AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE June-July 2019 Vol 45 No.3

2 »

»

1

INDEX

Aquaculture Magazine Volume 45 Number 3 June - July 2019

4

EDITOR´S COMMENTS

6

INDUSTRY NEWS

10

NAA NOTES

14

NEWS FROM THE AADAP

18

ARTICLE

National Aquaculture Association Notes.

News from the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership.

Chef Investment in Aquaculture.

22 ARTICLE

Selection of carbohydrate-active probiotics from the gut of carnivorous fish fed plant-based diets.

28 ARTICLE

APHIS TiLV Detection Summary.

30

ARTICLE

on the

cover

Alaskan Sea Ranching:

Yes, they do “do aquaculture” in Alaska “One can’t deny that fish farming, as it is done in Alaska, works extremely well”

60 Volume 45 Number 3 June - July 2019

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

Editor in Chief Greg Lutz editorinchief@dpinternationalinc.com

On-site production of freshwater for control of sea lice in salmon cages.

Editorial Assistant Lucía Araiza editorial@dpinternationalinc.com

36 ARTICLE

Growth and Nutrient Removal Efficiency of Sweet Wormwood (Artemisia annua) in a Recirculating Aquaculture System for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).

44 LATIN AMERICA REPORT Recent News and Events.

46 NEWS

Advancing Minority-Owned Businesses in Aquaculture.

76 URNER BARRY

TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH. SHRIMP.

EVENTS 80 UPCOMING ADVERTISERS INDEX 2 »

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

Follow us:

COLUMNS

48

AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

52

GENETICS

News from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

By ASC Staff

Genetic Improvement on the (Aquaculture) farm… economic aspects to keep in mind.

By: C. G. Lutz

60

FISH HEALTH, ETC.

Alaskan Sea Ranching: Yes, they do “do aquaculture” in Alaska.

By Hugh Mitchell, MSc, DVM

66

AQUAFEED

Recent news from around the globe by Aquafeed.com

By Suzi Dominy

70

SALMONIDS

Land-based production of salmon to harvest size has become a hot topic.

By Asbjørn Bergheim

72

THE LONG VIEW

Mapping the Implications of Import Refusal Records.

By Madeline Craig *

»

3

Sustainability… We already know the ending, but it’s what happens before then that matters

By C. Greg Lutz

While most of us are used to hearing the term sustainability fairly often these days, it wasn’t always that common. In fact, there has only been a noticeable increase in its usage since the early 1970’s. Prior to that time, it was a fairly obscure notion.

S

ustainability has evolved from a concept of how easily something could be maintained over time to a more nuanced, if not abstract, idea. It is currently perceived by many as the degree to which an activity can continue at current levels without resulting in future decline or depletion, based on economic, environmental and social considerations.

Environmental considerations are generally at the forefront when discussions of sustainability come up these days, especially in aquaculture. Characterizations often focus on water usage, carbon footprints, conversion and retention of dietary protein and energy, effluent quality and volume, impacts on wild popu4 »

Courtesy of Eco-Sphere.com.

lations (pathogens, competition, genetic impacts, etc.) and consumption of fishmeal and fish oil vs. fossil fuel usage and contributions to soil losses (through production of alternate feed components such as soybeans, corn: when it comes to trying to feed our aquatic crops we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t).

Quite often when critics try to tally up the environmental impacts of aquaculture, there is (conveniently) no comparison to other animal protein industries. So while we as an industry have struggled (for the most part successfully) to address criticism after criticism, for those that make a living portraying aquaculture as a bogey-man reminiscent of the Pennywise character in the recent film IT, finding fault with almost any type of aquaculture is like shooting fish in a barrel (pun intended).

Social aspects of sustainability are harder to pin down. Employees, neighbors, local communities and other resource users will ideally support and value a local aquaculture enterprise, but it’s often surprisingly difficult to get a consensus. For some it will always be easy to demonize commercial operations, in spite of the employment and economic activity being generated. To some extent this ties in with environmental sustainability, in that perceived negative impacts on common resources can fuel rancor, even when perception and reality are quite different. Over the past two decades many larger commercial producers have focused on cultivating support and collaboration with local communities and stakeholders, and these efforts have generally yielded positive results. Some companies provide financial and educational benefits beyond basic employment opportunities, and continually work with underserved communities to establish or improve local schools and health facilities.

