2017-January 2018 Volume 43 No 6 by Aquaculture Magazine

2 Â»

Â»

INDEX

Aquaculture Magazine Volume 43 Number 6 December 2017 - January 2018

editor´s comments

INDUSTRY NEWS

10 note

NOAA Sea Grant announces the award of $9.3 million in grants for 32 projects to advance the development of sustainable marine and coastal aquaculture in the U.S.

14 note

Ecuadorian Shrimp Hatcheries under Regulation.

20 article

An Overview of Streptococcus agalactiae Vaccines in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).

on the

cover New Paradigms to Help Solve the Global Aquaculture Disease Crisis

26 R&D CENTERS

Aquaculture and Fisheries Group - Wageningen University.

Volume 43 Number 6 December 2017 - January 2018

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

OUT AND ABOUT

FAO’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the “new phase” of Aquaculture.

Editor in Chief Greg Lutz editorinchief@dpinternationalinc.com

Editorial Assistant María José de la Peña editorial@dpinternationalinc.com

event REVIEW

LACQUA17: The Eyes of Latin-American and Caribbean Aquaculture in Mazatlán, Mexico.

36 Latin America Report Recent News and Events.

76 Urner barry

SALMON. SHRIMP. TILAPIA, CATFISH AND Pangasius.

Editorial Design Francisco Cibrián

Designer Perla Neri design@design-publications.com

Marketing & Sales Manager Christian Criollos crm@dpinternationalinc.com

Business Operations Manager Adriana Zayas administracion@design-publications.com

Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 5043642 Office in Mexico: (+52) (33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578 Aquaculture Magazine (ISSN 0199-1388) is published bimontly, by Design Publications International Inc. All rights reserved. www.aquaculturemag.com

events 80 Upcoming advertisers Index 2 »

columns

Aquaculture without Frontiers

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

End of year and looking forward.

News from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. By ASC Staff

FISH HEALTH, ETC

Statistics in Aquaculture: How it can help you make good decisions on the farm. By Hugh Mitchell, MSc DVM

AQUAFEED

Technical Guru

SALMONIDS

Recent news from around the globe by Aquafeed.com By Suzi Dominy

Pumps: the good, the bad and the ugly. By Amy Stone

Intensified Production of Salmonids and Risk of Harmful Carbon Dioxide Concentrations. By Asbjørn Bergheim

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

THE Shellfish CORNER

The Cost of Time in Aquaculture and Aquaponics Businesses By Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC

Cap and Trade Systems with Shellfish May Be Good for the Economic Bottom Line. By Michael A. Rice

Aquaponics

Can aquaponics help restore the US aquaculture industry? Part 2. The Power of Disruption! By George B. Brooks, Jr. Ph.D.

the long view When it comes...

By Aaron A. McNevin

Perspective and Opinion

Biodiversity and African Aquaculture Development. By Dr. Emmanuel A. Frimpong

Time is Money… and Much, Much More By C. Greg Lutz

nd rightly so, I suppose. In most of our labors related to this business, time really IS money – it has a real cost. The longer it takes to complete a task, the more ‘real’ expense is involved. But this recognition can also lead to a pervasive attitude of “I don’t have time for that” when it comes to generating the information needed to improve profitability. Time well spent (on record keeping and analysis of data) is also money, but it should be viewed as an investment rather than a cost. The same approach can be worthwhile in the realm of public policy – like Ecuador’s example of pre-empting economic disaster by categorizing best practices in shrimp production and mandating their use throughout the industry. “A stitch in time saves nine” as they say. The man- (and woman-) hours that many organizations have invested to develop sustainability standards for producers can also be expected to return dividends to society, across a broad range of dimensions. Within our businesses, our goals and aspirations often fail to take realistic timelines into account. This leads to the old saying that “everything takes longer than it takes.” But this should never be cause for frustration or discouragement, because although it may be difficult to put a Dollar- (or Peso-, or Euro-, or Bitcoin-) value on the time involved in gaining practical experience and the development of expertise, it is an important asset not only in business but also in academia. There is no way to purchase the experiences and knowledge one gains “in the trenches,” especially in the realm of aquaculture. 4 »

The “Time is Money” concept pops up either directly or through implication repeatedly in the material included in this issue.

That being said, there are other limitations to this concept. On a longer, more comprehensive scale, time is much more than money. It’s irretrievable, in that decisions taken (or NOT taken) often have indefinite or permanent repercussions. In some sense, humanity is in a race against itself. We must work harder (much harder) to get ahead of the curve in terms of sustainable food production and responsible stewardship of the planet. If we can’t manage this, the time we lose will not just be counted in money. I want to correct a time-related omission on my part from the last issue – our cover photo should have been credited to award-winning photographer Jeff Milisen. In fact, all of the photos from our last Offshore column are © Kampachi Farms, LLC.

Jeff has taken some incredible aquaculture photos, but his cameras have also captured many other subjects. To see his artistry online, just type iphotograph.fish in your browser.

Dr. C. Greg Lutz has a B.A. in Biology and Spanish by the Earlham College at Richmond, Indiana, a M.S. in Fisheries and a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science by the Louisiana State University. His interests include recirculating system technology and population dynamics, quantitative genetics and multivariate analyses and the use of web based technology for result-demonstration methods.

Â»

INDUSTRY researchNEWS report

INvertebrateIT – EU’s New Project to Generate Opportunities for Competitive and Sustainable Aquaculture European Union. – One of the main challenges in the aquaculture industry is the rising cost and volatility of fish feeds. INvertebrateIT aims to help aquaculture producers mitigate current dependence on costly and often unsustainable fish feed, to diversify their businesses and to contribute to a better management of organic wastes and/or algal substrates in invertebrate production. The project is funded by the European Maritime and Fishers Fund under the Blue Labs – Innovative Solutions for Maritime Challenges. The total budget for the project, which has a duration of 24 months (starting in April 2017 and ending in March 2019), is approximately 1 million USD. The INvertebrateIT consortium is formed by seven partners from five European countries coordinated by “Innogate to Europe” (INNO), a company specializing in international

project management and located in Spain. The other partners are Pole Mer Bretagne Atlantique – Technopole Quimper – Cornoauille (PMBATQC) in France, Cluster de la Acuicultura de Galicia (CETGA) in Spain, Fórum Oceano in Portugal, NGN Pro-Active – International Insect Centre (NGN-ICC) in The Netherlands, and AquaTT (AQUATT) and Marine Institute (MI) in Ireland. INvertebrateIT plans to engage SMEs (companies with fewer than 250 employees) to support project de-

velopment, which will commercially exploit opportunities combining sustainable aquaculture, invertebrate production and smart waste management. To that end, an open contest will soon be announced at the project’s official web page (www.invertebrateitproject. eu). Three promising projects or ideas will be selected to receive support from INvertebrateIT. INvertebrateIT will identify potential investment, support up-scaling and transfer, and facilitate the development of suitable public-private partnerships.

Phage Therapy in Aquaculture as an Effective Alternative to Antibiotics European Union. – The European research project ENVIPHAGE has evaluated the impact of the application of bacteriophages on the environment. Bacteriophages fight pathogens responsible for some of the main diseases that affect cultured species, in the bacterial environment and intestinal communities of fish and shellfish. The project has been coordinated by AZTI, and it has benefited from the collaboration of researchers from Biopolis S.L. (Spain), University of Aveiro (Portugal) and the Aguacircia Aquaculture company (Portugal). Previous studies on the use of bacteriophages in aquaculture had shown promising results at the laboratory level, but before using them on commercial facilities it was necessary to know about their impact on the environment and marine ecology. Throughout the project, bacteriophages with specific activity against 6 »

the most important fish pathogens of interest were identified and selected for their real-scale application. Then, after ensuring production on an industrial scale, the phages were applied in aquaculture farms to demonstrate their effectiveness under real rearing conditions and the impact of the treatment on fish. Marine and intestinal bacterial communities were also evaluated. The results obtained so far show that the bacterial community of the

fish intestinal tract is not significantly affected by the treatment with selected phages. Likewise, it has been shown that this therapy does not modify marine bacteria populations in tanks or in aquaculture production areas, so it has very limited or no impact on the bacterial ecology. The use of phages in aquaculture would reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture farms and increase profitability by reducing mortality rates in the initial stages of the rearing cycle.

European ‘INTEGRATE’ Project to Promote Transition Towards IMTA in the Atlantic Area European Union. – Eight institutions and companies from five European countries have joined forces to promote the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) across Europe. The recently approved project is called INTEGRATE and all its partners met at the end of October at CETAQUA in El Puerto de Santa María, near Cádiz, Spain, for the project’s kick-off meeting. The project is led by the Andalusian Aquaculture Technology Center (CTAQUA), and has the collaboration of the Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS, United Kingdom), Agrocampus Ouest (France), the Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere (Portugal), the National University of Ireland Galway (Ireland), the Irish Seaweed Consultancy (Ireland), ALGAplus (Portugal) and the Centre for Study and Promotion of Algae (France).

With a total budget of €2M (US $2.3M), this three-year project will develop effective tools to increase competitiveness while removing barriers to sectorial green growth and improving the quality and public image of aquatic products. INTEGRATE is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the INTERREG Atlantic Area Programme. Among the main objectives of the project is the strengthening of collaboration networks between the scientific sector, companies and administrations through a cooperation system. On the

other hand, INTEGRATE also seeks the creation of an IMTA Atlantic Platform for sector collaboration, and the implementation of three pilot actions focused on developing technology and specific production processes for the Atlantic IMTA. The INTEGRATE team will also work on developing technical guides and facilitating the access of pilot actions to the academic community and the industry. At the same time, it will promote the creation of groups of experts and the organization of meetings to inform results and promote cooperation and exchange of knowledge related to Atlantic IMTA.

Sino Agro Food, Inc. Signs Collaboration Agreement to Develop a Rapid Disease Detection Device United States. – In late September, Sino Agro Food, Inc. (SIAF) signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation and mutual benefit with CibusDx, a Utah-based company that has developed a portable device capable of rapid testing for diseases in shrimp and other species of interest to SIAF. The CibusDx testing system is also designed to communicate, report, and record the results of tests done in the field to secure data repositories. This system provides important advances in disease detection methodologies and represents a potentially great benefit to the aquaculture industry. SIAF and CibusDX will work together to further develop and certify the CibusDx system for SIAF’s use. The parties will further discuss SIAF selling and distributing the CibusDx system within mainland China. Moreover, SIAF will use the communication capabilities of the CibusDx system to provide exclusive professional consul-

tation to customers within mainland China. SIAF’s Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Anthony Ostrowski, commented, “Given that SIAF has multiple species of animals entering its sites daily, it is imperative we have a method to rapidly screen incoming animals for disease to maintain high levels of biosecurity. The process of screening species for diseases and analyzing samples usually takes days. This device will screen for selected diseases then collect samples, send them to an appropriate lab, and have the results returned within an hour. The device is easy to use with a minimum of training, and results cannot be compromised by poor analyti-

cal or reporting methods. It will greatly reduce our risk of bringing disease onto our sites. The device will be used to monitor for disease status on SIAF farms on a regular basis.” CibusDx has an agreement with the University of Arizona Aquaculture Program to develop assays and take steps to certify the device and the assays through appropriate regulatory bodies. SIAF will aid development by providing advice, samples for testing, and validation at SIAF laboratories. Dr. Ostrowski and his research team will lead the efforts at the SIAF laboratories to be established at its aquaculture facilities in Zhongshan, “Aquafarm 4.” »

INDUSTRY researchNEWS report

USDA Funds Research to Improve U.S. Aquaculture Production United States. - In early November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) announced grants to support the development of environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture in the U.S. These grants were awarded through the Aquaculture Research Program, authorized by the Competitive Special and Facilities Research Grants Act, administered by NIFA. NIFA Aquaculture Research Program grants support for the development of a globally competitive and profitable U.S. aquaculture industry, through investments that help improve domestic aquaculture production efficiency, sustainability, safety, marketing, information exchange, and access to global science-based information and advanced technologies. NIFA provides leadership in coordinating federal activities related to aquaculture through the Interagency Working Group on Aqua-

culture, under the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Science. Grants are made through a competitive peer review process involving an external panel of experts. Four FY17 aquaculture grants totaling US $1.2 million were recommended for funding: • Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, $320,883 • Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, $261,613 • University of Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland, $321,165

• University of Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland, $320,984 Among the newly awarded projects, Auburn University will develop a costeffective vaccine for the U.S. catfish industry to fight columnaris disease, which kills catfish and other cultured and ornamental freshwater fish around the world. Another project at the University of Maryland Baltimore County will develop an oral vaccine to help combat infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), a disease that affects trout and salmon.

Investment for Innovation and Technification of the Oyster Industry in Prince Edward Island Canada. – The investment will enable oyster growers and operations in PEI’s aquaculture industry to remain competitive, as demand continues to increase in markets around the world, which will help grow the region’s economy and maintain the province’s international reputation for producing high quality shellfish. To strengthen this important sector for the island’s economy, federal and provincial governments are investing in a program delivered by West Prince Ventures Ltd. to support innovation in the industry, increase production, and create new job opportunities in the region. Through its Business Development Program, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) is providing a non-repayable contribution of $300,000 to West Prince Venture’s Quality Oyster Aquaculture Program (QOAP) to help oyster growers and operators adopt new technologies to 8 »

increase production and efficiency, promote high quality oyster yields, and improve safety in handling and storage. The Government of Prince Edward Island is providing $200,000 to the program. The investment builds on commitments made by the Government of Canada and the four Atlantic provinces to drive economic growth in the region through the Atlantic Growth Strategy, which supports strategic investments in initiatives that build on the region’s competitive advantages, such as its thriving seafood industry, strong export potential, growing inno-

vation network and skilled workforce. “As a Community Business Development Corporation (CBDC), we assist in the creation and modernization of Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) by providing financial and technical services to entrepreneurs in rural PEI. We are very pleased to deliver the Quality Oyster Aquaculture Program, as it will be a great support for our oyster growers and operators looking to expand and modernize their operations to meet the growing demand,” commented Maxine Rennie, Executive Director, West Prince Ventures Ltd.

A Breakthrough for Shrimp Farming – The Development of Specific Pathogen Resistant (SPR) shrimp United Kingdom. - At the beginning of November, Benchmark announced the development of specific pathogen resistant (SPR) shrimp. The Company will soon start field trials in the Southeast Asian region, the largest and fastest growing market for farmed shrimp. Asia produces more than 2.66 M tonnes of shrimp, mainly Litopenaeus vannamei, with an estimated value of US $13 billion. Disease outbreaks, including White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and AHPND (Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Disease – previously known as Early Mortality Syndrome, EMS) have each resulted in catastrophic losses valued at billions of dollars per year. The estimated economic loss from AHPND for the Asian shrimp industry over the period 2009 to 2016 was US $22.5 billion.

The breakthrough development is the result of over 20 years of experience of the company’s breeding and genetics teams in Norway and Colombia, state-of-the-art breeding technologies, genomic selection tools, and collaboration across the Benchmark Holding plc network.

SPR shrimp has proven resistance to major diseases including WSSV, Taura (TSV), NHP (Necrotising Hepatopancreatitits), IHHNV and vibriosis. Early indications suggest that SPR stocks are also resistant to APHND.

New Antibiotic Resistance Interactive Research Tool United States. - On November 14, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Resistome Tracker, one of the first publicly available tools to provide visually informative displays of antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria. It is designed mainly for public health officials, academics and researchers who are using new genomics technologies to track and treat infectious diseases. Resistome Tracker’s interactive interface allows users to customize visualizations by antibiotic drug class, compare resistance genes across different sources, identify new resistance genes, and map selected resistance genes to geographic region. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) enables researchers to determine the complete DNA sequence of a bacterium, providing a wealth of information on different traits in microorganisms that could not easily be uncovered previously. FDA scientists have used these new sequencing tech-

nologies to show that for the bacteria targeted in the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), antibiotic resistance can be predicted with a high degree of confidence from the DNA sequence. The tool also provides alerts about new resistance traits as they emerge

in a region or source to provide early warning on emergent trends. Resistome Tracker represents a major step forward in resistance monitoring that will enhance the scientific foundation for the FDA and others when evaluating the impact of antibiotic use on the evolution and spread of resistance. »

note

NOAA Sea Grant

announces the award of $9.3 million in grants for 32 projects to advance the development of sustainable marine and coastal aquaculture in the U.S.

he projects include basic and applied research to improve the efficient production of seafood, permitting of new businesses, management of environmental health issues and the economic success of aquaculture businesses. All projects include public-private partnerships and will be led by university-based Sea Grant programs. With each project, every two federal dollars of funding is matched by non-federal funds, bringing the total investment in these research projects to USD $13.9 million. Some project summary highlights include: Technology for Commercial Scale Hatchery and Nursery Production of High Value Marine Fish Seedstock. Florida Sea Grant, University of Miami, $967,042. This project will advance hatchery and nursery technology for captive spawning and production of a high-value reef fish complex involving red snapper, Nassau grouper, and hogfish. Velella Epsilon: Pioneering Offshore Aquaculture in the Southeastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, $139,474. This project will deploy and operate a single, small-scale demonstration fish net pen (Velella Epsilon) as an educational platform for policymakers, the public, and fishing industry interests while concurrently pursuing an application for a commercial aquaculture permit in the Gulf of Mexico waters off southwest Florida and documenting the process. Large-scale culture methods for Blue Mussel, Mytilus edulis, seed production in Maine and the Northeast: Experimental Labo10 Âť

The grants were awarded through two aquaculture funding competitions: Integrated Projects to Increase Aquaculture Production and Addressing Impediments to Aquaculture Opportunities.

ratory & Field Trials. Maine Sea Grant, Downeast Institute for Applied Marine Research, $249,238. The investigators will focus on methods to improve hatchery production of blue mussel juveniles (spat) that will enable production of reliable seed to growers who, until now, rely on the vagaries of capturing wild seed. Commercializing intensive copepod culture: A transformational foundation essential for increasing domestic production of highvalue marine finfish. MississippiAlabama Sea Grant, The University of Southern Mississippi, $994,955. Scientists will optimize production systems and culture parameters to facilitate and implement copepod mass production at the producer level. Enhancing Peer to Peer Learning Opportunities for Southern Oyster Farmers. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant, Auburn University, $100,218. Grant funds will assist oyster farmers

and business owners with travel costs to attend the annual Oyster South Symposium and other industry-focused workshops, meetings and tradeshows. Real-time detection of Vibrio for oyster aquaculture. MIT Sea Grant, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $312,082. Development of a sensor that can detect the presence of Vibrio bacteria in a pathogenic state that can also be used down the value chain to wholesalers and retailers for assessment of oyster safety. Improved delivery of water-soluble nutrients to marine fish larvae to promote expansion of US commercial aquaculture. Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, $628,629. Research goals include testing the effectiveness of liposomeenrichment of live prey for several marine fish species of potential high commercial value and developing large-scale methods of production and an economic model to support commercialization. Enhancing Commercial Sustainability in the Hatchery Production of Eastern Oysters and Clams. Virginia Sea Grant, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, $998,942. The objective of this work will be to identify technical or biological strategies that can be rapidly implemented by industry to support healthy hatchery microbiomes and optimize larval growth and survival. Pilot-scale grow out of sablefish (“black cod”) by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington, $824,144. 10,000 sablefish (Ano-

poploma fimbria) juveniles will be transferred to experimental pens at the NOAA Manchester Research Station (Port Orchard, WA) and will be grown in a pilot-scale project for two years to harvest size (~2.5 kg) by Jamestown S’Klallam tribal personnel working in conjunction with NOAA Manchester researchers. Increasing Northeast US Marine Aquaculture Production by Pre-permitting Federal Ocean Space. Woods Hole Sea Grant, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, $539,793. The project team will work with federal and state agencies to identify promising areas of federal waters off the coast of New England and then pre-permit these areas for broad categories of marine aquaculture, with a focus on native species and low-impact growout technologies. Assisting Alaska Shellfish Managers to Avoid Emergency Rainfall Closures. Alaska Sea Grant, $94,535. Goals of the research are to better understand the overlapping effects of rainfall events and associated freshwater outflows on fecal bacteria levels on shellfish farms and geoduck harvest areas and to apply approved NSSP laboratory tests, in conjunction with comparative analyses of a realtime tool to predict elevated numbers of fecal bacteria. Geoduck spawning, nursery techniques, seed security and technology transfer for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant, $149,974. This project will provide Alaska geoduck farmers with Native Alaska geoduck seed. Mariculture Map - Development of a GIS Tool to Inform Mariculture Expansion. Alaska Sea Grant, $139,503. This project will define and prioritize parameters important to mariculture development, identify existing data sets related to these parameters, and collect, analyze/process and layer existing data into a GIS tool which can be used by investors and regulators. » 11

note

Impediments and opportunities for coordinating use of California’s coastal ocean: Adding aquaculture to the mix. California Sea Grant, $98,470. The goal of this project is to improve the process for considering and integrating multiple uses of ocean space, specifically capture fisheries and aquaculture. Solving impediments to the co-culture of seaweeds and shellfish. California Sea Grant, $145,834. This project addresses the design of integrated land-based systems themselves, including tests of the optimal recirculation rate to maximize the pH buffering (for shellfish) and nutrient subsidy (for seaweeds) benefits of integrated culture. Information Transfer about shellfish hatchery operations: an extension project targeting small family-based hatchery farms in Florida. Florida Sea Grant, $22,639. The goal is to establish an extension program to transfer knowledge about shellfish hatchery operation and management to local shellfish hatchery farmers. Alternative business and farming models to advance shellfish aquaculture in Hawai`i. Hawai’i Sea Grant, $149,972. This initiative will include testing a land-based oyster “fattening” system and developing the first commercial shellfish farm in nearshore waters in Hawaii.