As discussions of social sustainability in aquaculture have evolved, more scrutiny is being paid to supply chains. Where are feed components

Table 1 Sustainability usage plotted with Google Books Ngram Viewer.

coming from and under what conditions are they being produced? What are the labor standards and environmental impacts associated with various inputs? For aquaculture products to be considered fully sustainable, some critics insist that even the most minimal aspects of the supply and value chains exhibit unquestionable “sustainability” – which is a noble aspiration except when those same critics reserve the right to determine what qualifies and what does not.

This has actually become a sustainable business model for employees of some “coalitions” and “associations.”

Which leads us to the third principle in the current definition of sustainability: economic sustainability.

If a business does not turn a profit, or at least break even, then no environmental or social benefits can accrue. It’s hard to have social sustainability when many people in the local community no longer have jobs and cannot provide their children with basic necessities. And without any corporate motivation or resources to protect and enhance the local environment, all stakeholders eventually suffer the impacts.

You see? I got the memo. I heard the lectures. I took notes. These principles of sustainability are definitely worth pursuing. But sustainability itself is not sustainable. The inevitable is just that – inevitable. Life on Earth is not exactly like those cool glass spheres that last for years with the water and vegetation and organic material and little shrimp inside. Eventu-

ally, humans will go extinct – hopefully evolving into something else in the process, unless our demise is due to an asteroid impact or cosmic radiation from a nearby supernova (you won’t see THAT coming). Or, the Earth’s oceans may boil away as our sun expands and becomes hotter through its normal aging process.

Even if that doesn’t occur along the way, in 5- to 7 billion years the sun will become a red giant (though not a very big one) and the Earth will be a cosmic cinder. After that, as the sun shrinks and collapses, what’s left of the Earth will be flung into empty space by a collision or near miss with some other celestial object. Or, it will eventually plummet into what’s left of our star.

Depressing? Not really. It’s kind of like the human experience, which is the lens through which sustainability really should be viewed. The one thing I can predict about your future, no matter who you are, is that one day you will die. But that fact doesn’t matter because it cannot be changed.

It’s everything that happens between now and then that will determine the quality of your life and those around you. And the same thing is true for planet Earth. That’s where the importance of sustainability becomes obvious, especially for an industry like aquaculture.

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.

»

5

INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT

BIOMAR Eliminates Cataracts in Lumpfish with New Feed Diet Cataracts are, unfortunately, a common eye condition in lumpfish affecting at least 60% and as much 100% of fish, with the average condition being a severe cataract level of > 5 according to a recent study by BioMar. The study also showed that the prevalence and severity increased with fish size. BioMar has now solved the challenges associated with diet-related cataracts in lumpfish with the launch of new Lumpfish Grower products that will make a significant contribution to improving fish welfare and their lice-grazing efficiency.

Cataracts are the clouding of the lens of the eye which reduces vision and in serious cases will lead to blindness. Lumpfish are visual lice grazers, and any impairment of their vision caused by sub-optimal nutrition will clearly reduce their health, welfare and performance. For lumpfish to be used effectively in controlling salmon lice biologically the cleaner fish must be healthy and alert. “Lumpfish with severe cataracts will have difficulty in identifying and consuming nutrients, including salmon lice. Also, a reduction in feed uptake can undermine the general health of the fish, increasing the risk of infectious disease”,

6 »

said Elisabeth Aasum, Global R&D Health Manager, BioMar. Past studies of cataracts in lumpfish have identified nutritional imbalances with high levels of specific amino acids in certain tissues. In a recently-completed controlled feed study, BioMar found a high incidence of cataracts in lumpfish fed a control feed with a protein and fat content typical for marine cold-water species.

The incidences ranged from 60 per cent to 100 per cent with an average cataract score of > 5, in other words

a high incidence of severe cataracts.

The company conducted the same study on three alternative fish feed diets and no traces of cataracts were found in fish fed these diets. The common feature of these recipes was a reduction in the content of both protein and fat when compared with the control feed. Much of the cause accordingly appears to coincide with the above findings.

Torunn Forberg the lead BioMar scientist on the research project stated, “A balanced reduction in nutrient density was decisive in avoiding the eye disease. Moreover, during the study, the reduction in nutrients did not have any negative affect on normal growth rates, feed utilization and survival rates for transfer sized fish at 50g.”

BioMar has now implemented this new knowledge to improve both the nutritional status and the eye health of lumpfish. The absence of nutritional related cataracts will increase the performance of these cleaner fish and enable improvements in a range of areas. In addition to a solid boost to the health and welfare of the fish, it is expected that the effectiveness of the new recipe will be measurable in the form of an enhanced delousing capability.

Chicken of the Sea® Announces Commitment to Support the SeaChange® IGNITE Collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Thai Union On May 1, Chicken of the Sea® announced the formation of a Responsible Aquaculture Commitment that will drive efforts to bring full traceability and sustainability to its aquaculture supply chains. The commitment lays out a plan for 100 percent of COS-branded aquaculture products to meet Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch recommended ratings and certifications, as well as social responsibility standards accepted by Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) or Social Supply Chain Initiative (SSCI) through fully traceable supply chains.

Progress towards this commitment is already well established with a target of achieving 100 percent of the goal by 2025. This commitment is inclusive of all steps in the production process to ensure Chicken of the Sea’s aquaculture supply chains are fully traceable and sustainable from harvest to consumption. Projects in support of this commitment

are already under way in Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Indonesia. This initiative aims to vertically integrate improvements throughout the supply

chain while delivering sustainable products to the North American market.

French insect feed producer InnovaFeed achieves Friend of the Sea and Friend of the Earth certifications The biotech company, which has its processing plant in Gouzeaucourt in Northern France, is a pioneer in the production of highquality protein from insects (black soldier flies or Hermetia illucens).

“Insect breeding is the future,” said the company’s commercial director, Maye Walraven, stressing the need for natural and sustainable solutions to feed the growing world population and to protect our planet.

“InnovaFeed’s innovating insect rearing process is deployed on an industrial scale to address the strain on quality protein to support the growth of sustainable aquaculture.

Furthermore, our activity restores insect to its natural function in our ecosystem as part of the natural

diet of most fish species,” Walraven noted.

InnovaFeed’s production plant is in Cambresis, one of the areas that generate the most agricultural by-product in France. The company employs waste originated by the cereal and sugar agro-industries to create a substrate where the larvae grow, noted Pietro Serratore, project manager at Friend of the Earth, adding that the company’s production process utilizes those by-products locally and is waste-free.

The firm collects the insect dejection to produce fertilizers and optimizes energy efficiency thanks to high-performing equipment and materials, Serratore added, pointing to Friend of the Earth’s stringent

environmental targets. “It’s the first time that a company receives both Friend of the Sea and Friend of the Earth certifications”, Serratore also pointed out. »

7

INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT

Urner Barry to Host Global Protein Summit October 7-9 in Chicago Urner Barry’s Global Protein Summit 2019 will focus on providing analytic insights into market trends across the beef, poultry and pork markets. Through networking opportunities, headline talks and sectorspecific breakout sessions, the event organizers hope to equip participants with the tools to make better strategic decisions through the examination of factors effecting protein markets today, and forecasting what could impact markets tomorrow.

The Status of 18 Marine Finfish Species for US Aquaculture In March 2017, Florida Atlantic University Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI), USDA ARS and NOAA hosted a scoping workshop at HBOI in Ft. Pierce, Florida. This workshop brought together 26 experts from academia, government and industry to outline and prioritize the critical challenges and opportunities to support and meet the needs of the U.S. marine food fish aquaculture industry. The workshop led to a national survey for 18 marine finfish species identified by the workshop participants.

The survey questions were comprehensive and were developed by the workshop participants.

The goal of the survey was to gain broader input from the aquaculture community on general knowledge of these 18 marine food fish species and to choose the best options for domestic expansion of non-salmonid marine finfish aquaculture in the United States. The survey had responses from 76 stakeholders that included academia, research organizations, industry and state and federal agencies.

The survey results led to the organization of a special session “Status of Marine Finfish Species for US Aquaculture” at Aquaculture 8 »

America 2019 in New Orleans, LA on March 10th, 2019. The special session was hosted and organized

by Florida Atlantic University Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, USDA Agricultural Research Service, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and NOAA Fisheries. Seventeen experts were selected to present on the 18 species.

The specific objectives of the special session were to: • Summarize the stage of aquaculture readiness for each species – commercially ready, technologically feasible or experimental • Categorize the top species with re-

spect to their readiness for growing and/or establishing industries • Identify research directions for removing barriers to commercialization The video presentations and abstracts are now available for viewing by following this link: https://fau. edu/hboi/aquaculture/status-ofmarine-finfish.php. The information from these presenttations will also be consolidated to produce a summary report to help to inform aquaculture funding opportunities and programmatic decisions and strategy for development and advancement of US marine finfish aquaculture industry.

Aquaculture Europe 2019 welcomes Women in Aquaculture event A seminar looking at ways to ensure greater gender diversity at all levels of the aquaculture sector is scheduled to take place in Berlin on 9 October, as part of this year’s Aquaculture Europe (AE2019) conference.