12 »

Fulfilling Gulf of Mexico’s Regional Tetraploid Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Breeding Program. Louisiana Sea Grant, $87,639. Objectives include the maintenance, expansion, and distribution of a production tetraploid population, meaning a population whose primary function is creating commercial triploids and improving tetraploids to enhance the value of their triploid progeny. Controlling Fouling and Pests Associated with Water Column Oyster Aquaculture. Maryland Sea Grant, $149,067. This study will examine factors associated with fouling communities typically associated

with contained gear used for oyster culture in Maryland, determine conditions associated with colonization and expansion of the populations and determine cost-effective control methods to be used by commercial operators. Establishing Shellfish Hatchery Biosecurity Certification Standards to Facilitate Interstate Transport of Shellfish Seed. New Jersey Sea Grant, $149,219. This project seeks to host a three-day workshop to visit operational shellfish hatcheries of varying size and design to enable the group to reach consensus on an initial shellfish hatchery certification protocol; to finalize a set of guidelines that are adaptable to varying situations geographically or temporally and responsive to varying levels of acceptable risk; and to initiate certification of one or more hatcheries. Securing the Future of Seafood through Industry and Education: Fish to dish collaborative internship program. New York Sea Grant, $103,593. The project team will host an internship program with students stationed in different parts of the industry and provide weekly trainings and interaction among students to educate them on all aspects of the industry.

Improving the Safety of Shellfish Consumption with Probiotic-Supplemented Depuration. Oregon Sea Grant, $149,988. Previously identified probiotics will be combined with depuration to eliminate V. parahaemolyticus from oyster tissues without physical damage. The team will also develop a diagnostic tool that can detect a toxin released by V. parahaemolyticus or the bacterium itself in oyster tissue samples. Overcoming Impediments to Shellfish Aquaculture through Legal Research and Outreach. Sea Grant Law Center, $140,000. This project takes a multi-institutional, national collaboration approach to examine impediments to shellfish aquaculture across the United States. Fostering Aquaculture Entrepreneurship and Industry Growth in South Carolina through Enhancement of the Aquaculture Permitting Process. South Carolina Sea Grant, $40,250. The proposed project would support production and publication of a contemporary version of “A Guide to Aquaculture Permitting in South Carolina,” to (1) reduce/eliminate confusion in the regulatory and permitting process, (2) provide consistent messaging regarding permitting requirements for various forms of aquaculture, and (3) improve efficiency in the filing of paperwork by industry and the processing of permits by government agencies. Addressing Public Misperceptions about Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. USC Sea Grant, $147,737. A series of five short videos will be produced to increase the public’s knowledge about the many types aquaculture production, show science-based applications used by aquaculture farms, and familiarize audiences with how to cook aquaculture seafood dishes. Can carryover effects improve oyster aquaculture production? Virginia Sea Grant, $149,998. This project will provide a better understanding of the connection between hatchery conditions and grow-out performance. Identifying strategies to minimize impacts of harmful algal blooms on performance and survival of triploid oysters cultured in lower Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Sea Grant, $149,902. This study will examine the interactive impacts of 1) field exposure of oysters to harmful algal organisms that bloom in lower Chesapeake Bay during the late summer, 2) the differing standard industry oyster grow-out strategies, and 3) associated physico-chemical stressors (DO, temperature) during grow-out. Genetic, physiologic, and culture characterization of new Mercenaria mercenaria breeding stocks. Virginia Sea Grant, $149,650. This work would establish new broodstock lines from wild populations living at the extremes of the natural range of M. mercenaria. Development of Genetic Risk Assessment Tools and Management Strategy Evaluation for Aquaculture of Native Shellfish. Washington Sea Grant, $149,530. Interbreeding captive and wild native shellfish » 13

poses potential genetic risks to wild populations, and so this project addresses the uncertainty in the development and implementation of regulatory guidelines governing shellfish aquaculture operations to avoid these risks. Growing Sustainable Shellfish: Understanding the Ecological Role of Shellfish Aquaculture Using Emerging Technology. Washington Sea Grant, $149,995. This project addresses public perception and permitting by researching the functional role of shellfish aquaculture habitat relative to natural habitat. Market Development to Diversify Shellfish Aquaculture Products in Massachusetts. Woods Hole Sea Grant, $113,510. This project will support aquaculture of three native, coastal species in Massachusetts: surf clams (Spisula solidissima), blood arks (Anadara ovalis) and oysters (Crassostrea virginica), to increase the diversification and profitability of shellfish aquaculture businesses. Sea Grant’s investment in aquaculture research, outreach and education programs continues to produce results for coastal communities and their economies. Between February 2016 and January 2017, Sea Grant invested $9 million in aquaculture research, technology transfer, and outreach and reported $90 million in economic impacts, including support of 900 businesses and 1,800 jobs.

note

Ecuadorian Shrimp Hatcheries under Regulation

cuador is one of several shrimp production leaders worldwide and the largest in Latin America. Total exports in 2016 reached US $2.58 billion and shrimp represented 22.76% of Ecuador’s non-oil exports. Over the past decade, the shrimp industry has gained so much strength that a production crisis would have severe consequences in the national economy. On October 27th 2017, the Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAP) of Ecuador published a decree establishing a series of parameters related to infrastructure design and good practices protocols to prevent disease outbreaks in shrimp culture systems. The MAP worked together with the private sector and aquaculture research institutions (ASOLAB, CNA, CENAIM) on developing all the technical parameters included in the decree. Through the Undersecretary of Aquaculture and the Undersecretary of Quality and Safety, the MAP is promoting projects focused on disease outbreak prevention in the farmed shrimp industry. Additionally, the MAP is offering training to personnel from shrimp larvae hatcheries, aiming to improve the technification of these establishments. Strict inspections conducted by personnel of the Undersecretary of Quality and Safety will ensure compliance with the established parameters. 14 »

The Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAP) has launched a decree

which establishes infrastructure design and technical parameter requirements for shrimp hatcheries, in order to prevent disease outbreaks and economic crises. Katuska Drouet, Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries, stated that they have increased the workforce – with more than 70 third-level professionals- to perform inspections in shrimp larvae laboratories, hatcheries, local companies producing algae, and artemia importing companies, as well as fisheries establishments. During the last couple of years, larvae demand has increased significantly in the country due to the intensification of culture and the expansion of farms. This has encouraged the operation of unregulated shrimp hatcheries. The low quality of shrimp larvae from these hatcheries has affected production results with higher mortality rates, size disparity, etc. The Ministry also intends to regulate intensive and semi-intensive shrimp culture. In the upcoming weeks, a manual for assessment will be published and grow-out operations will also be under inspection. As part of the decree, the National Fisheries Institute (INP) will no longer perform inspections for fisheries and aquaculture operations, grant or

revalidate certifications or issue quality permits. The INP will focus its work on research. The recently created Undersecretary of Quality and Safety will now be in charge of these tasks. Some of the points mentioned in the decree are related to: • Infrastructure design. Different specifications for each area (reception and delivery areas, production area, personnel rooms, water treatment area, warehouse, among others) - e.g., the feed storage and fresh feed preparation areas must be air-conditioned and separated from other supply storage. • Reservoir capacity and infrastructure characteristics. • Stocking densities - compliance with stocking density guidelines established in the Effective Production Act will be required. • Disinfection protocols for each area and phase of production - e.g., the prescribed drying and disinfection periods for all areas must be carried out for at least 10 days after each run. • Effluent treatment - e.g., (a) water must be treated to avoid contamination and pathogen dissemination, (b)

The Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries has undertaken this task with the aim of protecting the economically important shrimp farming industry in Ecuador. larval biomass must be recovered for later incineration. • High mortality situations- e.g., in cases of mortalities higher than 80% in 24 to 48 hours, all remaining animals must be eliminated and incinerated. • Disinfection protocols for artemia and algae areas – e.g., all algae areas must be dried and disinfected for 8 days every 2 months. • Personnel requirements - e.g., the laboratory or hatchery must have a third-level professional with technical responsibility for production.

• Development of pest control plans. • Development of sanitary contingency plans. • Obligatory reporting of any massive mortality of brooders, nauplii, larvae or post-larvae to the Aquaculture Secretary. Additionally, the hatcheries must have separate, designated areas for artemia and algae, as well as an observation room, water treatment area, incineration area, solid waste storage and fuels storage, and other features. All areas must have the correct signage. The decree also establishes the minimum equipment required for culture monitoring and control (pH meter, dissolved oxygen meter, microscope, etc.).

A special section of the decree is dedicated to traceability. Maturation hatcheries must keep a record of the origin of brooders in order to assure their traceability, as well as maintain detailed records of their breeding programs. Disease outbreaks affect the farmed shrimp industry worldwide. So far, the implementation of strict biosafety measures has been voluntary in many countries; however, such regulations are crucial to ensure the growth and development of the aquaculture industry in the long run. Ecuador has set the example; let’s hope more countries follow it.

» 15

article

New Paradigms to Help Solve the Global Aquaculture Disease Crisis

Grant D. Stentiford 1, Kallaya Sritunyalucksana 2, Timothy W. Flegel 3, Bryony A.P. Williams4, Boonsirm Withyachumnarnkul 3, Orn Itsathitphaisarn 3,5, David Bass 1,6

Animal health has been identified as an urgent requirement for sustainable growth. Whereas significant progress has been made regarding animal health, disease outbreaks still represent a significant barrier for aquaculture industry expansion. Disease as a Barrier to Production Seafood (including fish, invertebrates, and algae) is the most highly traded of all food commodities, playing a key role in nutritional and financial security, particularly in developing economies. Forty years after the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Technical Conference on Aquaculture, the implicit forecast in the Kyoto Declaration has largely been fulfilled with global aquaculture growing to rival production from the 16 »

capture fishery. The Bangkok Declaration, which followed, identified management of animal health by cooperative action at national, regional, and inter-regional levels as “an urgent requirement for sustaining growth”. Whereas significant progress has been made in identification, diagnostics, treatment, and zone management of disease in certain sectors (e.g., the European Atlantic salmon industry), recalcitrant issues (such as those associated with sea lice infestation) can remain significant barriers to expan-

sion. Industry-wide losses to aquatic animal diseases exceed US$6 billion per annum, rivaling in magnitude the projected proportional losses experienced in terrestrial livestock sectors. In certain sectors (e.g., shrimp), infectious diseases are causing particularly devastating economic and social impacts, with total losses exceeding 40% of global capacity. Emergent diseases, often with cryptic or syndromic aetiology (such as early mortality syndrome in shrimp), have collapsed production in nations across Asia, confirming disease as the major constricting factor for expansion of the aquaculture industry to 2050. In this context, 50 early-career scientists from the United Kingdom and Thailand met with industry professionals and policymakers in March 2016 at the Newton Fund Researcher Links Programme workshop in Thailand entitled “Scientific, technological and social solutions for sustainable aquaculture in Thailand: a key player in global aquatic food supply” to consider the future challenge of managing disease in global aquaculture. This Opinion summarizes major outcomes of those discussions.

Understanding Complex Systems Aquatic environments impose a constant and omnipresent risk of pathogen exposure to resident hosts, perhaps even more so than terrestrial systems. Poor knowledge of background microbial diversity in farm systems leads to frequent emergence of previously unknown pathogens, surprising farmers and creating shock in the wider value chain. Scientific (pathology, systematics, diagnostics) and political (trade legislation, listing) responses to emergence are largely reactive and often slow, facilitating local±global transfer of pathogens via trading in live animals and products. Historic focus on the development of case descriptions and fulfilment of Koch’s postulates for specific (listed) pathogens have undoubtedly been critical in notifying the wider community of emergent issues but arguably have politicized (and

popularized) research on specific facets of those pathogens. In addition, whilst cost±benefit analyses have focused on freedom from or eradication of the most politicized pathogens, less effort has been placed on management of non-listed “production diseases” that may severely impact yields. This creates friction between industry operatives and the scientific evidence base that is funded by national research monies to support that industry. The avoidance of disease outbreaks by management of pond and animal microbiomes (rather than attempting to eliminate the presence of given pathogens) may provide a more viable means of mitigating losses in certain open systems in the future. High throughput sequencing (HTS) applied to open aquatic systems is rapidly increasing our knowledge of prokaryotic and eukaryotic diversity and the complex symbiotic arena in which they exist. Application of so-called “environmental DNA” (eDNA) approaches to aquaculture pond systems (e.g., in outbreak and non-outbreak scenarios) will provide this much-needed context for conditions surrounding disease emergence by detecting specific pathogens of consequence to farmed hosts or those elements of the microbiome that facilitate their emergence as disease agents. Improved definition of a “pathobiome” within hosts may be expected to supersede an historic focus on specific pathogens as sole perpetrators of yield-limiting disease. A shift to pathobiome concepts may also expose a wider target to which pond management strategies can be applied. The application of modern HTS approaches will not only accelerate our understanding of the complex trophic (e.g., prokaryotic, eukaryotic) structures that exist within such systems but also the effect of intervention on eventual health outcomes for farmed animals. Investigating the common set of conditions that allow disease to emerge across diverse hosts and biomes clearly provides a nexus for fu-

ture research, allowing aquaculture to benefit from parallel advances in agriculture, botany, zoology, and medical disciplines.

Equipping the Host The ability for farmed hosts to tolerate the pond environment is, of course, critical as well. Vaccination will retain a central role in the mitigation of known and emerging diseases in finfish, with intelligent use of autogenous (“emergency”) vaccines showing high poten-

tial for rapid deployment following detection of emergent diseases. The scenario is different for invertebrates, in which traditional vaccination is not possible. Here, solutions based around better knowledge of the genome (of host and pathogen) are required. Until recently, a lack of publicly available genomic data has hampered progress in understanding host±pathogen interaction. Particularly for shrimp, the problems associated with highfrequency genomic sequence repeats

» 17

article

sequencing and open data access must coincide with these developments. The basis for controlling progression from infection to disease in farmed hosts will benefit from a better understanding of fundamental mechanisms for pathogen tolerance in wild hosts where host background genetic diversity is higher. In this way, hatchery supply of specific-pathogenfree (SPF) larvae (produced with confirmed freedom from certain pathogens, though not necessarily “tolerant” to the microbiome or pathobiome of the receiving farm) should be augmented by provision of more diverse and broadly resilient lines, produced via well-managed selective breeding programs, and potentially augmented using emerging genetic technologies such as SNP arrays.

Policy and People To date, national and international may be overcome by application of research programs relating to aqualonger-read sequencing technologies culture health have largely reflected a alongside other shorter-read technolo- supranational focus on listed diseasgies to allow for accurate assembly and es, the occurrence of which can limit characterization. Open publication of free trading. While clearly important such data as a “public good” will fast in averting global pandemics due to track new therapeutics and provide in- emerging disease, this strategy is increased acceptance of the importance sufficient to prevent the impact of of endogenous, viral-like elements in nonlisted production diseases in limgenetic immunity. Standardized ap- iting yield from Low Income Food proaches to pathogen (or pathobiome) Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). By set-

ting time-bound global production growth targets to 2050, which in turn feed national production targets, there will be increasing need to focus on yield-limiting (rather than just tradelimiting) diseases. Defining basic research needs (e.g., on host and pathogen genomics) must cater to tangible translation (e.g., to rapid diagnostics) and application (e.g., pondside testing by farmers or government). This faster translation to “point-of-need” bridges the gap between farmer, scientist, and policymaker and defines the proportional investment required for public good at the national and international levels. Networking of national strategies (and reference laboratory systems) will not only align investment but help to address a relative global deficit in trained aquatic health professionals and academics focused on aquatic animal disease. Marginal improvements that reduce the global burden of disease in aquaculture will convert to direct benefits for yield, profit, poverty alleviation, and food security for producer nations. More significant interventions, including those which capitalize on automated detection of pathogens and other remote sensing applications, have significant potential for mitigating the most important yield-limiting production diseases and will improve the insurability of the global aquaculture sector, promoting inward investment and assuring production targets to 2050 are met in a sustainable manner.

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, United Kingdom National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Bangkok, Thailand 3 Center of Excellence for Shrimp Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (Centex Shrimp), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 4 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom 5 Department of Biochemistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 6 Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom. 1

This is a popular version of the article originally published as Stentiford et al. (2017) New Paradigms to Help Solve the Global Aquaculture Disease Crisis. PLoS Pathog 13(2): e1006160. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006160

18 »

Â» 19

article

An Overview of Streptococcus agalactiae Vaccines in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

treptococcus spp. are among the most important bacteria affecting tilapia production around the world, and S. agalactiae is the most prevalent. The symptoms caused by this disease include loss of appetite, exophthalmia, eye hemorrhage, corneal opacity, distended abdomen, curvature of the spinal cord, erratic swimming, stiffness and bleeding on the base of the fins (Ortega et al., 2016). Its devastating impact on tilapia production has led to increases in the use of antibiotics and other drugs in the industry, raising serious concerns about the presence of antibiotic residues in aquaculture products and the environment and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Disease prevention and control are fundamental to maintain the longterm sustainability of aquaculture. Vaccination is an important disease management strategy, and the development of protective vaccines against S. agalactiae has significantly intensified alongside the accelerated expansion of tilapia aquaculture in the past two decades. However, there are several factors in vaccine production that re-

20 Âť

As tilapia aquaculture production intensifies, disease outbreaks threaten its expansion. Worldwide, S. agalactiae is one of the most important diseases affecting O. niloticus culture, and vaccination represents one of the most environmentally friendly disease-control strategies against this bacteria. quire optimization. For example, (1) it is necessary to comprehensively understand the infection biology of disease in tilapia, with the aim of identifying the immunological mechanisms by which vaccination confers protection; (2) there is no standardized challenge model to compare the efficiency of different vaccines, and the measures of vaccine efficiency have not been clearly defined (antibodies as a measure of protective immunity, or relative percent survival RPS). In this article, we will review different antigen delivery systems used in the design of S. agalactiae vaccines, as well as different strategies used to administer vaccines in tilapia. Additionally, we will bring into perspective the different methods currently used

for evaluating efficiency of S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapia. Finally, we will explore the possibility of developing correlates of vaccine protection based on existing data, which could serve as baselines for optimizing newly developed vaccines for S. agalactiae.

Antigen Delivery System The antigen delivery systems used in the design of S. agalactiae vaccines for tilapia can be classified into replicative and non-replicative vaccines. The replicative antigen delivery system comprises live attenuated, heterologous live vector and DNA vaccines, while the non-replicative antigen delivery system includes the inactivated whole cell (IWC), subunit and extracellular vaccines.