Jointly organized by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS) and The Fish Site, the Women in Aquaculture seminar will offer first hand insights into how women can overcome perceived gender related obstacles and build thriving careers right across the aquaculture sector.

‘Many promising young researchers and many of the top aquaculture executives from Europe and beyond will be in Berlin for the annual EAS conference and this special session aims to help companies engage with proactive strategies for building diverse workplaces,’ explains Alistair Lane, Executive Director of EAS. The one-hour event will be cochaired by Nofima’s Synnøve Helland, who is a board member of EATIP and leader of the Gender Panel of EURASTIP, and Rob Fletcher, senior editor at The Fish Site – which has been responsible for a number of women in aquaculture initiatives over the course of the last year.

The event will include a panel discussion featuring prominent figures from academia and the aquaculture industry, who will discuss key issues related to the benefits of diversity in the workforce and ways to ensure that aquaculture organizations pursue recruitment policies that allow talented people, regardless of gender, to succeed.

‘It is vital for the further success of the industry that it can compete successfully for the best talents.

This session is a unique possibil-

ity for managers from industry and academia to learn what measures are working, so that others can learn how to recruit the competent women as well as men,’ says Ms. Synnøve.

The seminar will also include a Q&A and an insight into an innovative mentoring program which has been established to help fast-track ambitious and talented women to the top of the sector. More details of the event will be released in the coming months.

Huffman Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Reauthorize National Sea Grant College Program On April 30, Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), Chair of the Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee, introduced the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2019, bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program through 2025. The Sea Grant program, first established in 1966, allows the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collaborate with a network of states and universities on important research on issues facing America’s ocean,

coastal, and Great Lakes resources.

Huffman’s bipartisan bill will advance the long-running program’s capability to train generations of coastal and ocean scientists and to address regional and national issues in partnership with local resource managers, researchers, states, and universities.

The program supports communitybased work in coastal resiliency, fisheries management, ocean science, water quality improvement, and economic development through Sea Grant Extension programs.

Since it was created in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has used research, outreach, and education to address economic and social sustainability needs related to America’s oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes. In 2017 alone, the program reported $579 million in economic impact from a federal investment of $72.5 million. Additionally, the Sea Grant program’s work has created or sustained 2,500 businesses and 12,500 jobs nationwide.

»

9

NAA NOTES

National Aquaculture Association Notes NAA Comments on the “Waters of the United States” Definition Public comments were due last month on the proposed definition by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning Waters of the United States. The definition limits the jurisdictional reach of the agencies under the authorities

10 »

granted to them by the Clean Water Act. The National Aquaculture Association (NAA) focused on issues within the definition pertinent to US aquaculture. Those comments were: • Codify the definition in two places, with one definition provided in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), for the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers and the same definition in Title 40, CFR, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Establishing a universal definition in a single section of each title will prevent confusion, reduce potential conflicting interpretations, and better ensure that future regulatory revisions incorporate the appropriate defined terms.

• Include territorial seas seamlessly within the definition by acknowledging the term but not limiting or restricting agency authority because of its use as a maritime boundary definition in other regulations.

• Eliminate the “interstate waters” as a separate category as it is clear Congress intended navigable waters to be the operative term in developing regulations.

• Adopt the proposed definitions for impoundments, tributaries, ditches, lakes, ponds and adjacent wetlands.

These definitions are influenced by the proposed definitions that we support for: ephemeral, intermittent and perennial.

• Include in the definition for adjacent wetlands the well-established and recognized three-part test to establish wetland boundaries by hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. This established wetland delineation practice is understood by the agencies and public and will contribute to consistent regulatory implementation.

We also emphasized and shared the economic impact of Clean Water Act regulations on US aquaculture reported in papers by Doctors Carole Engle and Jonathan van Senten and Mr. Gary Fornshell relative to baitfish, gamefish and salmonid farms.

Now Available - Algae Culture Extension Short-Course: Macroalgae A free Algal Culture Extension ShortCourse (ACES) is being offered by the Algae Technology Education Consortium (ATEC). Part 1 covers Macroalgae and is designed for those in commercial marine industries seeking to learn the basic skills to grow seaweeds. This seaweed course is an online compendium of videos chosen and newly created to give a thorough initiation into the culture of various commercial seaweeds, including kelps, for those interested in getting started in algal-based aquaculture. The course includes: a large number of videos produced by several New England Sea Grant programs, international content and guided PowerPoint presentations.