Replicative Vaccines Currently, two approaches have been used to attenuate virulent trains of S. agalactiae into avirulent strains for use as live vaccines in tilapia: (1) serial passage and (2) chemical treatment. Tables 1 and 2 show that attenuated vaccines are more protective than inactivated vaccines. Nevertheless, there is a latent concern regarding the reversion of avirulent strains to virulence, although it has not been demonstrated for S. agalactiae live vaccines used in aquaculture. However, vaccine reversion has been reported for some fish pathogens in infected fish subjected to stress. Furthermore, it is also feared that vaccinated fish with live vaccines could become a source of infection to other aquatic organisms

for which the avirulent vaccine strain could still be pathogenic. Therefore, it is fundamental that these factors are taken into consideration before commercial use of new vaccines. DNA vaccination is based on the administration of a plasmid encoding the vaccine antigen, rather than the antigen itself. The expression of the plasmid in the somatic cells of the host triggers both humoral and cellular immune responses (Nerland et al., 2007). Vaccine research has focused on different proteins that serve as vaccine candidates for DNA vaccine production, such as the surface immunogenic protein (Sip) (Huang et al., 2014) or the LPXT motif cell wall surface anchor family protein (Nur-Nazifah et al., 2014). Table 3

shows other proteins of S. agalactiae that serve as vaccine candidates. It is noteworthy that the DNA vaccines designed by Huang et al. (2014) and Nur-Nazifah et al. (2014) showed higher protection than most of the inactivated whole cell (IWC) vaccines shown in Table 2, suggesting that Sip and LPXT proteins encoded in these DNA vaccines were highly potent protective antigens. Another group of replicative vaccines are heterologous live vector vaccines, which encode the antigenic protein of a virulent pathogen inserted in another replicative organism that does not cause disease in the

Âť 21

article

tential antigens for subunit vaccines. On the other hand, although bacterial extracellular proteins (ECPs) have been shown to produce protective immunity against fish diseases, previous studies have reported low protection against S. agalactiae challenges in tilapia using the EPC vaccine. Nevertheless, when the EPC vaccine was combined with the IWC-vaccine it produced higher protection. This indicates that a combined input of ECPs and IWCantigens is required to produce longterm protective immunity for S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapia. host. An important aspect of these live vectors is their capacity to stimulate mucosal, humoral and/or cellular systemic immunity, which enables the use of different forms of vaccination to prevent pathogen colonization of mucosal tissues, the entry point for many infectious agents (Adilson et al., 2014).

Non-replicative Vaccines Non-replicative vaccines include the inactivated whole cell (IWC), subunit and extracellular vaccines. Inactivated whole cell (IWC) vaccines account for the largest proportion of vaccines developed against S. agalactiae in tilapia (Table 2). They are based on whole virus inactivation by chemical compounds that modify the intracellular replication capacity of the virus (Kibenge et al., 2016). These types of vaccines are considered safe as they include killed pathogens and represent no danger of reversion to virulence. However, they require adjuvants to enhance their immunogenicity. Different adjuvants have been used in IWC-vaccine formulations for S. agalactiae in tilapia, such as Freundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s incomplete and aluminum hydroxide gel (AH). Yet, these adjuvants have been shown to induce side effects in fish, which has led research to focus on antigen delivery systems that do not require incorporation of adjuvants in vaccine formulation. 22 Âť

Unlike inactivated and modifiedlive vaccines, which are specific to different serotypes, subunit vaccines use conserved proteins that are serotype independent and cover a broad range of serotypes. The basic principle of a subunit vaccine is that the gene encoding the immunogenic protein is isolated from the native virus and transferred into a heterologous vector for replication (Kibenge et al., 2016). An example of this is the Sip protein, which is a cross protective protein for different strains of S. agalactiae. It is highly conserved, having more than 90 % sequence alignment homology between tilapiine and mammalian strains of S. agalactiae. Table 4 shows some of the subunit vaccines designed under experimental studies, while Table 3 shows the immunogenic proteins identified as po-

Vaccine Delivery Systems Delivery systems used for administering S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapia aquaculture can be divided into (1) parenteral vaccination and (2) mucosal vaccination. Parenteral Vaccination The only parenteral routes, those that do not involve the gastrointestinal tract, explored for administering S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapias are intraperitoneal and intramuscular. The intraperitoneal injectable vaccines account for the largest proportion of vaccines developed against S. agalactiae in tilapia, as shown in Tables 1, 2 and 4. Unlike the mucosal vaccines, which have to cross mucosal barriers before gaining entry into the system, injectable vaccines are rapidly assimilated by the induction of adaptive immune responses. However, this vaccine de-

livery system requires individual handling of fish, which could increase levels of stress, handling-related mortalities and an increment in labor costs. Therefore, research efforts should focus on the development of vaccination strategies that are less stressful to fish, but have the ability to produce long-term protective immunity. In the case of DNA vaccines, the most used administration method is intramuscular injection. In tilapia, this administration method has worked for S. iniae vaccines, but its efficiency for S. agalactiae has yet to be determined. Likewise, this method has proven to produce higher protection for Aeromonas hydrophila, compared to immersion vaccines in tilapia (Ramadan et al., 1994).

Mucosal Vaccination Mucosal vaccination strategies explored for administering S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapia include immersion, spray and oral vaccination.

Immersion accounts for a small proportion of vaccines used against S. agalactiae in tilapia, compared to injectable vaccines. The main advantage of this administration method is that a larger number of fish can be vaccinated at the same time, thus avoiding individual handling, becoming more cost-effective and resulting in less stress-related immunosuppression. At present, there are few studies focused on spray vaccine administration (Noraini et al., 2013). Still, Noraini et al. (2013) reported positive results of formalin IWC vaccine sprayed on the skin surface of fish. The vaccine produced high protection in vaccinated fish after intraperitoneal and immersion challenge, with Relative Percent Survivals of 70 % and 80 % respectively. It is necessary to further explore this administration method in order to validate its consistency in protecting tilapia against S. agalactiae. Oral administration of live attenuated and DNA vaccines against

S. agalactiae has been used in tilapia. Both type of vaccines have reported high protection levels. However, this method of administration faces some challenges as its vaccines have to overcome the harsh gastric environment. To face this problem, a phasetransitional shielding layer has been developed to protect the vaccine antigens in the digestive tract in order to achieve targeted immune responses in the intestine. Tilapia vaccinated using the Sip antigen encapsulated in PMMA-PLGA nanoparticles have shown high protection against S. agalactiae that lasted for several months. Still, injectable vaccines have been shown to be more effective than oral vaccines.

Measures of Vaccine Efficiency For future vaccine development, it is crucial to establish measures for vaccine efficacy assessment. This involves several steps, like developing a reliable and reproducible challenge model, establishing the measures of vaccine protection and the correlates of protective immunity able to serve as baselines for the optimization of newly developed vaccines. As we have previously reported, the factors that constitute a reproducible challenge model include: • Use of highly virulent bacterial strains able to cause high mortality in susceptible fish • Optimization of the challenge dose • Use of highly susceptible fish able to produce a wide discriminatory capacity between vaccine protected fish and the unvaccinated control fish • Use of an infection method that mimics disease transmission » 23

article

• Estimation of sample sizes able to show significant statistical differences between the vaccinated and control fish However, there is no challenge model developed that considers all these attributes for evaluating the efficacy of S. agalactiae vaccines in tilapia. As shown in Tables 1, 2 and 4, intraperitoneal injection is the most widely used for evaluating S. agalactiae vaccine efficiency in tilapia. Bacterial injection in fish enables the bacteria to rapidly enter and spread in the systemic environment. The major limitation of this challenge model is that it does not mimic natural infection, as the bacteria do not enter through the natural entry points —mucosal surfaces— into the systemic environment, unlike bath, immersion or cohabitation challenge models, which give a better understanding of the sequential progression of infection.

Measure of Vaccine Protection The relative percent survival (RPS) is the most widely used measure to evaluate efficiency of vaccines in tilapia. The RPS is based on the number of vaccinated fish that survive the lethal challenge against pathogenic strains of S. agalactiae infection relative to the number of the unvaccinated control fish. The major limitation of this measure is that it does not show if the vaccine-induced protection pre24 »

vents the colonization of bacteria on mucosal surfaces, prevents dissemination of bacteria to internal organs or blocks damage in the target organs of vaccinated fish, and only determines the survival rate against mortality. Therefore, it is necessary to establish non-lethal measures of vaccine efficiency. Other measures used to evaluate the efficiency of vaccines in tilapia are bacterial quantification using quantitative PCR, the serum inhibition test (SIT) and prevention of pathology. Quantitative PCR can be used to establish the optimal levels of vaccineinduced protection required to prevent bacterial replication in the blood and to prevent the bacteria from entering the brain and other S. agalactiae target organs. Furthermore, it can determine the optimal levels of vaccine-induced protection to prevent bacterial colonization on mucosal surfaces and penetration into the systemic environment of vaccinated fish. On the other hand, the SIT can be used to measure the protective ability of antibodies generated by vaccination in vitro.

Correlates of Protective Immunity The development of correlates of protection for S. agalactiae vaccines for tilapia can serve as baselines for the optimization of newly developed vaccines. It has been reported that antibody responses can be correlated

with vaccine protection in tilapia vaccinated against S. agalactiae, which demonstrates that antibodies could serve as correlates of protective immunity in vaccinated fish. Similarly, it has been shown that antigen doses used to vaccinate tilapia against S. agalactiae correspond with post challenge protection levels. Increasing the number booster vaccinations using the same antigen doses further increased the post challenge survival of vaccinated fish. It has been reported that S. agalactiae exists as variant strains classified into different biotypes; consequently, different methods of characterization have been developed, such as the traditional serotyping, molecular serotyping, ISR-SSCP, AFLP, MLST and PFGE. However, since it is not clear if these strains are cross protective, further research is needed to demonstrate the cross protective ability of different strains of S. agalactiae using vaccination and challenge studies. As reviewed in this article, there are different approaches that can be used to develop protective vaccines against S. agalactiae in tilapia, but it is still necessary to optimize the measures of vaccine efficacy. This is a popular version of the article: Munang’andu, H.M.1; Paul, J. and Evensen Ø. (2016). An Overview of Vaccination Strategies and Antigen Delivery Systems for Streptococcus agalactiae Vaccines in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Vaccines 2016, 4, 48; doi:10.3390/vaccines4040048 1 Section of Aquatic Medicine and Nutrition, Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

References Adilson, J.; Zangirolami, T.C.; Marques, M.T.; de Campos, R. and Leme-Martins, E.A. (2014). Live Bacterial Vaccine Vectors: An overview. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2014 45(4): 1117-1129. Kibenge F.S.B. and Godoy M.G. (2016). Aquaculture Virology. London: Academic Press. p. 89-90. Nerland, A.; Traavik, T. and Colombo, L. (2007). DNA vaccination in fish culture. Genimpact final scientific report. Genimpact – Evaluation of genetic impact of aquaculture activities on native populations. p. 117 Ortega-Asencios, A.; Barreiro-Sánchez, F.; BuenoMendizábal, H.; Huancaré-Pasari, K.; Ostos-OstosAlfosno, H.; Manchego-Sayán, A.; Pereira-Figueiredo, M.A.; Gómez-Manrique, W.; de Andrade-Belo, M.A.; Sandoval-Chaupe; N. (2016). First report of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from Oreochromis niloticus in Piura, Peru: Molecular identification and histopathological lesions. Aquaculture Reports 4 (2016) 74-79. doi. org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2016.06.002

Â» 25

R&D Center

Aquaculture and Fisheries Group - Wageningen University The Aquaculture and Fisheries Group’s (AFI’s) mission is to be a leading institution in research and education on sustainable aquaculture and fisheries, with a focus on socially relevant questions and on the By Prof. Dr. Johan Verreth

ageningen University, celebrating its first centennial next March 2018, has its roots in agricultural sciences. Later it expanded into other disciplines, such as food, environmental and social sciences. In this wave of broadening its span of action, the university also established a Chair in “Fish Culture and Fisheries” in 1975. Originally the focus was on freshwater. The motivation for this 26 »

interactions between aquatic organisms and their environment. Chair was grounded in the awareness that fish communities play a crucial role in the management of freshwater ecosystems, and as such that both inland fisheries and angling may have strong impacts on these ecosystems. Yet, the emerging potential of aquaculture was recognized, so the emphasis of the new Chair was placed on “fish culture”, partly as a mean for re-stocking natural waterbodies but (of course) also for food production.

This concept of “fish in inland waters” was maybe the rationale to combine both fish culture and fisheries in one Chair. The new Chair group was a success and developed soon into a team with several faculty and staff, covering disciplines such as fish reproduction, nutrition, diseases, production systems, fisheries ecology and modeling. In more recent years, it turned its path to a more academic focus on the

interaction between the animal (fish, shellfish or shrimp) and its environment which finds its application in fish nutrition, “closed” aquaculture productions systems (RAS, ponds), fisheries ecology and fisheries management. In line with this, the original limitation to freshwater was abandoned, and the unit’s name changed to Aquaculture and Fisheries Group (AFI). Ten years ago, the importance of the domain was further recognized by the University, establishing a 2-year Masters in Aquaculture and Marine Resources Management, which recruits annually about 35 new students. In this way, the future of the group is guaranteed.

AFI’s Scope The basis of our current strengths finds its roots in the original approach of the first Chairholder, Prof. Dr. E.A. Huisman. He was a specialist in growth bioenergetics of fish and used this knowledge to design intensive farming operations. Until today, studies on the metabolic physiology of fish are still part of the core activities of the group. Our large facility for respiration and metabolism studies is part of the European Large Infrastructure for Aquaculture Research managed via the Horizon 2020 project AQUAEXCEL. This early approach also finds its expression in our current integrative focus on feeds, fish and water quality, both in RAS and in ponds. Also our expertise in tropical aquaculture and fisheries can be traced to the early days of the Chair. When the group started, there was hardly any commercial aquaculture in the Netherlands, hence all graduates would need to find employment overseas. Therefore, the African catfish Clarias gariepinus was chosen as research model, and outreach projects in the South were part of the work portfolio. Today, our fisheries research deals with Lake Victoria, tuna fisheries in the Pacific, fish communities in rivers and other topics. North Sea fisheries have always been the work domain of our colleagues of the former Fisher-

Metabolic system at the Aquatic Research Facilities CARUS at Wageningen University.

ies Research Institute in the Netherlands (now part of Wageningen UR as Wageningen Marine Research). Being the first and only academic team in the Netherlands working on aquaculture gave us some advantages but also responsibilities. When commercial fish farming emerged in the Netherlands, only Wageningen was there to support them. It was a pioneering time during which the scientific basis of RAS was laid down and the various concepts immediately validated in commercial practice. Together with alumni working in industry, NGOs and governmental organizations, Wageningen took the lead in establishing the Dutch Society for Aquaculture, thereby creating a platform and short lines for crosstalk between science and industry. These

short lines have benefitted both the Dutch aquaculture industry and the Chair group which gained a leading role in RAS technology and operations. Our integrative approach of combining solid scientific work on physiological and technological aspects in Wageningen with outreach programmes both in Europe (RAS) and tropical countries (ponds) gave us a strong name in farming of lowtrophic species, such as tilapia, catfish, pangasius and cyprinids.

Impact AFI contributes to the societal debate regarding the use of marine ingredients in aquafeeds by focusing its nutritional research on the digestion of carbohydrates and the anti-nutritional

Eng. Menno ter Veld, manager of the Aquatic Research Facilities CARUS at Wageningen University.

» 27

R&D Center

Eng. Menno ter Veld, manager of the Aquatic Research Facility CIRUS at Wageningen University, explaining the work done in the place.

effects of non-starch polysaccharides. PhD and postdoc studies on soybeaninduced enteritis helped Nutreco/ Skretting to develop a scoring system for enteritis, which has become a standard in the industry. In the framework of the societal debate regarding sustainable seafood production, the Dutch retailer Royal Ahold asked advice from AFI to develop its Sustainable Seafood Policy. Using WWF and the New-England-Aquarium as review panelists, we benchmarked different certification schemes against the FAO Guidelines for eco-labelling of fish and fishery products. The results were subsequently discussed with the standard owners of the different certification schemes (MSC, GlobalGap, GAA-BMP, ASC and FoS among others), who all adjusted their procedures based on our findings. A new consortium, The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative, continues the work by developing a common Benchmarking Tool for seafood certification, for 28 Âť

which it employed our alumnus Herman Wisse as its program manager. The search for sustainability certification has tremendous effects on producers. Management plans, stockallocations and Fishery-Improvement-Plans (FIPs) must be in place. Our project BESTTUNA addresses these plans for the tuna fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean. The adjacent action research program IFFIT coordinates fisheries data and supply-chain information to manage better tuna hand-line and pole-line fisheries in Indonesia, together with IPNLF. In this project, we also collaborate with MDPI-Indonesia, a fisheries NGO, led by our alumnus Momo Kochen, that supports the industry to work towards MSC labelling. IFITT is funded by the Adessium Foundation, a Dutch public-benefit organization, attached to a private investment fund. AFI also initiated a series of interdisciplinary projects to contribute to the sustainable development of coastal resources and peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s livelihoods. As an example, the project Rescopar (www.rescopar.org) investigated the resilience of aquatic resources and people, living in mangrove-forested coastal areas in SE-Asia. Inspired by our approach, IUCN asked us to apply the RESCOPAR approach in four provinces of the Mekong Delta. A research program funded by NWOWOTRO will verify the results of

When commercial fish farming emerged in the Netherlands, only Wageningen was there to support them.

the IUCN project for policy-makers and farmers. ECOSHAPE (a foundation of the Dutch Sustainable Water Fund) invited us to participate in a rehabilitation program for a coastal area in Indonesia.

Crosscurrent In the Netherlands, all academic research is evaluated and peer reviewed every 6 years by independent international committees working under the responsibility of a governmental body. The research evaluation is based on three criteria, e.g., scientific quality and performance, social relevance and impact, and vitality of the research unit. Our research is part of that evaluation cycle, which is organized through the graduate schools. As AFI is part of the Wageningen Graduate school of Animal Sciences, our research is assessed by a committee that also evaluates other teams working in Animal Sciences in Wageningen.

Prof. Dr. Johan Verreth

In the Netherlands, there are no other Chairs in Aquaculture and/or Fisheries, hence our colleagues are on the international level. The Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling and the University of Ghent have many aspects in common with us and we meet them often in our projects in Asia or Africa. For our nutrition work we have built a strong

collaboration with the team of INRA (France) at St-Pee sur Nivelles, in RAS engineering we collaborate with Nofima (Norway) and DTU-Aqua (Denmark) and so on.

Future Directions I myself will be retired as Chairholder at the end of 2017. Obviously, my successor will have a big influence on the

future path of the group. Yet, some developments have been initiated already. Over the past years we have investigated the role of microbes, both in production systems and in the gut of the animals. Combined with our nutrition research, this opens windows to invest more in aquaculture health, together with our Wageningen colleagues of Fish Immunology. Our current expertise in ecosystem based production systems will certainly continue and focus more on the ecological intensification of aquaculture, in which our expertise on feeds and nutrition with water quality and microbial ecology can be combined. I expect that our fisheries work will further develop in a self-standing unit and deserve to be led by a full professor on its own. Prof. Dr. Johan Verreth has led the Aquaculture and Fisheries Group at Wageningen University for the past 17 years. His research expertise includes aquaculture production systems, fish feeding and nutrition, fisheries ecology, interactions between aquaculture systems and the environment, and numerous other topics.