Additionally, newly created videos include: industry pioneers; history of wild harvesting and culturing macroalgae; seaweed products; longline setting; harvesting methods; drying techniques; conversations describing peoples’ experiences in seaweed culture; and the permitting process.

There are several longer webinars and pdf documents about algae culture that can be downloaded.

ACES is a free on-line curriculum that covers both the U.S. perspective as well as inclusion of seaweed culture around the world. This course includes 53 online videos and 17 publications. Marine Agronomy offers commercial fishermen, lobstermen, finfish and shellfish farmers the opportunity to grow seaweeds adding a second income stream. Improve your skill set and techniques - register at http://www.algaefoundationatec.org/aces_intro.html .

Support Needed for the S. 600 Modernizing Agricultural Transportation Act Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) have introduced S. 600 Modernizing Agricultural Transportation Act which would establish a working group at the Department of Transportation to examine the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations and the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) regulations. U.S. Representative Greg Pence (R-IN-06) and House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN-07), introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives (H.R. 2460). » 11

NAA NOTES

This legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a working group within 120 days of enactment charged with identifying obstacles to the “safe, humane, and market-efficient transport of livestock, insects, and other perishable agricultural commodities” and developing guidelines and recommending regulatory or legislative action to improve the transportation of these commodities. The bill designates various stakeholders that the working group would need to consult and ensures it will consider certain issues, including: • The impact of existing HOS rules under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations • Incompatibilities and other challenges and concerns caused by the HOS rules and ELD rule provisions • Initiatives and regulatory changes that maintain and protect highway safety and allow for the “safe, efficient, and productive marketplace transport” of livestock, insects, and perishable agricultural commodities and • Other related issues that the Secretary considers appropriate.

The working group shall be composed of a cross section of the transportation and agricultural communities, at the Secretary’s discretion, but will include the Department of Agriculture, individuals with knowledge and expertise that includes highway safety, the commercial motor vehicle and transportation industries, animal husbandry, and the transportation of livestock, insects, and agricultural commodities.

12 »

Within one year after it is established, the working group is to submit a report to the Secretary that includes its findings as well as initiatives and regulatory and legislative changes that the working group identifies as necessary to protect highway safety and allow for the safe, efficient, and productive marketplace transport of the named commodities. Within 120 days of receiving the working group’s report, the Secretary is to propose regulatory changes, taking into account the findings and recommendations of the working group. These regulatory changes shall include changes to the HOS regulations and changes to the ELD regulations. The bill would also suspend the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 31137(a) – (f) as it would apply to commercial motor vehicles (CMV) hauling livestock, insects, or perishable agricultural commodities until the date on which the Secretary proposes regulatory changes.

Industry support has been expressed by the following organizations: National Pork Producers Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, United States Cattlemen’s Association, Livestock Marketing Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Honey Producers Association, American Horse Council, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Sheep Industry Association and the National Aquaculture Association. Ask your Senator to support S. 600 or to be added as a co-sponsor.

Protect Your Farm and Hatchery Chemicals from use in a Terrorist Attack Most Americans may not think about chemicals when they are in the seafood aisle of the grocery store or casting their line into a lake when they go fishing, but chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide for disinfecting tanks, are critical to commercial fish farming and hatcheries.

When used properly, these chemicals assist aquaculture farms and hatcheries in providing our nation with the seafood we consume. In the wrong hands, however, some of these chemicals can also be used for great harm.

What is CFATS? The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program focuses precisely on filling this chemical security gap.

Authorized by Congress in 2006, CFATS identifies and regulates facilities that possess specific highrisk chemicals at certain quantities and concentrations—known as chemicals of interest (COI)—to ensure they have security measures in place that reduce the risks associated with the COI. Appendix A of the CFATS regulation lists more than 300 COI and their respective screening threshold quantity (STQ), concentration, and security issues for which they are regulated. Any facility, including aquaculture farms and hatcheries, that meets or exceeds the STQ for any COI must report those chemicals to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through an online survey called a Top-Screen.

What’s Next? If your facility possesses any COI at or above the STQ and concentration listed in Appendix A, register for a Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) account, at https://csat-registration.dhs.gov/.

Fill out a Top-Screen, an easyto-use online survey facilities use to report their chemical holdings and facility information to DHS. Based

on the information provided in the Top-Screen, DHS assesses the overall risk of the facility. Facilities assessed as “high risk” by DHS are required to submit a security plan tailored to the risks associated with their chemicals. More than 150 DHS Chemical Security Inspectors are located nationwide to assist high-risk facilities identify and implement security measures, and conduct inspections to ensure compliance with the CFATS regulation.

Failure to Comply or Meet Required Security Standards: The Department has the authority to issue an enforcement action against any chemical facility found to be in violation of CFATS. Failure to comply with the regulation may result in the imposition of a civil penalty. DHS is committed to providing CFATS

resources and tools to facilities with COI. Appendix A Chemicals of Interest (COI) List can be accessed at: www.dhs.gov/publication/cfatscoi-list and the CFATS Penalty Policy is outlined at: www.dhs.gov/ cfats-penalty-policy .

Request a CFATS Presentation to learn about any part of the CFATS regulation from submitting a Top-Screen to editing a security plan: www.dhs.gov/request-cfatspresentation. Request a Compliance Assistance Visit to learn what to expect from a CFATS Authorization or Compliance Inspection: www.dhs.gov/cfats-requestcompliance-assistance-visit . The CFATS Knowledge Center is an online repository of FAQs, articles, and more: https://csat-help.dhs. gov/ . The CSAT Help Desk pro-

vides timely support to chemical facility owners and operators. Call 1-866-323-2957 or email CSAT@ hq.dhs.gov. For any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact CFATS@hq.dhs.gov .

» 13

NEWS FROM THE AADAP

News from the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Save the Date!

Looking for an excuse to visit Bozeman, Montana in 2019? Then it may be time to start making travel plans to attend the 25th Annual U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Aquaculture Drug Approval Coordination Workshop. The Workshop will be held in Bozeman, MT on Monday July 29thThursday August 1st, 2019. Please see the link: https://www.fws.gov/ fisheries/aadap/aquaculture_workshop.html for a tentative workshop schedule, as well as lodging, registration, and presentation details. Make sure to visit our workshop webpage to register and make your lodging reservations as soon as possible!

Topics to be discussed include aquaculture drug approval research and the progress of associated efforts. Please contact Julie Schroeter with any workshop-related questions (julie_schroeter@fws.gov).

Schedule at a Glance (tentative): Monday, July 29th -Welcome Social at MAP Brewing Company, 5:00PM-8:00PM Tuesday, July 30th -Registration/ Packet Pick-up at Best -Western GranTree Inn, 8:00AM8:55AM -Workshop presentation session, 9:00AM-5:00PM -BBQ at Hyalite Reservoir, 6:00PM9:00PM Wednesday, July 31st -Workshop presentation session 8:00AM-3:30PM -Aquatic Drug Approval Coalition meeting 3:30PM-5:00PM 14 Âť

Thursday, August 1st -Workshop presentation session 8:00AM-12:00PM -Afternoon raft trip on the Madison River; includes post-float picnic 1:00PM-7:00PM We anticipate this year’s attendance to include representatives from numerous federal, state, tribal, and private partners, as well as drug company sponsors, university researchers, and other entities involved in aquatic animal drug approval efforts. In addition, several representatives from FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine are slated to attend.

Lodging: A small block of rooms has been reserved at the Best Western GranTree Inn (Workshop location) at the rate of $157 per night. Reservations must be made by June 29th, 2019 to secure the special rate. There are several other nearby hotels available if you are not able to reserve a room at the GranTree. Contact information for the Workshop hotel and a few alternative hotels is listed below.

As in the past, this year’s workshop is scheduled to overlap with Bozeman’s annual Sweet Pea Festival, so hotel rooms will be at a premium. Make your reservations early!

Best Western GranTree Inn (workshop location): 1325 N. 7th Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715; (406) 587-5261. Be sure to mention one of the following phrases to ensure you pay the special rate: AADAP19, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or AADAP Workshop.

Days Inn & Suites by Wyndham Bozeman: 1321 N. 7th Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715; (406) 414-6115 Holiday Inn Bozeman: 5 Baxter Ln., Bozeman, MT 59715; (406) 587-4561 Comfort Inn: 1370 N. 7th Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715; (406) 5872322

» 15

NEWS FROM THE AADAP

Registration: Registration cost is $80 and includes all Workshop presentation sessions, catered breaks and lunches, Monday night social at MAP Brewing Company, Tuesday evening picnic at Hyalite Reservoir, and Thursday afternoon rafting trip on the Madison River. Please register online via our Ticketbud site link on the Workshop webpage.

Presentations: Considering giving a presentation at this year’s Workshop? We’re looking for folks to present on any of the following (or related) topics: aquaculture drugs research (antimicrobials, parasiticides, anesthetics, spawning aids, and marking agents), disease models, and new, up-and-coming drugs.