Âť 29

OUT AND ABOUT

FAO’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the “new phase” of Aquaculture By: Salvador Meza

The FAO considers that aquaculture will be, forthcoming, the main

promoter for the production and commercialization of fish and seafood in the world.

n spite of global economic development registered in different parts of the world, hunger and malnutrition are two of the greatest challenges with which the planet is still coping. Considering this situation, the FAO launched The Objectives of the Millennium (ODM) which contained the goal to cut in half the proportion of people that suffered from hunger between the years 1990 and 2015. In spite of the significant advances in reducing hunger achieved during those 25 years, and according to the SOFIA reports of the FAO, there were still 780 million people in the world suffering from malnutrition in 2015. The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development and the new Sustainable Development Objectives (ODS) have, as their main goal, to put an end to poverty and worldwide hunger by the year 2030. According to a United Nations report, it is foreseen that the world population, currently made up of 7.4 billion people, will 30 »

reach 8.5 billion people in the year 2030, and 9.7 billion people in the year 2050; the greater growth spurt will take place in less-developed regions. Stamping out poverty and hunger in these countries is going to represent, for humanity, one of the most important challenges in the years to come. In this scenario, FAO researchers consider that the world production obtained from aquafarming has an important role in ensuring food supply, mainly because it constitutes a vital source of food that contains micronutrients for low-income people that live in rural regions. Moreover, in these regions aquaculture and fishing constitute important sources of work and income. The FAO considers that the growth of aquaculture could contribute more than 52% of the worldwide production of fish and seafood for the year 2025. This future growth of aquaculture to levels that surpass the production obtained from just fishing activities is considered by the FAO the start

of a new phase which will position aquaculture as the main promoter of the production and commercialization sectors for fish and seafood throughout the world. Without disregarding the ambitious goals of the FAO to eradicate world poverty and hunger by the year 2030, which are goals that we should have already attained several decades ago and to which I join in with total conviction, effort and dedication to contribute to their fulfillment, it is important to consider that it is probable that the new phase of aquaculture will get here before the arrival of the year 2025, due mainly to two factors under consideration. The first one is that the regulation of fishing activities will continue to be a pending problem, especially in developing countries, and this will go on to decrease the production obtained from fishing activities drastically, ag-

gravated by the potential impacts that the advancement of climate change can contribute to this decrease. And the second factor is the probability of a fast expansion in aquaculture during these years, influenced mainly by an increase in its command of production technologies as a result of the consolidation of research and experiences carried out during the previous 15 years, and by increases in investment and migration of capital toward the aquafarming industry. We have been observing this during the last five years, with investment attracted mainly by all the areas of opportunity offered by the aquafarming industry for generating economic growth and wealth. And finally, we would also have to ponder that, to the extent that NGOs and governments advance in the understanding that the promotion of the development of aquaculture can equally benefit the conservation of oceans and seas, they will be propitiated. It is very probable that aquaculture will dominate the production of fish and seafood in a lot less time. Salvador Meza is Editor & Publisher of Aquaculture Magazine, and of the Spanish language industry magazine Panorama Acuicola.

Âť 31

event REVIEW

LACQUA17:

The Eyes of Latin-American and Caribbean Aquaculture in Mazatlán, Mexico Mexico was the main venue for the Latin American and Caribbean Aquaculture gathering, LACQUA17: Consolidating Aquaculture Development, which took place at the International Center of Mazatlán, Sinaloa from November 7th to 10th. Mexico proudly hosted the event this year, and the gathering was a great success.

By Antonio Garza de Yta

ACQUA is an annual event celebrated by the World Aquaculture Society (WAS) in Latin America and the Caribbean. This year, more than 1,300 people—scholars, producers, students and exhibitors—attended the gathering, and they enjoyed more than 286 lectures during the three days of sessions, a business exhibition with 78 domestic and international companies, and varied guided tours in local farms. Furthermore, 117 posters were presented, several social events were held, and many networking opportunities were offered. The two previous editions of the LACQUA gathering took place in Fortaleza, Brazil (2015) with 2,000 attendees, and Lima, Peru (2016) with 800 attendees. The next two editions will be carried out in Bogotá, Colombia (2018) and San José, Costa Rica (2019). The inauguration ceremony turned out to be a great experience for foreigners, as Mexico showed its patriotism with the color guard and the military band from the Merchant Marine Academy Cap. Alt. Antonio Gómez Maqueo from Mazatlán. It was an honor to have the presence of many distinguished professionals in the presidium, such as Lorenzo Juárez Mabarak President of the Latin American and Caribbean Chapter from the WAS; Mario Gilberto Aguilar Sánchez, National Commissioner of CONAPES32 »

Laura St. Pierre from YSI, a Xylem Inc. brand.

Skretting team present at the exhibition area.

INVE’s stand was highly visisted during the event.

As always, E.S.E & INTEC’s team received the attendees very kindly in their stand offering information about quality process equipment and systems.

CA; Juan Carlos Lapuente Landero, Director of Aquaculture Research in INAPESCA; Alejandro Flores Nava Senior Official of FAO’s Aquaculture and Fisheries for Latin America and the Caribbean, Juan Millán Pietsch, Minister of Fishing and Aquaculture in the state of Sinaloa; Raúl Llera Martínez, Minister of Economic Development in Mazatlán; Juan Pablo Lazo, former president of WAS and LACC-WAS, and Co-Director of LACQUA17; and

Dana Nelson from Extru-Tech Inc.

Â» 33

event REVIEW

Antonio Garza de Yta, former president of de LACC-WAS, Director of the WAS and Co-Director of LACQUA17. Without any doubt, the most emotional moment during the inauguration was the Award Ceremony for the Latin American and Caribbean Chapter to recognize distinguished members of the WAS. The first prize - presented by Mario Gilberto Aguilar Sánchez - was awarded to Antonio Garza de Yta to recognize his contribution to the Chapter and to Latin American Aquaculture. The second prize - presented by Alejandro Flores Nava - was awarded to Francisco Javier Martínez Cordero, who was also recognized for his contribution to the Chapter and to Latin American Aquaculture. The following day, after two keynote conferences, the Lifetime Award Ceremony took place. These prizes, awarded by LACC-WAS, are the highest distinction that an aquaculture professional can receive, as they recognize a person’s trajectory in the aquaculture industry. This year, the winners were Carlos Antonio Martínez Palacios and Alejandro Flores Nava, both from Mexico. They were accompanied by their main mentors, their students and close co-workers. The Annual Meetings from the World Aquaculture Society are recognized as the main aquaculture conferences and exhibitions that gather a great variety of aquaculture professionals from the commercial, academic and government sectors. It is important to emphasize that LACQUA17 gathered participants from 32 countries, which were mainly from Latin America and the Caribbean, although there were also attendees from European and Asian countries, as well as from the United States and South Africa. The latter brought an observant committee because they are currently working on the establishment of a WAS South African Chapter; they became interested in this project since the global event that was held last summer in Cape Town, South Africa. 34 »

The enthusiastic Cargill team organized a raffle among the attendees.

As one of the WAS’s main priorities is to support new generations of aquaculture professionals, they endow different scholarships for students and researchers in every event. During LACQUA17, the WAS decided to increase both the number of scholarships endowed, and the application period. Moreover, this year the WAS provided a higher percentage of financial support. As a consequence, the number of applications totaled 132 students and 432 researchers. The experience at LACQUA17 was enhanced thanks to a variety of sideevents—from INAPESCA, CONAPESCA, UNAAC, SNITT, NICOVITA, and COMEPESCA—based on presentations or roundtable discussions about various aspects of aquaculture, such as production research, education, sustainability, technology, com-

mercialization, and the consumerism that has been developed in Mexico. A new area within LACQUA was the LACQUA Art Gallery, a space dedicated to art, in which six artists from Mazatlán showcased their work as photographers, filmmakers, illustrators and animators. The core theme in their art was aquaculture in Mexico, seen as an economic activity, a tool for social development, a source of food, and as a means for infrastructure and technological advances. Likewise, COMPESCA presented its most recent campaign, which aims to promote consumption of fish and seafood from sustainable sources in Mexico. This campaign also seeks to raise awareness about animal species and their environment, and to boost good practices in domestic aquaculture.

Spring Genetics.

A great Mexican and Latin party took place during the famous Presidential Reception, the most important social gathering of this event, which was held at the majestic Machado Square, located in the heart of Mazatlán’s downtown. The dinner consisted of the main species of aquaculture

production in Mexico, including the totoaba species, which is expected to increase in production in Mexico. The attendees were regaled with traditional cuisine and beverages. Machado Square’s delight enchanted the attendees, and at the same time made them sing and dance to the pop-

ular Mexican songs of mariachi style and orchestras of Latin beats, played by musicians from Mazatlán. Through his powerful voice, the tenor Jorge Echegaray transmitted his joy and emotion to the guests. Everyone at the dinner became Mexican for one night while singing songs like Viva México, México lindo y querido, and El sinaloense. They ended the night by dancing to rhythmic tropical music. One can only acknowledge the support that this event received from CONAPESCA, INAPESCA, the Ministry of Economic Development in the state of Sinaloa, PROMOTUR Sinaloa, the Ministry of Economic Development in Mazatlán, the Institute of Culture, Tourism and Art from Mazatlán, as well as all the sponsors and the team that made LACQUA17 possible. We hope that in the year 2021 Mexico is honored to host this event again. For the time being, we expect to see you next year at LACQUA18 in Bogotá, Colombia, from October 23 to 26. You are all invited!

» 35

Latin America Report

Latin America Report: Recent News and Events By: Staff / Aquaculture Magazine

China-Taiwan Contributes to Latin American Aquaculture Development El Salvador and Cuba. – Since 2015, a total of 884 aquaculture producers from ten departments in El Salvador have received technical support from the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF), as part of the project “Strengthening Aquaculture Development among Rural Families.” The project investment totals USD $4.44 million, USD $1.76 of which were contributed by Taiwan and the other USD $2.68, by El Salvador. The five-year project (2015-2019) has the objective of promoting aquaculture development by encouraging small-scale, self-sufficient farmers to engage in basic tilapia cultivation and, more specifically, to strengthen their cultivation skills and production volume. Since one of the main challenges to tilapia aquaculture development in El Salvador is the fingerling supply, as part of the project, Taiwanese technicians have been working with Salvadoran producers in a process of genetic improvement, using imported species in government production centers aiming to produce up to six million fingerlings per year to supply the family production units. The ICDF has proven to be committed to contribute to aquaculture development in Latin America, and has various on-going projects in the region, including the establishment of a mariculture project in El Salvador and a net cage aquaculture project in the Gulf of Fonseca, in Honduras, among others (to know more about these projects visit www.icdf. org.tw). 36 »

On another note, in October Cuba and China signed five cooperation agreements aiming to expand their economic relations and formalize the reception of Hurricane Irma relief funds to repair the damage on the island. Among other commitments, the parties agreed to execute the fifth phase of the Chinese Technical Assistance Project in the Cuban aquaculture sector.

New Online Platform to Control the Use of Antibiotics in Chilean Aquaculture Chile. – In November, the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (Senapesca), in collaboration with the Pharmacology Reference Labo-

ratory of the Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (FAVET) of the University of Chile, launched a new online tool named Veterinary Medical Prescription (PMV), to control the use of antibiotics in Chilean Salmonid aquaculture. This initiative is part of the national plan against antibiotic resistance that the Ministry of Health is currently leading. The PVM launch was held during the World Antibiotic Awareness Week (13-19 November), promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Through a multi-seminar conference, aquaculture produc-

ers, veterinarians and businessmen/ women in the region learned about the new platform and its scope. From now on, prescriptions will be made online, and all modifications and changes will be registered. Eventually, the platform will enable stakeholders to trace the use of antibiotics between aquafeed factories, pharmaceutical producers and authorities in real time, which will allow interested parties to perform analyses, determine trends, etc. Currently, the platform is in a trial period until February. After this time, user-suggested improvements will be implemented. Subsequently, the platform will migrate to Sernapesca’s servers and its use will become a standard practice within the industry.

Aquaculture Diversification Breakthrough - First Corvina Harvest Reared in Floating Cages and Inland Tanks Chile. – After rearing these organisms for 15 months, using floating cages located off the coast of Iquique, 600 corvina with an average weight of 1,200 grams were harvested. Additionally, 900 fish were harvested from inland tanks located in the Huayaquique Center of the University Arturo Prat, in Iquique. This represents a milestone for the Corvina Aquaculture Diversification Program, which began in 2010 led by Fundación Chile and supported by Corfo, the agency of the Government of Chile, under the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism, in charge of supporting entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness. The program has the objective of increasing the availability of aquacultured product in the national market by exploiting the aquaculture potential of the corvina Cilus gilberti - a native fish widely distributed along the coasts of Peru and Chile that has aroused interest for its potential for aquaculture. In the third and last stage of the program, rearing technologies are being validated. Moreover, three growout systems are being tested in order to determine which is the most efficient method for reaching commercial

size. The methods being tested are (1) inland tanks with water recirculation systems, (2) ponds with open flow and (3) floating cages. Andrés Muñoz, Alternate Director of the program, commented, “We have achieved the complete cycle, up to the harvest of commercial size fish.” He also explained that the current challenges are to optimize the production process, shorten grow-out times, consolidate strategies and define the best rearing technology (floating cages or inland tanks) for this species. After this successful harvest, a market evaluation will be carried out by a private company. Market projections for corvina will depend on the research results, although previous studies have shown that the species has an interesting demand in Europe, Asia, the United States and Brazil, as well as a growing national demand. The ten-year program is a multidisciplinary effort aimed at establishing the productive bases for corvina aquaculture, and it is the result of the collaboration of various institutions and private companies in charge of different areas and specific subprograms.

Nicaraguan Authorities Launch Fisheries and Aquaculture Map Nicaragua. - The Nicaraguan Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INPESCA) has launched a fisheries and aquaculture map with the objective of providing useful data to help informed decision-making. The tool is interactive, flexible and easily accessible for users in the aquaculture and fisheries industries. The platform provides information on the different species exploited in the country: their location and performance data, as well as shrimp farming surface, concession and production areas, among other information for both the Pacific coast and the Caribbean. It also provides information regarding licenses and permits. The development of this tool started in 2016, aiming to provide information that helps policy-making, e.g. the establishment of closure periods, the development of technical specifications for different exploited species or the estimations of lobster and shrimp exports. The Fisheries and Aquaculture Map is available on INTETER and INPESCA’s websites, and will be constantly updated.

» 37

Aquaculture Without Frontiers

Aquaculture without Frontiers: END OF YEAR AND LOOKING FORWARD GENDER IN NEPAL AQUACULTURE In 2007, the World Fish Center, the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science and the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) studied an aquaculture production system combined with mixed-crop livestock systems in Nepal and their effects on food access and women’s empowerment. AwF got involved in Nepal with partner AIT from 2008 and used the analysis from the 2007 study. Women who were given the opportunity to own and control a portion of the aquaculture farming system had increased their autonomy and ability to make self-decisions within their households and community. Aquaculture had become the manifestation of women’s empowerment in Nepal and it continues to improve female independence. One Nepalese organisation,the Sustainable Fish Farming Initiative (SFFI), is a female owned social enterprise group addressing food security problems and poverty in rural Nepal. The organization offers resources and education on sustainable aquaculture and works to continue women’s empowerment in Nepal by providing access to all the necessary means. Such items as training, micro-credit, distribution and market facilitation, etc. then allow the farmers to harvest their own fish and manage production on their own farms. SFFI’s Founder and Executive Director, Ms. Kanchan Amatya, is a young Nepalese social entrepreneur who also currently serves as the UN Global Champion for Women’s Economic Empowerment and the UN Zero Hunger Champion. In November as part of the celebration of its 10th annual meeting in Boston, the Clinton Foundation 38 »

Photo Credits: Samantha Farquha.

(and Bill Clinton himself) honored Kanchan Amatya with the Clinton Global Initiative Presidential Honor Roll Award. What a wonderful recognition to celebrate the dedication and passion of this young lady in front of more than 1,500 delegates from over 90 countries around the world at the meeting. Amatya has also recently been awarded with a “2017 Everyday Young Hero Award” by Youth Service America and was listed on “100 Young Leaders Under 25” by Impact Squared, UK. Hopefully because of women like Amatya, who grow up in less economically developed countries such as Nepal, things will continue to improve. In her case, she had a dream made of grand economic and social proportions and she continues to work every day to break down barriers for rural women and offer empowerment at every step. One of AwF’s new volunteers, Samantha Farquhar, has also been involved in Nepal. After graduating from the University of North Carolina Wilmington she decided to gain

more experience with sustainable development that coincided with her recent degrees in Marine Biology and International Studies. Working with the Asian Institute of Technology, Samantha was sent to Rampur, Nepal to stay at the Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU) and carry out research on a recent aquaculture project that was started to increase household economic and nutrition security, especially among women. The industry is particularly growing in the flat area of Nepal known as the Terai Plain. This area accounts for 84% of the total country’s aquaculture production. Due to global climate change and the current imbalanced social and economic institutions in Nepal, there is a need to implement methods to diversify livelihoods; this holds particularly true for women. Aquaculture is changing the status quo for the better. As a bonus, the aquaculture industry ensures easier and more efficient access to healthy meals for women and their families. After all, challenges of the day are always easier to manage on a full stomach.

Â» 39

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

News from the

Aquaculture Stewardship Council ASC and MSC release joint seaweed standard In November, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) announced the launch of the ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard. The joint standard marks a first for the two certification programs, bringing together expertise in sustainable fishing and responsible aquaculture. The ASC and MSC have worked together for over two years to develop a standard for environmentally sustainable and socially responsible farming and wild harvest of seaweed. The new standard will help to protect marine environments and secure the livelihoods of those who depend on them by recognizing and rewarding sustainable and socially responsible seaweed production. “I am delighted to see ASC’s and MSC’s hard work, collective effort and close collaboration on our first joint standard coming to fruition,” said Chris Ninnes, CEO of the ASC. “Seaweed is an increasingly important commodity globally. The creation of a standard to promote best practices by the sector is an important step towards limiting its ecological impact and ensuring that workers and communities benefit from its rapid growth. I look forward to working together with the MSC to make our joint standard a success.” “Seaweed is found in a wide range of products, including food, cosmetics, medicines and fertilizers. It is a valuable resource for coastal communities and supports a growing global industry,” said Rupert Howes, CEO of the MSC. “Seaweed also absorbs significant amounts of CO2 helping to regulate our climate, provides im40 »

portant habitats and protects coastlines from erosion. It is therefore essential that seaweed is harvested in a way that allows both communities and the environment to thrive. The new standard offers responsible seaweed producers an opportunity to earn international recognition for their efforts.” The ASC-MSC Seaweed standard focuses on minimizing the environmental and social impacts of seaweed operations. Environmentally, seaweed operations must show that they maintain sustainable wild populations and actively minimize their impact on the surrounding natural environment. Socially, the operations must be managed in an effective and socially responsible manner, care for their employees, work with the local

community, and be good and conscientious neighbors. The standard establishes a robust and efficient framework to certify seaweed through scientific understanding and industry best practices. It is applicable to both global wild harvest and aquaculture seaweed operations of all sizes. The standard also provides a tool to benchmark best practice and incentivizes improvements. Seaweed operations that seek certification are assessed according to a third-party verification system. Qualified independent certifiers audit seaweed producers to up to 33 performance indicators. The ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard will use the existing MSC Chain of Custody Standard to ensure that effective traceability systems are in place

throughout the supply chain. Chain of Custody certification assures consumers that MSC or ASC labelled products have been sourced legally from a certified sustainable and responsible source. Over 3,700 companies worldwide now have MSC Chain of Custody certification, operating in over 42,000 sites across the world. Over 1,300 companies have added ASC certified species to their businesses in 66 countries globally.

Promoting sustainable seafood in China As the global seafood industry gathered for the annual China Fisheries & Seafood Expo in Qingdao in early November, the ASC took the opportunity to host two events, the Sustainable Seafood Forum and the ASC Responsible Seafood Round Table, in response to the increasing interest in responsible aquaculture. The Sustainable Seafood Forum, co-hosted by China Aquatic Products Processing and Marketing Alliance (CAPPMA), WWF China, Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the ASC, has become a staple in

the annual calendar for Chinese seafood stakeholders. The forum drew a crowd of more than 300 and included industry experts, commercial partners and NGOs. Held at the Qingdao Intercontinental Hotel, this year’s forum focused on the development of the responsible fisheries and sustainable seafood market. The ASC Responsible Seafood Round Table: From Supply Chain to Win-Win, held at the Qingdao International Expo, provided the opportunity to highlight ASC’s progress, review emerging trends in the China seafood market, and discuss the demand for responsible seafood and the developments and transformation of the seafood market. Information about how to become certified was featured along with a case study of an ASC certified farm and the benefits of aquaculture certification. Following a presentation about ASC’s growth in China and future plans for the region, the session continued with a presentation by Hao Junfeng, Sales Manager of Liaoning Ande foodstuff Co.,ltd who outlined the improvements they made to achieve ASC certification. Li Haifeng,

Director of Foodstuff Auditing at SAI Global provided an overview of the areas that prove most challenging for farms seeking to join the program. Mr. Jin Zhonghao, Director of Market Transformation for WWF China brought the afternoon to a close after offering insights on the importance of ASC as a change agent for China’s formidable aquaculture sector. To date, there are nearly 40 ASC Chain of custody certificate holders and more than 200 approved products with the ASC logo in China. “China is the world’s largest producer, consumer and exporter of seafood. As a market, it represents an unprecedented opportunity to create real change by minimizing aquaculture’s environmental and social impact. That is why it is so encouraging to see increasing demand for certified farmed seafood from a growing number of local partners and stakeholders. I am excited for what the next couple of years will hold in terms of further growth!” said Esther Luiten, ASC’s Commercial Director. ASC Staff http://www.asc-aqua.org/

» 41

FISH HEALTH, ETC

Statistics in Aquaculture:

How it can help you make good decisions on the farm Many deplore statistics. When the topic is brought up, usual

responses are: “We are a production facility, not a research lab,” or: “You can make statistics say anything.” These retorts reveal a lack of understanding of what the basis of statistics really is and how useful it Hugh Mitchell, MSc DVM

can be in helping fish farmers make sounder decisions.

o, at the risk of immediately losing the reader, this month’s column will attempt to explain basic statistics in plain language (using as little statistical jargon as possible) – and WITHOUT mathematics. It will attempt to illustrate what statistics can actually do in crunching data and illustrate how statistical analysis can help you not be misled as to what a product or husbandry practice can or can’t do. When fish culturists come across a new product, or suggested new practice, most will ponder for a while, intuitively reject the idea outright, or say: “Just give me that to try and I will be able to tell if it works.” Unfortunately, it is easy to get fooled that something works when it doesn’t, or doesn’t work when it does. A decision misstep could be a missed opportunity in production savings, or a waste of time and expense if something is adopted that doesn’t work. Statistics is simply a tool to help you decide through all the noise of uncertainty. To start – statistics is only a formalized way of presenting data that 42 »

Figure 1. How can I tell if something is really working on my farm?

considers the fuzz or noise in the numbers (jargon alert: “variation”) AND of portraying whether an observation is probably real or not. That is all. No magic. It DOES require you to measure something (generate numbers vs. a “look-see”), and yes, this formalization can be abused by the nefarious (or ignorant). This noise/fuzz/variation is the essence of how statistics helps present the data and helps you make a decision on a difference between things.

To fully appreciate and understand this, it is critical to review what this noise or variation is and how it is fundamental to nature and therefore can make differences difficult to see. To start, taking an example of fish sizes, Figure 2 illustrates what we almost never see. In the tank on the left, labelled “WITHOUT,” all fish are exactly the same size. When something is applied to another group of fish in another tank (“WITH” on the right), all fish respond exactly the

Figure 2. No variation.

Figure 3. Variation before and after with low numbers.

same way. So, the decision is easy and clear: whatever was applied to the fish worked - no statistics necessary. Chances are, the product/procedure worked although an extreme skeptic might say, I want to try it a couple more times to see – and that wouldn’t be a bad thing! The decision might very well be: “If the price is right – I am sold!”

However, in the “real world” we are trying to cultivate biological organisms, and as we know, there is that thing called “noise” or variation in fish sizes: before and after (even with the tightest grading)! Figure 3 shows that fish at the start (“WITHOUT”) are not uniform in size AND, for various reasons, the effects of anything we try (“WITH”) usually does

not produce uniform results. This is the “noise,” “fuzz,” or variation inherent in nature. It is the sum of all the things (some we can minimize and some we cannot) that cause the fish to grow at different rates. These include, but aren’t limited to, differences in: genetics, feed consumption, behavioral interaction, water flow, lighting, care bias, vaccination status, etc. So, again, because of the sum of these controllable and uncontrollable factors, the fish will start out with different sizes, and the effect of what we are trying to evaluate will produce variable and unequal results. Because of this noise, with the example in Figure 3, we are left scratching our heads wondering if the product/procedure really did something, or if any difference is just imagined and by chance. Although this example uses size of fish, parameters of interest could also be things like: inventory, feed conversions, growth rates, mortality, etc., depending on what a culturist is interested in and the specific claims of a product or procedure. Furthermore, the example provided involves individual fish, whereas more typically we evaluate the performance of whole containers (tanks, raceways, ponds, etc.) against each other (more on this later). But, the point is the same: like fish size, these other parameters will also have inherent noise and variation in what can be measured, both between the “with” and “without” groups and within each of them. This is what can make comparing difficult. So, what can be done to “see” any differences above all this noise and variation of nature? This is where statistics comes to the rescue. It guides us in how to interpret results in the wake of the noise, or whether the results are decipherable above the noise. A statistical analysis considers three aspects of the results and does a calculation to tell you whether the difference is probable or not: 1) The degree of noise/variation (Here: How much does fish size vary before AND after?) » 43

FISH HEALTH, ETC

2) How large is the difference between the two groups that was produced before and after (Here: How large is the growth difference?) 3) The overall number of things that you are comparing with each other (How many fish are we comparing “with” to “without”) Statistics does this AFTER the fact, and says: “Yes, the effect is probably real,” or: “No, there is too much noise (variation), and/or you haven’t compared enough fish/tanks/raceways, and/or the difference before and after isn’t great enough to tell, given the above.” Jargon alert: the analysis does this with numerical tools like a statistic called the P-Value (or “Probability-value”) that will give a magnitude of how likely it is that the results are truly different. Now, a real power of statistics (there is a pun in there for any stats geeks), is that it can actually guide you into designing a comparison BEFORE you do it. It can give you a rule of thumb – generally how many fish or tanks/raceways/net pens/ponds to use, given 1) the noise present and 2) the claimed or desired effect of the product, in order to increase the odds that you will see a real difference if it exists. It will tell you a stated “Power” of your proposed comparison and help you adjust so that confusion is minimized after the fact. Statistics will recommend how many units you should be comparing (fish, tanks, ponds, etc.). It does this because within the calculations, the more variation there is, the more units are needed to clarify what is going on. Figure 4 illustrates this concept. So, this example has the same variation (noise) in fish size as in Fig. 3, but the number of fish we are looking at has been increased. Visually, you would most likely conclude that there is probably a difference. Again, statistics will calculate for you and give you a number, so you don’t have to guess visually as to whether what you are seeing is probably real or not. You have heard that statistical jargon: “Reject the null hypothesis”? All this 44 »

Figure 4. Variation before and after with more numbers to better assess.

Figure 5. Variation before and after but with a large effect.

means, in this case, is that you have enough numbers to punch through the variation/noise to say that there probably IS an effect of the product/ practice, and you can reject the notion that there is no difference. The other concept that figures into the power of the comparison is the size of the effect. IF the prod-

uct or practice produces a huge result (or you are only interested in a certain amount to make it worthwhile and want to know whether the comparison will probably “see” that difference), then the amount of noise doesn’t matter as much (Figure 5). This is always desirable, but not always possible. Remember, the cul-

turist can reap massive benefits with only moderate effects, yet these can easily be missed if the comparison is not done correctly. So, in summary, statistics helps you decide whether there is any real difference in our noisy world, when you want to determine the worth a new product pitched at you or when there is a new production strategy or practice that you are considering implementing (e.g.: densities). Simply put, it looks at the relationship between: 1) average difference before and after; 2) numbers used for that average (called: replicates); and 3) the noise or variation with those numbers, to tell you whether any observed difference is most likely real or not. Some caveats to all this (and a bit of jargon - sorry). For statistics to do its calculations, and help you decide, the things that generate the data (fish, tanks, etc. - let’s call them “units”) should be independent. What this means is that they shouldn’t influence each other (like fish eating together in a tank). So, we usually compare performances of whole “independent” containers (raceways, ponds, tanks, or net pens), for things that we measure for all the fish in a container: growth, FCR, mortality, etc. Also, statistics works at assuming no one is purposely or inadvertently favoring the results toward a certain desired outcome. This means that the assignment of tanks to “with” or “without” should be done randomly – not out of convenience – and people carrying out the trial should not know which are which (called: blinding). Even if you think there won’t be a bias, there are all sorts of subtle and insidious ways that this can happen, making outcomes less valid. Also, if variation is the key to detecting any differences, everything should be done to start out with units as consistent as possible and treat them as similarly as possible through any comparison period. This will

reduce the noise, so the minimum difference possible can “punch” through and be detected. One more thing: statistics isn’t convenient. It will look at the variation and the desired or claimed effect and decide on how many units to compare in a trial. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon in aquaculture, that the variation/noise between containers, given the desire to see a certain magnitude of difference, can result in the need for an annoying number of required replicates. In the end, it may not be possible to do the trial at your facility and get any adequate insight. Statistics will say: “Don’t waste your time!” This, however, is a useful decision and you will have to seek other sources of information/studies to help you make the call (but you can ensure the statistics done on these follow the rules you now know!). Also, statistics JUST tells you information about how probable the difference between the “before” and “after” numbers is for THAT experiment. It doesn’t make any conclusions about: cause, repeatability (will you get the same results next time), or biological sense (can a biologist make a case why it works?). So, if you have followed to this point, it is hoped that you have a new appreciation for how statistics might help you make sounder decisions. Next time someone tells you they have this new product that will grow your fish 10% faster, ask if they will provide it to you to evaluate, then: 1) Find a consultant who knows something about statistics (maybe one of your farm-hands does). 2) Tell them what you are trying to do and what level of growth you want to detect (it may pay for itself if it provides a 5% increase - calculate that out!). 3) Ask them to work out how many tanks you need to compare in order to be fairly sure that a difference is real if one actually exists (tell him/her you would like to be 80% sure!).

4) Alternatively, if you only have so many tanks to compare, ask them to calculate how strong (“Power of the Test”) your suggested comparison is to find a difference if there is one, given what you have. 5) Go for it, with the new knowledge that if a difference is produced with this product, you will probably see it above the noise/variation, because your comparison has been set up to see it the best way possible within your facility. And if someone asks you whether you “believe in statistics,” just nod and say: “Well, I understand the basic principles of what it tries to do for me, and how it can help me sort the ‘B’ from the ‘S’.”

Hugh Mitchell, MSc, DVM is an aquaculture veterinarian with more than 25 years of experience, who provides services and fish health tools to fish farmers across the US and Canada. His practice is AquaTactics Fish Health, out of Kirkland, Washington, specializing in bringing a comprehensive professional service/product package to aquaculture, including: vaccine solutions, immune stimulants, sedatives, antimicrobials and parasiticides. website: www.aquatactics.com; contact: hughm@aquatactics.com

» 45

aquafeed

Recent news from around the globe by Aquafeed.com By Suzi Dominy*

This column is intended to bring you a snap shot of what is happening

in the aquafeed sector. I tend to focus on feeds and nutrition, but this month I’ll be looking at technology for making the feed.

e’ve seen a number of introductions to the aquafeed equipment market in recent months. There isn’t enough space in this column to cover them all or go into too much detail (you’ll need to read our magazines for that!), so here are just a few of our picks:

Extrusion The AquaFlex-XT is Wenger’s latest model of twin-screw extruder with a 21.8:1 L/D with special screw configuration. This is an extruder of choice for small diameter floating as well as sinking feeds. This is a co-rotating twin screw extruder, with BPV (Back Pressure Value) to control the cook and the bulk density so that you can make floating, sinking, and slow sinking feed all on the same machine without changing the screw profile. It comes with a special high capacity dual die system to be used for producing sinking shrimp feeds at high capacities. It can be configured for two capacity ranges up to 5MT/hr with a 300 Hp (225Kw) main motor and VFD or with a max of 12MT/ hr with a 600 Hp (450Kw) main motor and VFD. Products at or above 46 »

0.5mm in diameter can be produced with your desired floatation characteristics. The advanced cutting system and pneumatic hood design assist in making the best-looking product and

insure the product goes to the dryer without delay or hang ups from gravity system through floors into dryers. Attention to the knife set up makes for a better-looking product and less fines, and less fines mean less rework and more actual production. The AquaFlex-XT comes with a flexi cable shaft which makes for easy connection between the knife motor and the cutter assembly while cleaning up the area and reducing floor contact. The negative airlift system keeps the feed in a lively constant moving path to convey the feed to the dryer inlet / spout spreader while skinning it over for free-flowing feed out of the dryer. The APM (Automated Process Management) computer system is the brain behind the AquaFlex-XT extrusion operation system. This system stores up to 10,000 formulas and their specific operating conditions. You can also save the data as running conditions of the same product over time intervals to insure the system makes the same product over the life of the wear parts. When

Figure 1. AquaFlex-XT Dual Die, Flexible Knife Drive Shafts and Pneumatic Hood Arrangement.

you change to new parts, you go back to the 1st set of running conditions and start over. The goal is achieved, control of the process, floating, sinking, various diameters and over the life of the extruder components with greatly reduced off spec product and unnecessary down time. Of course, Wenger offers a full range of up and down stream equipment.

Drying concept Geelen Counterflow introduced its Continuous Dryer MkIII, an energysaving drying concept that delivers improved drying performance. In Geelen’s new system, wet product from the extruder is continuously added to the top of the product beds. At the same time, dried product at the bottom of the product bed is discharged in small quantities to the next drying stage or to the hopper. Geelen has developed a sophisticated automatic control system for drying the individual recipes according to product-specific process parameters such as air volume, air temperature and residence time. The drying is very homogeneous, resulting in a guaranteed moisture uniformity of +/- 0.5%.

The refined counterflow heat exchange design makes the Continuous Dryer MkIII 20% more energy-efficient than other industry alternatives. Non-saturated air is recycled. Only a small volume - the fully saturated air - is exhausted. The product distribution system has been completely redesigned and optimized in the new Continuous Dryer MkIII. The upgraded control system now automatically keeps the product bed at the right height for each product. The ability to control the residence time during production process start-up and shut-down is a further innovation which eliminates product clumping and inconsistent product quality at the beginning and end of the production process. The Continuous Dryer MkIII s equipped with a number of features which improve hygiene, convenience and speed when cleaning. For example, the discharge system is more accessible. The interior now features easily cleanable walls and smooth curves in areas where dirt and product residue can accumulate. The Continuous Dryer MkIII is suitable for energy-efficient drying

of extruded products across a capacity range from 1 to 10 tonnes per hour.

Moisture Control Bühler Aeroglide has introduced AeroPro Moisture Control, a complete moisture control system that helps maintain a dryer temperature profile and minimize over drying. AeroPro Moisture Control gives operators access to full time, real-time monitoring with hardware, software, and ongoing process expertise, combined with technical support, to ensure efficiency. “Too little information and too much time between adjustments makes optimizing a dryer’s temperature profile a constant challenge,” Doug Beloskur, manager of Bühler’s dedicated automation team told us. “AeroPro Moisture Control reduces time-based moisture deviation with a control algorithm that improves dryer yield. It also reduces dryer energy consumption.” Microwave sensor technology, coupled with algorithms that are built on decades of drying experience deliver a comprehensive closed loop system for automated dryer control. Discharged product passes through an analysis chute where approximately 20% is diverted to a sensing chamber that slows the product flow for analysis. Then, a high-performance microwave sensor gathers moisture data and sends it directly to the AeroPro control panel. Automation then makes necessary dryer adjustments that can instantly produce product consistent moisture content. AeroPro Moisture Control can increase production and profitability while decreasing energy and material costs. Furthermore, a dynamic web-based reporting provides information in a quick read way, customized for the process, and this helps a customer have correlations that are meaningful. It gives the processor the ability to make decisions with confidence.

Figure 2. Geelen Counterflow Continuous Dryer MkIII.

» 47

aquafeed

Linear programming has traditionally been the tool of choice for formulation systems, and continues to be relevant in most cases. Advances in nutritional research and the recognition that other factors have a role to play in the design of the “ideal” formula, raises opportunities for new and creative approaches. Format Solutions delivers new opportunities through its specialized solvers that enable the incorporation of multiple non-linear constraints in products, or additional constraints found in production facilities that will affect formula design. Using these solvers will increase accuracy of solutions and evaluation exercises where such constraints are a factor. The opportunities presented by formula optimization are enhanced by utilizing the system’s capabilities for integration, data analysis and reporting to optimize the whole process.

Figure 3. Bühler Aeroglide AeroPro Moisture Control.

AeroPro Moisture Control also makes it possible to view production data in real time via computer, phone, tablet or other web-connected device. Data storage is cloudbased making viewing and reporting fast and easy.

Formulation Software Format Solutions recognizes the need for a holistic approach in managing the complexities of running a feed business, and provides a range of tools to assist in all aspects. One of its core strengths is formulation software and is a global supplier in this field. Format Solution (now a Cargill company) has released its next generation iNDIGO™ formulation tool, which is designed to provide efficient data management tools, thus releasing time for important optimization exercises. Formulation requires a lot of data inputs which must be accurate, 48 »

up to date and ready at the right time. Ensuring this can be managed efficiently increases confidence and, most importantly, releases time for optimization, the activity which returns real value. Format says iNDIGO™ offers a flexible structure which allows the most accurate modelling of real-life variability yet possible in a formulation system. Using the Time Period feature, users can easily set up, for example, a series of future scenarios with the variability managed to the level of detail required. This ensures that optimization exercises reduce inbuilt assumptions and are therefore producing more accurate predictions of cost and ingredient requirements. Additional features allow easy exploration of alternative scenarios, providing sophisticated risk assessment opportunities, and supporting decision-making on resource purchases and allocation.

Suppliers’ expertise If you are interested in feed processing then you are sure to be familiar with the Victam trade shows in Cologne Germany and Bangkok, Thailand: there is nowhere else that you’ll find more feed machinery under one roof than at these longestablished industry exhibitions. Of course, you’ll find ingredient suppliers too, but it’s the opportunity to get up close to so much key equipment in one place that is the big draw for many. It is also why we organize our technical conference, Aquafeed Horizons alongside these specific shows and why processing is an important part of the agenda. It is also why we choose Victam as our venue to present the Aquafeed Innovation Award. We are fortunate in our industry to have suppliers with such a wealth of expertise and knowledge. We know that the success and continued growth of aquaculture rests to a significant extent on the ingenuity and dedication of the feed industry in meeting the challenging and exacting needs of this specialist industry. But we sometimes overlook the consid-

erable contributions of the ingredient and feed technology suppliers to the advancement of aquafeed development. We are proud to be able to acknowledge these pioneers with this award.

More information: The 11th Aquafeed Horizons Asia will take place March 27, 2018 at BITEC, Bangkok. Details at: http:// feedconferences.com. Victam Asia 2018 will take place March 27-29,

2018, BITEC, Bangkok. Details at www.victam.com (If you need contact information for any of the above suppliers, or have comments, please feel free to contact me at editor@aquafeed.com).

Suzi Dominy is the founding editor and publisher of aquafeed.com. She brings 25 years of experience in professional feed industry journalism and publishing. Before starting this company, she was co-publisher of the agri-food division of a major UK-based company, and editor of their major international feed magazine for 13 years. editor@aquafeed.com

Âť 49

Technical Guru

Pumps:

the good, the bad and the ugly This issue’s column is focused on centrifugal pumps. They are the most widely used water mover in our industry and in most cases the most misunderstood.

by Amy Stone*

n theory, a 2hp pump is supposed to draw 2 HP to operate properly regardless of who manufactures it. However, not all pumps are equal. Many pump manufacturers “play” with the HP number by not adding in the efficiency of the motor to obtain wire-to-water HP. There are several factors that should be addressed when determining which size and style of pump should be used for which application. The important things to consider are the required flow rate, the required head pressure and the efficiency. Tucked in between those three are the horsepower, service factor and construction.