If you’re interested in presenting, please contact Julie Schroeter (julie_schroeter@fws.gov).

We hope to see you this summer!

Thank you!

The Unmet Fish Drug Needs Survey Summary Report Although a number of new aquaculture drugs have been added to the collective fisheries “medicine chest” in the past 10-15 years, the number of FDA-approved drugs for aquatic animals is still very limited. Together

16 »

with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Drug Approval Working Group (AFWA/DAWG) and the National Aquaculture Association (NAA), AADAP conducted a survey to assess the current and future unmet drug needs of the aquaculture community in the U.S. The survey was meant to determine fish drug needs related to: 1) freshwater diseases/pathogens of concern to fisheries professionals, 2) nontherapeutic freshwater purposes (spawning, marking, sedation, sex reversal, etc.), and 3) culture and/ or management of marine fish species in seawater environments. The intention was to use the survey results to: 1) better incorporate national drug needs within the DAWG priorities and direction of effort, 2) engage with current drug sponsors or find new sponsors as needed, and 3) prioritize the generation of data to support new approvals or new expanded claims for drugs that are currently approved.

A total of 107 surveys were completed and returned to AADAP for compilation: 38 from federal facilities, 54 from state facilities, and 15 from private facilities. Eighty-two of the 107 respondents included

a disease concern for which they would like to see an effective FDAapproved drug. The top five disease concerns for all organization types combined (federal, state, and private) were, in order of level of concern: 1) columnaris, 2) external protozoans, 3) saprolegniasis/ other fungus, 4) copepods, and 5) bacterial gill disease. When determining the top disease concerns by organization type, federal facilities indicated saprolegniasis was the main concern, while state facilities indicated external protozoans were the main concern, and private facilities indicated copepods were the main concern.

Seventy-nine of the 107 respondents included a suggestion for a drug they would like to see approved for a therapeutic use. The top five drugs suggested for approval by all organization types combined were 1) hydrogen peroxide/35% PEROXAID®, 2) formalin, 3) emamectin benzoate (SLICE®), 4) potassium permanganate, and 5) florfenicol (Aquaflor®). When determining the top suggested drug for approval by organization type, federal and state facilities suggested hydrogen peroxide/35% PEROX-AID® and private facilities suggested emamectin benzoate (SLICE®).

Thirty-one of the 107 respondents noted a concern about an emerging disease for which there are no FDA-approved drugs or drugs in the approval pipeline. A total of 36 emerging diseases were mentioned.

When these diseases were categorized by type, the leading emerging concern for all respondents was parasites, followed by viruses, and then bacteria. When broken down by organization type, federal and state facilities were most concerned about emerging parasite problems, while private facilities were most concerned about emerging viral problems.

Looking at all emerging diseases individually, the top five were 1) whirling disease, 2) trematodes, 3)

iridovirus, 4) enteric redmouth disease (ERM), and 5) Flavobacterium. By organization type, the top emerging disease concern was ERM for federal facilities, whirling disease for state facilities, and iridovirus for private facilities. Looking at emerging disease concerns by species type, the majority of concern was for freshwater fish instead of marine fish. In addition, concern for nonsalmonid diseases was slightly higher than concern for salmonid diseases. Of non-salmonid species, there was slightly more concern for warm/cool water species than for ornamental species.

Seventy of the 107 returned surveys included a suggestion for a non-therapeutic drug need. Most suggestions fell into one of the following categories: sedation/ anesthesia, gender manipulation, skeletal marking, and spawning aids. Sedation was by far the top non-therapeutic drug need for all respondents, followed by gender manipulation, skeletal marking, and spawning aids.

Newest Hire AADAP is excited to announce one of our permanent positions has been filled. Julie Schroeter began her permanent appointment with AADAP’s Research Program on March 3rd. Julie has been working with the AADAP program since June 2018 in a four year term position. A second permanent hire for the Research Program is also in the works, and will be announced in the upcoming weeks.

Approved Aquaculture Drug Facts Did you know Chorulon® by Merck Animal Health (Chorionic Gonadotropin) is approved for the improvement of spawning function in male and female brood finfish? And did you know Formalin is approved for the control of external protozoa and monogenetic trematodes in finfish, as well as the control of fungi from the Saprolegniaceae family in finfish eggs? It’s also approved for controlling protozoan parasites in Penaeid shrimp.

For more information on dosing and limitations, please see AADAP’s Quick Desk Reference Guide to Approved Drugs for Use in Aquaculture at: https://www.fws.gov/ fisheries/aadap/PDF/2nd-Edition-FINAL.pdf All photos courtesy USFWS.