Flow rate There are several approaches to determining how much flow you need. Some facilities prefer to provide redundancy and select lower overall flow rates and multiple pumps. Other facilities select a flow that can allow them to use one pump to do all the work. The decision to have a redundant pump in the system is always a safer plan so that when a single pump fails, because they all fail eventually, the system will still run at a lower flow rate which should help mitigate any losses. The next factor is the physical position of the pump in the system. The first question/factor to answer is to determine if the pump will be physically below the water level it’s pumping from or above. If it is above the water level, then the suction lift must be considered as a factor to add into the calculations. Head pressure is the 50 »

total pressure that the pump will work against once it leaves the outlet of the pump plus friction head loss to overcome. Suction lift is the vacuum pressure or suction head that the pump will need to provide in order to flow the water into the pump. This might seem confusing, and in some cases annoying, but this information is key to ensuring a successful pump installation. In our experience, suction lift is often ignored, which can cause premature motor failure due to cavitation and in some cases, nitrogen saturation.

The curve All pumps have a curve, sometimes called the system curve, that is based on the flows produced with a given impeller diameter and pump speed, performing against a given suction lift head pressure, which is unique to

each system. All of these can change based on the application if the pump is engineered for the project. Off the shelf pumps generally use a full impeller, full speed (3450 rpm) and may or may not have an induction rated motor which is required when using the pump with a variable frequency drive (VFD). Engineered pumps have a specific impeller diameter and speed based on providing the most efficient solution. When reviewing a pump curve, the best thing to do is try to choose the pump that has your needs in the middle of the curve or BEP, (Best Efficiency Point), which is the most efficient area of the curve. It is rare to see manufacturers of off-the-shelf pumps include their efficiency curves in their technical data, putting the buyer at an unseen disadvantage.

Here is why: most off the shelf centrifugal pumps perform at highpressure medium flow. In other words, their curve doesn’t start until the head pressure is around 40 feet and ends in the 80-100 foot range. Have you ever seen a pump installed with a valve on the outlet and the valve is semi-closed? The reason is because the pump needs the artificial pressure in order to work properly. By doing this, the user is paying for the extra electricity required to run the pump artificially high as well as creating heat and unnecessary wear and tear on the plumbing and valves. As a rule-of-thumb, we say pressure usually costs double what flow costs. The affinity laws are more precise in this regard. Pumping pressure requirements are usually based off the filtration components that follow the pump as well as the geometry (friction loss) of the plumbing. If the requirement of the

pump is to replace an existing pump, the best thing to do would be to install an oil filled pressure gauge on the outlet and an oil filled compound gauge (measures pressure and vacuum) on the inlet. This is the easiest way to get the pressure and vacuum information on an existing system. It’s also recommended to install these on all pumps, but that’s another article all together. If the pump is for a new application, then it is best to spend the time to estimate the plumbing run and filtration design. That information is then used to determine the theoretical head pressure.

power it will take to do the job. Over the years, we have encountered quite a bit of misinformation on this topic. Most of it stems from our equipment being sourced from other industries and mostly in residential industries where liberties are taken in order to allow the consumer to feel like they are saving money and electricity. The more efficient the pump, the cooler it runs, the longer it lasts and ultimately the less it costs to run. Let’s consider pumps that are 5hp and lower for a moment. Spoiler alert, anything over 5hp is usually considered industrial and plays in a different realm of marketing and sometimes bracketed (volume) power rates. For the smaller pumps, the majority is repurposed from the pool industry. The pool industry has a marketing strategy of up-rating their pumps. This is a practice where a smaller horsepower motor is used with a higher service factor to make it seem that it is a bigger, more efficient pump motor. It is important to take note of the service factor on the motor when choosing a pump. When the pump is running with a service factor higher than 1, the

Efficiency This is the crux of the matter when it all gets boiled down. Pump efficiency is probably the most ignored factor in pump selection. Every pump purchase is a virtual contract to buy power. The less efficient a pump is, the more » 51

Technical Guru

efficiency is reduced, the pump will produce more heat and if there is any variability in the supply voltage, the motor can fail prematurely. One of the biggest factors in buying a pump tends to be the purchase price. Marketing materials focus on it and so do consumers. If the pump has a lower capital cost but higher operational cost and shorter life, it might not save money for the facility over the long run. More efficient, purpose driven pumps are definitely more expensive to purchase. However, the savings is realized with lower electrical costs, and longer life. We know of cases where pumps paid for themselves in electrical costs saved in record time. For the larger horsepower pumps, the marketing strategy is more straightforward. It is rarer to see high service factors since the decision makers for these pumps are more likely to consider the efficiency and return on investment.

Parts and piecesâ&#x20AC;Ś The volute (housing for the impeller) is an important piece of the pump. The majority of the smaller horsepower pumps are made with a plastic volute. These tend to be similar amongst the manufacturers with small differences in the inlet and outlet geometry. The mechanical seal is

a critical consideration when choosing a pump. Many of the aquaculture duty pumps have changed the seal to a stainless steel/plastic configuration. Some manufacturers take it further and use a metal free style seal which is best for most applications. Off the shelf pool pumps use a brass seal which can cause water quality issues for some more sensitive species. It is best to avoid using pumps with brass in aquaculture if possible. Other larger pumps may use reinforced plastic or cast iron volutes, which both have their uses. The reinforced plastic is inert and is generally more efficient and more expensive. The cast iron comes with a variety of options, including epoxy linings, bare and in some cases FRP lining. The

lined or armored pumps are a better choice if a cast iron volute is the choice. The coatings help keep the water from interacting with the iron as well as provide a smoother surface for the water which increases efficiency. It is also important to know what back-up parts are good to have on the shelf in the case of a breakdown. Many of the pool pumps and reworked aquaculture duty pumps are supplied with a private label motor that canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be repaired. This can make sourcing a replacement difficult in an emergency. We recommend that each facility have at least one back up motor, set of seals and o-rings and impeller on the shelf regardless of the brand of pump. Alternatively, a complete pump as a backup will work as well.

Amy Riedel Stone is President and Owner at Aquatic Equipment and Design, Inc. She was formerly a Manager at Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, and she studied Agriculture at Purdue University. She can be reached at amy@aquaticed.com

52 Âť

Â» 53

Salmonids

Intensified Production of Salmonids and Risk of Harmful Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Unlike a couple of decades ago, most land-based farms producing

salmon, trout and charr now add oxygen to the water to increase the By Asbjørn Bergheim*

fish density and productivity in tanks and raceways.

oth in RAS and in flowthrough systems (FTS) most of the oxygen consumed by the fish stock is supplied by injection of pure oxygen or by aeration. Cold-water fish species require high dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, close to saturation level (> 80% of saturation), for good performance and welfare. Thus, the DO concentration of inlet and outlet water of the tanks is normally at the same level in most farms. In salmonids, the so-called respiration quotient (mole produced CO2/ mole consumed O2) is around 0.9 which means 1.2 mg CO2 produced per mg O2 consumed. If the fish stock consumes 10 mg O2 per liter of water passing through the tank, the expected increased concentration of CO2 per liter is about 12 mg/L. Numerous studies of effects of increasing CO2 on salmonids indicate risky concentrations in the range 10 – 25 mg/L influenced by factors such as exposure time, water hardness and pH. As a rule-of-thumb, more than 8 – 10 mg O2 added per liter will result in potentially harmful accumulation of CO2 in the water. All land-based farms should perform daily measurement of CO2 and/ or pH in their tanks. There is a close connection between pH and the concentration of CO2 but the correlation depends on the alkalinity of the water. Thus, frequent monitoring of pH 54 »

Figure 1. High density rainbow trout farming requires oxygen injected water and aeration to control the concentration of carbon dioxide (courtesy: Torbjørn Øvrebotten)

should be combined with occasionally direct CO2 sampling to achieve a reliable pH-CO2 curve at the farm. Intensive farm systems based on oxygen-added water need devices for removal of accumulated CO2. Commonly, CO2 is removed in aerator columns where a side stream from the tank flows down through the packed column by gravity. Air is normally injected from the bottom of the column at an air - water ratio of around 10:1. In so-called partial RAS farms, without biofilters, 60 – 80% of the total flow is moved through the aerators. Around two thirds of the total Norwegian production of 330 million salmon and trout smolt annually are still produced in intensified flowthrough farms. Similar to other major salmon producing countries like Chile, Scotland and Canada, more and more

farms are however switching from FTS to RAS technology. There is a growing concern of reported high and harmful CO2 concentrations in both partially and fully RAS farms, especially at the end of the production cycle before delivery of the smolt at maximized fish density (Figure 1). Peak concentrations above 30 mg CO2/L in the tank water are not uncommon. The veterinary authorities emphasize that escalating CO2 levels represent one of the major harmful factors in modern systems for production of juveniles and smolt (The Health Situation in Norwegian Aquaculture 2016). The combination of increased fish density, reduced water flow and more than 12 – 13 ºC water temperature make high demands on sufficient efficiency and capacity of the CO2 removing equipment.

Figure 2. Salmon post-smolt with white chalky deposits within the kidney ureters, typical signs of nephrocalcinosis (courtesy: Arve Nilsen)

Obviously, accumulation of CO2 is not only a potential problem in intensive freshwater systems; post-smolt salmon in both onshore RAS farms and in closed-containment cages (SCCS) dependent on added extra oxygen are subject to suboptimal CO2 concentrations (Figure 2). In closed cages (S-CCS) the present experience base indicates that the upper acceptable CO2 level sets the limit for the production - at least, as long as these systems are run without aeration devices.

Experiences from commercial seawater systems occasionally demonstrate signs of CO2 induced symptoms, such as nephrocalsinosis and eye cataracts, in salmon and trout exposed to lower concentrations than found to be harmful under experimental conditions. In small-scale tests, other influencing factors (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen) are normally kept within close limits (“single factor tests”) and such tests do not always reproduce the complex interactions

between different water quality factors in aquaculture. Increased CO2 concentrations in cages or tanks coincide with falling pH and higher levels of particles and ammonium/ammonia from the fish stock. Clear symptoms of calcareous deposits have for instance been observed in post-smolt salmon during winter at low temperature and CO2 concentrations between 10 and 15 mg/L (Arve Nilsen, pers. comm.).

Dr. AsbjØrn Bergheim is a senior researcher in the Dept. of Marine Environment at the International Research Institute of Stavanger. His fields of interest within aquaculture are primarily water quality vs. technology and management in tanks, cages and ponds, among others. asbjorn.bergheim@iris.no

» 55

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

The Cost of Time in

Aquaculture and Aquaponics Businesses In a 1748 essay, “Advice to a Young Tradesman,” Benjamin Franklin said, “Remember that time is money.” This same adage is good advice for anyone engaged in aquaculture and aquaponics activities. Time, even when not charged out as a direct expense for a business, results in several different types of costs to an aquaculture or aquaponics business. Even for those By Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC

en Franklin likely was referring primarily to the value of the time spent by a businessperson, such as the owner/operator or unpaid family member in aquaculture/aquaponics businesses. Economists refer to the production of goods and services as a process by which inputs are converted into those goods and services desired by the consumers they are supplying. Inputs required for production of goods and services frequently are categorized into four “factors of production” that include: land (refers to land, water, and other natural resources used), capital (both fixed capital assets and operating capital), labor, and management. It is important to note that two of the four factors of production, labor and management, involve time that is spent on the business, often by owners, operators, and family members. To assess the profitability of a business, then, economists subtract the value of all inputs and resources used in production from the revenue received through the sale of products produced. If the value of inputs necessary for production are omitted from the calculation, then the estimate of profits and profitability will 56 »

engaged in aquaculture or aquaponics as a hobby, consideration of the time spent can be important in terms of the decisions made.

If someone can make more money doing something other than what they are currently doing, then they will not continue with their current activities.

be inaccurate. Thus, if the time spent by the owner/operator and family members on labor and management activities is not included as a cost in the analysis, it is not possible to know if the business was truly profitable or not. Unfortunately, budget analyses of aquaculture and aquaponics systems frequently omit the value of labor and management provided by owner/operators and family members if their salaries or wages are not paid from the business. Why is this important? The study of economics shows clearly that, for many individuals, if someone can make more money doing something other than what they are currently doing, then they will not continue with their current activities. Such decisions are not made quickly, but over time an aquaculture or aquaponics farmer who does not earn enough from their fish business to compensate him or her for their time and effort, is likely to quit raising fish and do something else. In fact, there are increasing reports of a trend among aquaponics producers to convert to hydroponics, eliminating fish production due to its insufficient revenue. To an economist, an activity that does not return more to the owner/ operator than what they can make doing something else is not profitable because it is not sustainable over the long term. To relate this more directly to individual decision mak-

ing, aquaculture/aquaponics farmers need to pay for insurance and college tuition for children. They also need to save for retirement; such benefits can cost 25% or more of one’s salaries and wages. Clearly, the time that the owner/operator spends on their aquaculture/aquaponics crops needs to be valued at more than minimum wage. Even most hobby farmers need to make some amount of money as compensation for their time and efforts, particularly if they have any intention of developing their aquaculture/aquaponics system into a business. Aquaculture/aquaponics farmers spend long hours taking care of their fish and maintaining optimal growing conditions; they can become tired of working long hours without financial compensation. In fact, labor was found to be one of the major inputs in aquaponics businesses in Hawaii, composing 40% of total annual costs (Tokunaga et al. 2015, Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 46(1):2032). A proposed test for individuals considering entering into an aquaculture or aquaponics business suggested that Extension personnel should be asking people if they can make as much money from small-scale aquaculture as they can as a greeter at WalMart. If not, they are better off working at WalMart where they can at least stay warm. Enterprise budgets often use varying types of measures of the bottomline measure of profits, “net returns.” In cases where the owner/ operator does not charge out a salary, this bottomline often is expressed as “net returns to owner’s management and unpaid family labor.” What this means is that the calculation of net returns has not included a value for the time spent in the business, and thus, is not an accurate measure of true profit. Unfortunately, there have been too many instances when the estimated “net returns to owner’s management and unpaid family labor” for an aquaculture or aquaponics system

is positive, and individuals assume that this means that the business is profitable. All too often, after investing hard-earned capital and time and effort, many of these individuals go out of business when they find they cannot earn enough from the system to make it worth their while. In other words, these systems were not economically feasible, and the budgets developed were mis-leading because the value of labor and management time was not included as a cost. The importance of paying attention to what the owner’s labor and management is earning for him/her can be seen in the financial indicator known as “Returns to Labor and Management” that is calculated from the Income Statement (Profit and Loss Statement). This measure is a dollar value of what the labor and management has earned in the business. This value must be greater than other income-generating opportunities for the farmer to be likely to stay in business. Time affects other costs as well. Capital assets lose value over time and eventually need to be replaced. The non-cash expense of depreciation needs to be included in financial analyses of a business to account for the lost value of capital assets over time. Not accounting for this loss results in the aquaculture/aquaponics farmer believing that their business is more profitable than it actually is.

The time that the owner/ operator spends on their aquaculture/aquaponics crops needs to be valued at more than minimum wage.

» 57

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

If the rewards for the time spent in aquaculture and aquaponics farming are too low, how many people will continue to produce fish?

Reality sets in when ponds, tanks, or greenhouses (capital assets) need to be replaced. At that point, unfortunately, it becomes clear that the business is not as profitable as previously thought and often results in business closure. Lost business time due to delays can also result in increased costs. Time spent waiting on approvals for required permits, facility construc58 Âť

tion, equipment purchases, operating loans, or receipt of seedstock results in lost revenue. Every day that a facility is not in production (during the production season) results in lost revenue. Lost revenue results in cash flow problems that typically result in increased operating loan balances that result in increased interest expense. Such increased debt liabilities can further weaken the financial position of the business and create adverse and expensive conditions for the business. Ben Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s advice in 1748 is as true today as it was then. Aquaculture and aquaponics farming can be fun and rewarding, but it also requires a great deal of time spent on labor and management activities. If the rewards for that time spent are too low, how many people will continue to produce fish? By properly planning and structuring your aquaculture or aquaponics farm to generate enough revenue

to pay yourself a reasonable salary or wage, you will be much more satisfied and much likelier to stay in business a long time.

Post-doctoral Researcher, Virginia Tech University (Guest Columnist) jvansenten@vt.edu 2 Carole Engle holds a B.A. degree in Biology/Rural Development from Friends World College and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Auburn University where she specialized in aquaculture economics. Dr. Engle is a past-President of the U.S. Aquaculture Society and the International Association of Aquaculture Economics and Management. She is currently a Principal in Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC, and can be reached at cengle8523@gmail.com 1

Â» 59

THE Shellfish CORNER

Cap and Trade Systems with Shellfish May Be Good for the Economic Bottom Line

Since Dr. Yngvar Olsen of the Norwegian University of Science & Technology in Trondheim coined the term Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture (IMTA) at his keynote address at the 2006 meeting of the World Aquaculture Society in Florence, Italy, there has been a considerable amount of work to develop systems for the co-culture of various aquatic species that occupy different aquatic niches or positions along the aquatic food chain.

By Michael A. Rice*

he aim of this research has been to increase aquatic biomass production per unit area of aquaculture farms while increasing overall sustainability and resilience of the operation. Dr. Thierry Chopin of the University of New Brunswick in Canada, a respected pioneer in the field of IMTA particularly in the co-culture of seaweeds, shellfish & finfish, has drawn a distinction between this new term IMTA and the older term polyculture in order to emphasize that any combination of species cultured together regardless of their ecological niche could be considered a form of polyculture.1 However, even with all of the research excitement and promise surrounding IMTA within scientific circles there has been some skepticism by many in the industry who basically see the time and effort put into cultivating lower valued species alongside higher valued species (often shellfish or seaweeds) as being wasted if measured using the simplest business metric of “time is money.” Nevertheless, there are a few visionary producers including some in the Northeastern United States and Canada willing to engage in co-culture of shellfish and 60 »

Figure 1. Oyster farm (foreground), fish traps, and floating net cage culture of groupers and sea bass (background near far shore) in the Dagupan City Estuary System 1983. Photo by Michael A. Rice

seaweeds as a niche marketing strategy to appeal to knowledgeable, often upscale consumers. This is not the general case. In the early 1980s, I had the opportunity to work with both oyster farmers and aquaculturists engaged in the farming of groupers and sea bass within the estuaries of Dagupan City in the Philippines (Figure 1). By then, the city had at least a century-long his-

tory of extensive (low-intensity) intertidal pond culture of milkfish (Chanos chanos) in which ponds were periodically drained into the estuaries.2 Even back then in the 1980s, there was an appreciation by aquaculture practitioners that the numerous oyster farms acted as artificial reefs (or artificial mangrove prop roots) at which fish would aggregate to feed. Alongside the oyster farms, fish traps would be

Â» 61

THE Shellfish CORNER

placed to catch migrating fish, including fry and fingerlings, some of which could be sold live to aquaculturists as seedstock. The added feeds to the relatively few high-value fish cages in the estuary was seen as enriching the estuary productivity and promoting phytoplankton blooms that would be beneficial as feed for the oysters. This simple form of oyster-fish IMTA had organically arisen locally and had slowly evolved over the decades in the Dagupan City estuary. But it is important to note that oyster farmers, grouper and seabass farmers and milkfish farmers were, in general, not the same people. The economic interest of each farmer was satisfied by focusing on their own individual species specialty and production method. Oyster farming which required the least capital outlay also resulted in the smallest economic returns (particularly since sanitary water quality issues kept prices low), but it was profitable enough to support a healthy number of small-scale farmers willing to undertake the business despite the small margins, and each of the farms contributed to the overall integrated aquaculture production system in the estuary. This all changed in the early 1990s with the intensification of the milkfish industry by way of introduction of larger scale fish pen monoculture technology. Within five years of the initial introduction of the milkfish pens, hypoxic fish kills were occurring that degraded all aquaculture production in estuary. The overall shortterm profitability of the pen cultured milkfish became far more valuable than all the oysters or other fish production, and proposals to properly manage the fish pen and fish cage densities became the all-consuming controversial issue among resource managers in the local government and aquaculture producers, even to the point of affecting the outcome of local elections. Return to a modified form of the old informal IMTA system has been 62 Âť

Watch Hill Oyster Company of Winnipaug Pond in Westerly Rhode Island, 2010. Photo by Michael A. Rice

suggested as a solution to the problem of all the fish kills, but how can incentives be built in to compensate those engaged in the extractive aquaculture activities (shellfish & seaweeds) that contribute to overall system sustainability? One idea that has been around for about three decades is the notion of using environmental and economic modeling to determine impacts of fish farms on dissolved oxygen (DO) and dissolved nitrogen or phosphorous levels as pollution criteria, then developing a â&#x20AC;&#x153;cap and tradeâ&#x20AC;? pollution permit trading system.3 Under a system like this, the governmental entity responsible for the estuary would set a limit for fish biomass or the amount of fish feeds allowed to be fed to the fish. Capping the allowable amount of feed to be put into the estuary might have advantages of forcing innovation in feed formulations to achieve greater feed conversion efficiencies, thus allowing greater numbers of fish to be cultured under the caps. But since shellfish and seaweeds are extractive forms of aquaculture that are removing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), the biomass of these extractive species would count as removal of the nutrients from the estuary, so that in a nutrient trading

How can incentives be built in to compensate those engaged in the extractive aquaculture activities (shellfish & seaweeds) that contribute to overall system sustainability? scheme, those farming shellfish or seaweed would receive a monetary pay out from the funds initially paid in as part of the finfish farming permits. Of course the practical issues of trading schemes such as this would be a very careful accounting of feed use out on the farms, as well as fish and other IMTA products being produced and harvested. Maintaining an ongoing pollution monitoring system to keep track of water quality trends in the estuary as the implementation goes forth would also be essential. A funding mechanism for all the required monitoring could be built into the IMTA finfish permit fee structure. Probably the most difficult hurdle to making all this happen may rest in the indus-

Bivalve aquaculture should be analyzed as part of an integrated ecosystem approach and be taken into consideration within carbon trading systems as they become developed. control on phytoplankton population dynamics) that affect the carbon dioxide cycle. Based upon these considerations, the authors argue that bivalve aquaculture should be analyzed as part of an integrated ecosystem approach and be taken into consideration within carbon trading systems as they become developed. The effort to make economic models run in tandem with global carbon cycle models is just in its infancy. It is one of those things that may not be of practical value right away but may be of considerable value to the industry in the future, so it may be an idea worthy of following.

Dagupan City, Philippines oyster farmer January, 2017. Photo by Michael A. Rice.

try’s willingness to begin educating key elected decision makers about its value and potential for building economic stability in their estuary. Recently, Dr. Ramon Filgueira of Dalhousie University in Canada and 17 co-authors from around the world [Marine Ecology Progress Series 518:281-287] have extended the notion of shellfish farmers benefiting from “cap and trade” systems within

the context of IMTA and nutrient budgets to potentially taking part in any potential global trading of carbon dioxide credits in the effort to control greenhouse gases. Bivalves sequester a considerable amount of carbon in the form of carbonates in their shells and they also act as a very efficient form of protein production for human food while providing valuable ecosystem services (e.g. exerting

Michael A. Rice, PhD, is a Professor of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at the University of Rhode Island. He has published extensively in the areas of physiological ecology of mollusks, shellfishery management, molluscan aquaculture, and aquaculture in international development. He has served as Chairperson of his department at the University of Rhode Island, and as an elected member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. rice@uri.edu 1 See: Chopin, T. (2006). Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: What it is, and why you should care.... and don’t confuse it with polyculture. Northern Aquaculture July/August 2006. 2 See: Rice, M.A. & A.Z. Devera. (1998). Aquaculture in Dagupan City, Philippines. World Aquaculture 29(1):18-24. 3 For an example see: Hanley et al. (1998). Economic and environmental modeling for pollution control in an estuary. Journal of Environmental Management 52:211–225

» 63

Aquaponics

Can aquaponics help restore the US aquaculture industry? Part 2. The Power of Disruption!

Sometime in the late 1990’s U.S. aquaculture was “disrupted,” and it has not been the same since.

By: George B. Brooks, Jr. Ph.D.

s a writer, scientist, and technology developer, I have always had as much or more interest the things people can do with an innovation and what kind of effect it can have on society as much as the technical aspects of what that innovation does. I’ve written a number of articles on the subject and even did a TED talk. One of those more interesting concepts is that of “Disruption.” First however, let’s recap part one. The evidence at hand suggests that even though the world needs more and more fish and the primary source of new product will be aquaculture, the U.S. aquaculture industry is stagnating. As discussed in part 1 and as presented by a number of authors, the evidence of this stagnation is reasonably clear: • U.S. Catfish farming reached peak production in 2002 • U.S. Trout production has flattened • U.S. Net pen farming of salmon may have also peaked • An aging workforce echoing what is seen in other agricultural sectors • A Millennial preference for urban employment • The scale back or elimination of university programs in aquaculture 64 »

make it difficult to find qualified employees skilled in biosecurity, fish culture and fish hatcheries • Cutbacks in extension programs • Lack of innovation in system designs • Lack of young farmers in traditional aquaculture Secondly, the causes of this mess are largely easy access to abundant high quality and low cost imported product, trade issues, food safety issues, high feed costs, high fuel/ energy costs with the exacerbating challenges of highest and best land

use rules and in some states the high cost of environmental regulation and permitting. Most of these are both cause and effect. For example, competition from imported product thus reducing sales of U.S. grown product, which in turn would help to make banks reluctant to lend to cash strapped farmers, which in turn would reduce US job opportunities in aquaculture, which in turn would reduce the need for university training and aquaculture extension programs. All in all it is one big downward spiral it seems.

However, I also discussed how new aquaponics based farms that actually sell their fish are working to increase the numbers of fish farms in some states such as Wisconsin as well as attracting new young farmers into the business. So lets carry this thought a little bit further to get a different understanding of what happened to the U.S. industry and how this same process, once understood, may be behind the aquaponic revitalization of aquaculture that could occur. It is called “disruption.”

What is Disruption? Disruption and the associated term “Disruptive Innovation” was first defined by Harvard educator Clayton M. Christensen and his team ‘round about 1995 and has been referred to as “the most influential business idea of the early 21st century.” So what is Disruption? To quote the Harvard Business School, “Disruption” describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses. Specifically, as incumbents focus on improving their products and services for their most demanding (and usually most profitable) customers, they exceed the needs of some segments and ignore the needs of others. Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more suitable functionality - frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success. When mainstream customers start adopting the entrants’ offerings in volume, disruption has occurred. Anything sound familiar? Translating, part of the American aquaculture industry was based on the creation of larger and more efficient farms to gain the needed economies of scale to be profitable as well as the development of value added products. In this manner, production costs were kept reasonably low, while through the creation of value-added products such as fillets, nuggets etc., the value of fish was maximized. This was a successful business model for some time but it was also, because of the size of the investment necessary, somewhat inflexible thus resistant to adapting to new market needs. The disruption occurred not so much through the introduction of new technology but instead the advent of the new business model the new innovation allowed to be created. In this case, challenging trade agreements, reductions in transportation costs and the improving ability of international producers to grow a low cost high quality product all played the role of the “disruptive innovation” allowing access to lower priced high quality product for the US market. Not unlike with Walmart, the ready availability of abundant low cost high quality product in large part won the day. » 65

Aquaponics

The Democratization of Aquaculture: Phase 1. Disruption is a double-edged sword. So here we are in 2018. Out-of-country producers use a wide variety of methods to grow their product. However, to maintain good and consistent quality control, it appears the out-of-country producers have followed much the same basic business model as the incountry producers did in the 1990’s, bigger and bigger farms, high quality processing and the creation of a wide variety of value-added products. Hey, it works so why not? But it also leaves them vulnerable to disruption just as the US producers were so long ago. In this case the disruption will come not only with price but also through the implementation of a business model that was not possible in the United

Aquaponics is that disruptive innovation that allows for the new business model of being able to farm one’s own fish in a backyard.

66 »

Fig. 1 Graph source By Megapixie at English Wikipedia - New version by en:User:Megapixie, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37670832

States until the advent of workable and increasingly cost effective aquaponic systems accompanied by a change in the desires of consumers in American cities. I call it the “democratization of aquaculture.” Democratization is in this circumstance “the action of making something accessible to everyone,” and aquaponics is that disruptive innovation that allows for the new business model of being able to farm one’s own fish in a backyard. This is nothing new

in most of the world. According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) “Smallscale fisheries and aquaculture contribute about half of global fish catches. When considering catches destined for direct human consumption, the share contributed by the small-scale fisheries increases to two-thirds.” That is a lot of fish. This model was never possible in most of the United States where populations are land locked, city zoning restrictive, land costs high and fingerling availability low. The technology was just not available for a low enough cost. Now with tens of thousands of backyard units on line and more to come, aquaponics has changed that. It is this very effect that has played a large part in the increase in registered fish farms in Wisconsin that was discussed in Part 1. Each backyard aquaponics facility is a small fish farm. The majority of these farmers do not eat or sell their fish. However this is more a matter of culture, lack of knowledge in how to grow fish to “market” size, lack of licensed small scale processing infrastructure, inconsistent availability and high costs of fingerlings. And the myth that the fish cannot be sold, where in many circumstances they can.

Disruptive innovations don’t catch on with mainstream customers until quality catches up to their standards.

The process of disruption suggests that “disruptive innovations don’t catch on with mainstream customers until quality catches up to their standards.” The back yard farms likely will not do this, but they have served as a precursor for the next phase.

The Democratization of Aquaculture: Phase 2. The call for Urban Agriculture. As I have written in earlier articles, as a side effect to the hardships created

by the recent “Great Recession,” and often by the demand of their citizens, more and more cities are making Urban Agriculture not only legal but a desired “highest and best use” for some urban land. The refinement of backyard aquaponic development is partially a result of this “movement.” Recently however, in part taking advantage of the new opportunities the cities are providing where farms can literally be placed directly within their markets, scaled up aquaponic facilities have started to receive significant financing. This reality, all or in part, is responsible for the 50 or so commercial scale farms in Wisconsin reported a few months ago in Part 1 of this article. As these new business models and their associated production technologies are refined so they can provide local product at competitive prices and market required diversity of product type, their potential to disrupt at least part of the current market becomes clear. The potential for

success has become even greater with the recent recommendation to allow the organic certification of aquaponic product by the USDA. Part 3 of this series shall look at how improved infrastructure, as well as local colleges and universities and their associated extension services can apply these new models to play a powerful role in the advancement of U.S. aquaculture.

*Dr. George Brooks, Jr. holds a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences from the University of Arizona in Tucson and served as that institution’s first Aquaculture Extension Specialist. He is currently Principle at the NxT Horizon Consulting group and also teaches Aquaponics at Mesa Community College. He may be reached at george@nxthorizon.com

» 67

The Long View

When it comes...

By Aaron A. McNevin*

Ever since the development of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, there have been whispers that have grown into a chorus claiming that the technology used to fuel Bitcoin – blockchain – will change the world. Those of you that think blockchain technology will not be a transformational force are likely either the ignorant, the faithful curmudgeons or maybe you just despise the know-it-all that first brought the topic to your attention. Well, if you are one of those that doesn’t trust direct deposit and you continue to get your paper checks sent to you to deposit in your account, it is probably best to jump to the next article.

or those that stayed, I will confirm to you now that I am no blockchain expert, but I get paid to spot trends and following up on this particular technology provided me with an opportunity to speak with many of those who work with blockchain. Be warned, there are a great deal of people that engage in the cocktail party banter on the topic to stroke their own egos. There are also a number of initiatives of the big consultancies to develop blockchain “solutions” in order to upsell you. However, it is probably not the fish farmer who will get to choose whether or not to make use of the blockchain. It will come to you and when it comes, you will recognize that you will simply have no choice. Because I am not a coder or developer, I can explain the blockchain in witty analogies and simple terms. Fundamentally, the “blockchain” is referred to as a “distributed ledger.” This ledger is encrypted such that one needs to mine the code with iterative algorithms to confirm the transaction took place. So why would someone subject themselves to this exercise of figuring out the algorithms? Money, of course. There is a very small fee associated with transactions in the blockchain and tech gurus set up their computers to automatically solve these algorithms for a cut of the transaction fees. When one can 68 »

Fifth transaction - shrimp to broker or processor. Credit Phoebe Racine.

The first transaction sorting and weighing of fish from boat to port.

do this millions of times, the fractions of the nominal fees add up. These algorithm solvers are referred to as “nodes.” The nodes then confirm whether a transaction occurred. Multiple nodes will solve the algorithm for a single transaction. Thus, there are many out in cyberspace that are confirming that this transaction is valid and took place. What’s more, the transaction information, although encrypted, remains indefinitely in cyberspace. What this means is that you have multiple sources confirming a transaction took place and the details and the transaction itself can never be changed or deleted. The transactions are permanent, verified by multiple sources and encrypted. This is why the first technological

applications are happening in the financial industries to ensure that when funds are transferred there is a record of the transaction in perpetuity and there is multi-factor confirmation. Sounds like this is only applicable to Goldman Sachs and Citigroup? Not so. Wal-Mart is currently in trials with IBM to determine how blockchain could be applied to supply chain management. Costco has also been approached for the IBM trials. Now we are into food and now we start to see the reason those in the aquaculture business (and allied industries) may want to begin to take a longer or second look. To divert for a moment, while I was writing this piece on a quiet Friday evening, a colleague who works

Fourth transaction - feed mill to farm.

in our financial department came in and asked, “do you all know about blockchain and if anyone in the office is working on this?” I noted that we had an exploratory grant to study it in greater depth as it relates to a variety of food product supply chains. I was curious why this person would be so interested in supply chain management when working in our support operations shop, so I asked. The response was simple – if we aren’t prepared for blockchain, we could be left out in the cold. The concern was that there is some talk about blockchain application to grants management. Thus, if a donor begins to use blockchain to distribute funds to grant recipients, we may not be eligible for grants if we don’t have the capabilities or capacity to operate in a blockchain environment. It wasn’t until that moment that it hit me, this blockchain

The second transaction - fish sold to fish meal renderer.

Third transaction - fish meal renderer to feed mill.

thing is not just about supply chains or financial institutions, this is about accounting and accountability. Consider yourself as a budding entrepreneur and you have a new farm with new hires and you are in a country you have never operated in before. It is easy to be taken advantage of in these situations. Would you not want to have every one of your company’s transactions confirmed? Well, it is beginning to look like some of the very large purchasers of seafood are dabbling in application of blockchain technology to their supply chain and inventory management. One of the greatest benefits of the blockchain is that it can be used endto-end in supply chains and you can bet that once one of the big guys in the buying sector makes a transition, they will expect their suppliers to do the same.

It is also important to consider that blockchain may at first be used to secure chain of custody. Imagine that a producer is asked to take a picture of some fish being loaded on a truck and that picture is expected to be entered into the blockchain. Regardless of whether that picture is of the fish that are being sold or not, passing that picture down through the supply chain will be required as product is transferred from one entity to the next. Check on the US FDA import refusal list or look in the papers for the silicone injected into shrimp. Couple that with slave labor and a slew of trade associations covering up the messes in the industry rather than working to fix them and you have the makings of an environment ripe for transparency and independent validation.

Dr. Aaron McNevin directs the aquaculture program at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). He received his MS and PhD from Auburn University in Water and Aquatic Soil Chemistry. Aaron has lived and worked in Indonesia, Thailand and Madagascar and currently manages various projects throughout the developing world. He previously worked as a professor of fisheries science, and is the co-author of the book Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment.

» 69

Perspective and Opinion

Biodiversity and African Aquaculture Development by Dr. Emmanuel A. Frimpong*

Aquaculture is an important channel for introduction of non-native aquatic species and genetically modified strains worldwide. Debates continue to erupt over such introductions and Africa, being at a relatively early stage of aquaculture development, often finds itself at the center of it. The following is my opinion on what all stakeholders should consider. • Food security, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Biosecurity are tightly intertwined. Framing the argument over species introductions narrowly about biodiversity loss is one of the weaknesses of many positions on this topic. It has allowed counterarguments that avoid the bigger questions by just arguing that Africa or its children are hungry so let’s make more food by any means possible before we worry about biodiversity. Food security cannot be achieved and sustained without a healthy environment to support the food production system. This is why biodiversity and ecosystem services are enshrined in the millennium development goals that apply to all continents and countries, not just Africa. • The movement and spread of aquatic animal diseases is at once an invasive species and biosecurity issue. There is no better way to stop and reverse the growth of aquaculture in Africa than to encourage indiscriminate move70 »

ment of live animals into and around the continent, be they indigenous (native) or exotic (alien). Concern over Tilapia Lake Virus (TiLV) is everywhere now and more virulent strains of Streptococcus are already appearing in some of our countries, traceable easily to the smuggling of live tilapia of superior strains into these countries. The big invasion problem may not be the animal you see, but it is the invasive pathogens they carry that you don’t see. • The genetic purity of wild strains of domesticated animals is an insurance against unforeseen diseases and other environmental stresses. Even if you don’t care about loss of species, genetic purity and diversity of the aquatic environment should concern you unless your goal is to make some money and leave a mess behind. Domesticated, faster growing tilapia, for example, may not necessarily be the most resistant to novel disease agents

and other environmental stresses. The more genetically diverse wild strains are expected to be more resilient. The natural ecosystems and their wild populations therefore perform an ecosystem service that technology cannot substitute. So, it is in our (the farmer/business and society) own interest to prevent escapes or intentional discarding of domesticated animals into the wild. • The argument that land-based agriculture uses introduced species and also causes pollution, so aquaculture can do the same, is fallacious. Landbased agriculture should be subject to environmental regulations and there are some throughout African countries, although just as ineffective as current regulations for protecting aquatic ecosystems on the continent. Do we really care for the environment and understand the importance of functional natural aquatic ecosystems for most of aquaculture in Africa if

our argument is that some other activities pollute the environment so aquaculture should do the same? • Species introduction for aquaculture (or agriculture for that matter) is, and should always be, a public policy matter. A casual observer might think that it is normal for a private individual to introduce a species into a country if they want to, or for businesses to write public policy. It is not normal. There is a reason no developed country allows uncontrolled introductions. From basic economics, there is a private benefit to such actions but a large public cost, an externality, which is passed on to the whole society once things go wrong. If a business destroys the environment to make profit, we all pay the cost. One of the principal roles of government is to intervene in the market in areas where free-market principles fail. African governments aren’t doing their jobs well in this case.

• If you don’t like (or even know about) the public policies and laws or regulations of the country you live in, it is not an excuse for breaking laws; work to change the law and policies instead. I believe aquaculture practitioners and investors in Africa have many legitimate frustrations with government regulations. It is still wrong to move into a country to do business and then make your own laws. It is true that many African countries, including the one I am from, have many unnecessary, ineffective, and scientifically uninformed regulations that slow aquaculture growth. It is also arguable that the business community could do better to work to change policies. Gather sound data or, better still, commission studies to be conducted by scientists that can stand peer-review and then confront the government with the results to make your case for policy changes. It is not always that hard and good research doesn’t

have to take forever either. Lobbying is not a crime; it is part of wellfunctioning economies, but you do it from a position of advantage if backed by indisputable data. • Respect the role of science in development and support science. Many African governments do not fund or conduct any research to base their environmental and development policies on. They copy regulations from other countries or sometimes it is just dictated to them by donors and creditors following the “beggar has no choice” philosophy. If we won’t support science to make the case for our own policies, of course somebody will make policies and impose them on us. Many African politicians don’t like science. The business community is not entirely innocent of this issue either. Businesses need to demand to know the scientific basis for local regulations or provide their counter data to argue for sound poli» 71

Perspective and Opinion

cies, even if it entails bearing some of the cost of acquiring those data. • Spurious data still abound on African aquaculture performance. Some investors in aquaculture apparently have been lured by governments into African countries with false promises and invalid data. There have been discussions about production statistics coming out of some African countries that look suspicious. At the WAS meeting in Cape Town a few months ago, many of these apparently wrong production statistics from over 4 years ago were being cited everywhere to show how well Africa is doing. That also contradicts the claim that we are not doing that well. There needs to be more scientific verification and accountability in the production data reporting from Africa. • An introduced species may be native or indigenous, exotic or alien and introduced does not equal invasive. We often conflate the terminology and confuse each other. All the examples of cattle, maize, cocoa, etc. cited as invasive species sustaining agriculture in Africa are technically misleading. An invasive species establishes self-reproducing populations in locations where it did not occur in recent history, and usually no one wants them to be where they show up. In fact many introduced species never establish or become invasive. However, it takes just one or two successful invasive species to wreak havoc over generations as in the example of the water hyacinth. In water, the risk of species establishing and becoming invasive is much higher than on land because we don’t notice the establishment and spread of such species until they are really ubiquitous. It is harder to find and eradicate an invasive species in water. It is also difficult to predict which species will become invasive in a new location, although there is a well-established field of science that attempts to do just that. • Just the fact that a species occurred in an ecosystem thousands or millions 72 »

of years ago based on fossil records or some anecdote is not a sound reason to reintroduce it into the system. It is true that ecosystems are dynamic over really long periods of time, but they also achieve relative equilibria in the absence of strong perturbations of natural or human causes. What is our reason to try to replace one taxonomic group with another and how much do we know that the process will just end there? Can we not have productive aquaculture business in Africa without such consequential changes to ecosystems? Should we introduce lions and leopards into cities in Africa now since most of us live in parts of their historical range? When it comes to tinkering with ecosystems, there are no success stories and we should be humble enough to admit that we only know enough to destroy what there is but we

can’t fix the problems we create. • A number of stakeholders have cited China’s superior aquaculture production as a reason for Africa to be essentially reckless in our approach to aquaculture development. I believe Africa can learn a lot from China, and we should. However, what has not been mentioned enough is that China is living with a lot of awful environmental problems for not caring enough about the consequences of some of their aggressive development approaches. Some of those environmental issues I am sure we won’t want to import to Africa along with the tilapia, for those so eager to import tilapia from China. • Aquaculture underdevelopment in Africa is not all about lack of the fastest growing species or strains. At least

Â» 73

Perspective and Opinion

thus far, the slow development of aquaculture in Africa cannot be attributed to regulations against introduction of species because it will surprise many that there are no such effective regulations in practice (although there are many on paper). Many practices that are working elsewhere have been tried in Africa legally or illegally but not done properly. Better management practices are also often ignored. We need to make a scientifically sound case for better species and strains for our farmers but if we continue to inbreed brood stock, raise fish in poorly constructed facilities with poor water quality and low carrying capacity, feed fish junk food, track diseases onto our farms by grabbing stock from anywhere, ignore scientific approaches to farming, etc. we can have the best species and strains and still produce very little food. • We should beware of the one-sizefits-all approach to solving Africa’s problems. All countries in Africa are not on the same track in terms of culture, development stage, challenges, and needs. There are clear emerging regional patterns in the attitudes towards species introductions and the protection needs of the environment that sustains aquaculture. Africa is a vast continent, many times the size of 74 »

Europe, Australia, or the United States just for examples. Africa and its individual countries have a lot of unique problems that require locally focused diagnosis and solutions. Likewise, we should be careful taking general recommendations based on experiences from other continents and regions at face value. We can learn from the process that others followed to solve similar problems but the outcome may be different for each country or region. • Governmental action is needed and fast on the issue of species and strain introductions in African aquaculture. These discussions are often dominated by business interests, consultants, expatriates, and academics of which I admit (unapologetically) to be one. None of these people have a direct say in making and enforcing regulations. Any real action to effect changes has to come from governments and their political will to invest in the sustainable development. For many countries, up-to-date lists of aquatic species and catalogues of species or strains introduced already do not exist, nor is there any routine monitoring of species. So, how would one even begin an invasive species risk assessment? We should also be mindful of unnecessary bureaucracy. Knowing that once we agree that

some kind of a significant meeting/ workshop/conference/consultation is needed, it takes something like 2 years in a typical bureaucracy to get a meeting together and another 3 years to publish the report, and then several more years before a minister (a politician) sees the report and decides if it is worth any action or is outdated and requires another meeting… I would say in conclusion that we need a more efficient process with quick determination and dissemination of outcomes and implementation that is fair to aquaculture businesses while assuring environmental advocates for the African continent that governments are doing their best to protect our resources for the future.

Dr. Emmanuel A. Frimpong is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation at Virginia Tech. He holds the following degrees: B.Sc., University of Science & Technology, Ghana (1997); M.S., University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (2001); M.S. (Statistics), Virginia Tech (2009); and Ph.D., Purdue University (2005).

Â» 75

urner barry

Salmon By: Paul B. Brown Jr.*

The overall salmon market in November has returned to meet the more

he salmon complex is about steady to barely steady for a quiet to dull demand; typical for this time of the year. Canada and Chile have seen prices decrease this month while the European market, Norway in particular, continues to be very volatile. YTD imports through September are up 5.9 percent from 2016, and there continues to be significant changes regarding the country break-

historical trend seen during the fall. down. Canada is down 10.5 percent YTD, while Norway and the U.K are up 77 and 103.8 percent, respectively. Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total market share is down to 61 percent from 2016â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 72 percent. Canada did see its monthly imports increase 5.9 percent compared to September 2017. Overall monthly imports for September 2017 were also up 7.9 percent compared to August 2017. Overall imports for September 2017 are up 14.9 percent compared to September 2016.

Downward pricing pressure is being felt from an increase in supply from both Norway and Chile in addition to it being a historically slower time of the year. The Norwegian wholefish market continues to be very volatile, barely steady to weak one week and full steady to firm the next. Both Scottish and Faroe Island fish have also started to trend lower this month. Total imports out of Europe are up 51 percent when compared to 2016. The West Coast wholefish market throughout November has been barely steady to weaker. Additional downward pricing pressure is also being felt from the influx of fish from Europe, in particular, Norway. Overall imports of wholefish out of Canada remain lower than last year; YTD 10.5 percent. The lack of Canadian fish this year has been offset by the increase in European wholefish imports; overall wholefish imports are 5.9 percent higher. Chile, the main driver in the import category, continues to see decreases; imports are down 2.4 percent YTD. Fresh fillet imports out of Norway saw a 1.3 percent increase in monthto-month imports; however, they are now experiencing a 6.6 percent decrease in YTD imports. Imports of frozen Atlantic fillets decreased 22.5 percent in September compared to the previous month. However, on a YTD basis imports are 21.3 percent higher. Imports from Chile decreased 20.8 percent from the previous month but are 11.9 percent above levels on a YTD basis. Imports from Norway decreased 34.3 percent compared to the previous month, but are still 54.9 percent higher on a YTD basis. After adjusting yields and costs, the incentive to sell fresh fillets at near record levels provides little reason to sell frozen fillets unless the price is right. The 2017 wild salmon season has seen historic volumes of sockeyes, and the coho market trended higher than last year throughout the season. *President of Urner Barry pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com

76 Âť

SHRIMP By: Paul B. Brown Jr.* U.S. Imports All Types, By Type September shrimp imports indicate a 14% increase for the month, leaving YTD imports 9.6% higher through Q3. The aggregated average value of total shrimp imports in September was $4.40 versus a year ago at $4.18; a 5.3% increase. Indian shrimp imports were up 25.2% pushing their YTD imports 42.1% higher! Indonesian imports were significantly higher in September but remain lower YTD. Ecuador imports are almost even. Vietnamese and Thailand imports are lower both for September and YTD.

Monthly Import Cycles By Country (All Types) Imports from China are very strong and could include some Argentine shrimp. Mexican imports are sharply higher for the month. Argentine imports are sharply higher. HLSO shrimp imports for September including easy peel are up 8.8% but YTD imports are only 1.4% higher. Peeled shrimp imports are 16.1% higher for the month and 14.6% higher YTD. Cooked shrimp and breaded shrimp imports are both sharply higher. Focusing on Indiaâ&#x20AC;Ś HLSO shrimp imports were 11.1% higher for September and 24.9% higher YTD. On-hand supplies appear fully adequate to ample in some cases, and with what most describe as a slow October, discounting became prevalent. Most look forward to improved Holiday buying interest.

unsettled particularly on 21-25 count. Limited Ecuador offerings are noted higher priced with pressure from HOSO exports to Asia in corresponding sizes. Smaller Latin American white shrimp are mostly steady

and replacement offerings from Ecuador are generally disconnected with the current US spot market. *President of Urner Barry pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com

Shell-On Shrimp Imports, Cyclical & by Count Size Currently the market is about steady with an unsettled undertone. 26-30 count and larger Latin American HLSO shrimp have recently adjusted lower with increasing pressure from Mexican shrimp production. The undertone on those count sizes remains Âť 77

urner barry

TILAPIA, CATFISH AND PANGASIUS Tilapia imports in August retreated 3 percent from the previous month, led by frozen wholefish and fresh fillets. Frozen fillets managed to By: Paul B. Brown Jr.*

increase but are down considerably on a year-to-date basis.

mports of Pangasius contracted quite steeply from the previous month to their lowest monthly level since April 2009. As a result, year-to-date levels are now nearly 13 percent lower compared to 2016. Meanwhile, imports of Chinese catfish decreased from the previous month but surpassed those from the same month last year and remain significantly higher on a year-to-date basis. Imported Channel Catfish. Imports of frozen channel catfish fillets decreased nearly 27 percent from the previous month but monthly imports over the last six months have remained seasonally high compared to at least the last eight years. On a YTD basis imports are nearly 65 percent greater. Shipments in September entered the U.S. with a declared value of $2.87 per pound; this is the lowest monthly import price per pound since March 2015. Pangasius. September imports decreased quite significantly, to the lowest level since April 2009. The surge in imports in July and August can mainly be attributed to the USDA’s inspection deadline set for September 2. Imports on a YTD basis are now nearly 13 percent below last year’s figures. Uncertainty persists with rising replacement costs for incoming shipments in the following months. On a YTD basis pangasius imports in Europe are down 26.6 percent. According to data from the USDOC, replacement prices came off 78 »

slightly from a multi-year high registered in August. However, according to most in the industry, these costs will continue to show a significant increase in the following months.

Tilapia Tilapia Whole Fish. Imports of frozen whole fish declined as seasonally expected. On a year-to-date basis imports are 14 percent lower compared to last year and the lowest since 2012. Tilapia Fresh Fillets. Imports in September retreated from the previous month by 7 percent, and 10 percent compared to the same month a year ago. On a year-to-date basis imports are 2.3 percent lower, recording the lowest year-to-date volume since 2006. Again, monthly imports of fresh fillets from China were nil.

September imports from Colombia declined steeply from the previous month but remain well above last year’s figures on a year-to-date basis. Imports from Costa Rica are virtually flat on a year-to-date basis but shipments from this country have contracted significantly over the past five months when compared to the same period a year ago. Imports from Honduras, the largest supplier of this commodity to the U.S. market, increased from the previous month but remain nearly 9 percent lower through September compared to the same period last year. Total imports of this commodity are only 2.3 percent lower on a YTD basis through September. Tilapia Frozen Fillets. Imports increased slightly from the previous month following a seasonal pattern

and surpassing imports from the same month a year ago. YTD imports are now 12.6 percent below those recorded last year and remain the lowest since 2009. The gradual monthly declining trend is still quite clear, particularly when looking at the seasonal peaks. Year-to-date weighted replacement costs are at their lowest level since 2007. Demand in the U.S. remains weak relative to at least the last five years. Meanwhile, imports of Pangasius have surged since then, but this species is likely to hit some obstacles as the USDA takes over mandatory inspection.

Domestic Catfish Prices of domestic catfish adjusted lower sharply this month. Supplies were fully adequate bordering on ample for larger size whole fish, fillets and nuggets. It has been reported that processors will be harvesting and processing most market ready fish before production is hindered during winter months. This is typical as catfish do not grow once the cooler water temperatures arrive.

*President of Urner Barry pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com

Âť 79

Upcoming

aquaculture events

JANUARY 4th SHRIMP FARMING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE Jan. 25 – Jan. 26 Auditorium of the Universidad La Salle Noroeste, Cd. Obregon, Mexico T: +52 33 8000 7595 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com FEBRUARY AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2018 Feb. 19 – Feb. 22 Paris Hotel Las Vegas, USA E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org MARCH SEAFOOD EXPO NORTH AMERICA Mar. 11 – Mar. 13 Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Boston, USA T: +1 800 803 5804 E: seafood@onpeak.co W: www.seafoodexpo.com/north-america/ OCEANOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LONDON 2018 Mar. 13 – Mar. 15 ExCel London, London, UK T: +44 0 20 8439 8858 E: oiteam@reedexpo.co.uk W: www.oceanologyinternational.com/ APRIL SEAFOOD PROCESSING GLOBAL 2018 Apr. 24 – Apr. 26 Brussels Expo, Brussels, Belgium T: +1 207 842 5590

E: sales-global@seafoodexpo.com W: www.seafoodexpo.com/global/

E: andah@andah.hn W: www.andah.hn

MAY 10th INTERNATIONAL ABALONE SYMPOSIUM May. 8 – May. 12 Xiamen International Conference Center Hotel, Xiamen, China E: ias2018@chinastargroup.com W: www.ias2018.com

AQUA 2018 Ago. 25 – Ago. 29 Le Corum Congress Centre, Montpellier, France T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

1st INTERNATIONAL SIMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE May. 16 – May. 17 Caracol Science Museum and Aquarium Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico E: simposio.int.maricultura.fcm@uabc.edu.mx

SEPTEMBER 8th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH ISAAH 2018 Sep. 2 – Sep. 6 Delta Prince Edward Hotel & Convention Center, Charlottetown, Isla del Príncipe Eduardo, Canada W: www.isaah2018.com

AQUACULTURE UK 2018 EXHIBITION May. 23 Macdonald Aviemore Resort, Aviemore, Scottland, UK T: +44 0 7880 230399 E: info@aquacultureuk.com W: www.aquacultureuk.com/exhibition/ JULY 22ND INTERNATIONAL SYMPHOSIUM ON FRESHWATER CRAYFISH Jul. 9 – Jul. 13 Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, USA W: www.freshwatercrayfish.org AUGUST CENTRAL AMERICAN AQUACULTURE SYMPOSIUM (SIMCAA) Aug. 21 – Aug. 24 Choluteca, Honduras

13th INTERNATIONAL AQUACULTURE FORUM Sep. 19 – Sep. 21 Hotel Presidente Intercontinental, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico W: www.fiacui.com NOVEMBER LAQUA 2018 Nov. 14 – Nov. 17 Havana Convention Center, Habana, Cuba T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

advertisers AUTOMATED BIOREACTORS INDUSTRIAL PLANKTON...........................................Inside cover Tel: 1-844-818-0304 E-mail: info@industrialplankton.com www. industrialplankton.com antibiotics, probiotics and FEED additives Lallemand Animal Nutrition................................................29 Contact: Bernardo Ramírez DVM Basurto. Tel: (+52) 833 155 8096 E-mail: bramirez@lallemand.com www.lallemand.com SYNDEL.......................................................................................35 CANADA.T: 1 800 663-2282 www.syndel.ca USA. T: 1 800 283-5292 www.syndel.com aeration equipment, PUMPS, FILTERS and measuring instruments, ETC AERATION INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL (O2).....Inside BACK cover 4100 Peavey Road | Chaska, MN 55318 USA Contact: Marcos Kroupa T: +1-952-448-6789 | Direct: 952-556-5710 E-mail: marcos.kroupa@aireo2.com Aquatic Equipment and Design, Inc.....................................65 522 S. HUNT CLUB BLVD, #416, APOPKA, FL 32703. USA. Contact: Amy Stone T: (407) 717-6174 E-mail: amy@aquaticed.com Deep Trekker Inc.......................................................................1 830 Trillium Drive Kitchener, ON, Canada N2R 1K4 E-mail: sales@deeptrekker.com T: 519-342-3177, ext. 1 Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Inc......................back cover 2395 Apopka Blvd. Apopka, Florida, Zip Code 32703, USA. Contact: Ricardo Arias T: (407) 8863939, (407) 8864884 E-mail: ricardo.arias@pentair.com www.pentairaes.com RK2 Systems.............................................................................49 421 A south Andreassen Drive Escondido California, USA. Contact: Chris Krechter. T: 760 746 74 00 E-mail: chrisk@rk2.com www.rk2.com events and exhibitions 1st INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE.............19 May 16 and 17, 2018. Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Caracol Science Museum and Aquarium. E: simposio.int.maricultura.fcm@uabc.edu.mx

80 »

Index

13th FIACUI.........................................................................33 September 26th - 28th, 2018. Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. Information on Booths Contact in Mexico: Christian Criollos E-mail: crm@dpinternationalinc.com www.fiacui.com www.panoramaacuicola.com 4th Science and Technology CONFERENCE on Shrimp Farming...............................................................................53 January 25 - 26, 2018. Ciudad Ogregón, Sonora, Mexico. Contact: Christian Criollos, E-mail: crm@dpinternationalinc.com XI INTERNATIONAL SHRIMP CULTURE SYMPOSIUM & TRADE SHOW-Challenging the early mortality Syndrome (EMS)...........39 February 28 - March 2, 2018. Panama. T: 507-3801-590 E-mail: panamacamaron2018@gmail.com www.panamacamaron.com XII SIMPOSIO CENTROAMERICANO DE ACUICULTURA..........61 August 21 -24, 2018. Choluteca Honduras. E-mail: andah@andah.hn WAS LAS VEGAS 2018................................................................25 February 19-22, 2018. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. P.O. Box 2302 Valley Center, CA 92082 USA T: +1 760 751-5005 F: +1 760 751-5003 E-mail: John Cooksey Conference Management: John Cooksey Trade Show and Sponsors: Mario Stael farming equipment hoopers island Oyster co......................................................5 837 Chesapeake Drive, Unit B, Cambridge Md 21613 USA. T: (410) 397-3664 E-mail: sgrizzell@hoopersinsland.com www.hoopersinsland.com Seapa Oyster Baskets............................................................67 4410 Cimmaron Trail Granbury, TX 7604. USA. Contact: Sean Grizzell. Business Development Manager, North America T: 214-238-4640 E-mail: sean@seapausa.com www.seapausa.com Continental Western Corporation....................................13 2855 Miller Street San Leandro, CA 94577, USA. T: (800) 292 7717 www.cwestern.com

Information Services Aquaculture Magazine.................................................... 73 & 75 Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 504 3642 Office in Mexico: +52(33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578 Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com Ad Sales. Chris Criollos, Sales Manager crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Office: +52 33 80007595 Cell: +521 33 14660392 Skype: christian.criollos Aquafeed.com..........................................................................59 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com Urner Barry.............................................................................79 P.O. Box 389 Tom Ride. New Jersey, USA. Contact: Ángel Rubio. T: 732-575-1982 E-mail: arubio@urnerbarry.com Machinery and Feeding Systems MARINE AQUACULTURE (Department of Fisheries, Western Australia)................................................................31 Department of Fisheries, Western Australia P.O.Box 20 Northbeach, WA 6920 Australia Contact: Dr Sagiv Kolkovski T: +61-8-92030220, C: 0417940498 Email: sagiv.kolkovski@fish.wa.gov.au www.fish.wa.gov.au RAS SYSTEMS, DESIGN, EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GEMINI FIBERGLASS...................................................................55 3345 N. Cascade Ave. Colorado Springs, CO 80907. USA. Contact: Michael Paquette, President T: 858-602-9465 Email: michael@geminifiberglass.com / www. geminifiberglass.com tanks AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE REEF Industries.......................................................................15 9209 Almeda Genoa Road Z.C. 7075, Houston, Texas, USA. Contact: Gina Quevedo/Mark Young/ Jeff Garza. T: Toll Free 1 (800) 231-6074 T: Local (713) 507-4250 E-mail: gquevedo@reefindustries.com / jgarza@reefindustries.com / myoung@reefindustries.com www.reefindustries.com