» 17

ARTICLE

Chef Investment in Aquaculture

British celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal, OBE famed through being the proprietor of The Fat Duck in Bray, Berkshire, one of five restaurants in Great Britain to have three Michelin stars (voted No. 1 in The World’s 50 Best Restaurants in 2005) has taken a bold step in Australian aquaculture.

Roy D. Palmer*

T

ogether with his Fat Duck group, Blumenthal has become a stakeholder in the inland fish farm company Murray Cod Australia (MCA) as reported in Australia today. The value of the deal was not made public, but MCA’s ASX-listed shares were worth 15.5 cents before trading - more than double their 6.1 cent value 12 months earlier – and following the news, the shares jumped to 16.5 cents.

MCA is an inland aquaculture enterprise based in the Riverina region of New South Wales, producing premium, pond-grown Murray cod. The species is iconic in Eastern Australia, being a large predatory freshwater fish of the genus Maccullochella in the family Percichthyidae. Although the species is called a cod in the vernacular, it is in no way related to the Northern Hemisphere marine cod species.

In the wild environment, Murray cod populations once inhabited almost the entire Murray-Darling basin, Australia’s largest river system, in very great numbers. Sadly, numbers have declined severely since the days of European colonization of Australia due to several causes, including severe overfishing, river regulation, 18 »

and habitat degradation. Murray cod have now been listed as a threatened species.

A long-lived fish, adult Murray cod are carnivorous and mainly eat other fish. The species exhibits a high

degree of parental care for their eggs, which are spawned in the spring and are generally laid in hollow logs or on other hard surfaces. Murray cod are a popular angling target and aquaculture species.

Aquaculture activity with the species was initially focused in the 1970s and 1980s on government hatcheries providing fingerlings for stocking in farm dams and for restocking Murray-Darling river systems for the recreational industry (the species is a prized catch) while also making the fish available through the aquarium trade, as they are a popular aquarium species in Australia. With the knowledge and experience gained, an interest from the commercial industry gathered momentum.

By the early 1990’s production of Murray Cod fingerlings was well established and there was increasing interest in farming this species.

Farmed Murray Cod first entered the market in the early 1990s and at that time farming involved two main production systems, namely cages in freshwater ponds and recirculating aquaculture systems. Currently, some farms use RAS for early-stage growout or to increase growth rates during winter, then continue grow-out of fingerlings in cages in ponds.

The Victorian Government invested heavily in this activity and particularly engaged in education and research through Deakin University, without huge success at that time.

The industry has seen many opera-

tors come and go over the years in both Victoria and NSW. MCA have taken a professional approach to marketing, utilizing the name ‘Aquna Sustainable Murray Cod’. The name ‘Aquna’ being derived from ‘Akuna’ – an Australian aboriginal word meaning “the way forward” and “flowing water”.

The company grows high-quality Murray cod in open ponds (or dams) on the Murray-Darling Basin river system – intimately associated with the fish’s native environment. MCA believes those conditions make their

A long-lived fish, adult Murray cod are carnivorous and mainly eat other fish. The species exhibits a high degree of parental care for their eggs, which are spawned in the spring and are generally laid in hollow logs or on other hard surfaces.

» 19

ARTICLE

cod the best-tasting on the market.

This is done some 550 kilometers (350 miles) from the coast.

From an eating aspect the species has a delicate, mild flavor, without the earthy taste often associated with wild freshwater fish, and a firm texture. Through farming, they can easily guarantee the size and quality at harvest. The species is coveted as a fine-dining fish at top restaurants and in Asian export markets.

Mr. Blumenthal has obviously been impressed with the product and has separately signed a five-year deal to be an advocate for Murray Cod’s pond grown Aquna Sustainable Murray Cod on social media and at industry events. As reported in the media,

MCA have stated through ASX “He will also provide assistance and advice with menu and product development”.

Murray Cod chairman Ross Anderson said Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement would further their product as a luxury food brand. In media he is reported as saying “Heston’s imaginative and inventive ideas will extend to menu and product development and will mesh perfectly with the innovative ethos of the team at MCA”.

Blumenthal advocates scientific understanding in cooking, for which he has been awarded honorary degrees from Reading, Bristol and London universities and made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He is

a pioneer of multi-sensory cooking, food pairing and flavor encapsulation. He has described his ideas in books, newspaper columns and a TV series.

Separately it has been reported that Mr. Blumenthal said he was delighted to be on board. “The innovative way they have created a luxury fish product by combining natural processes evolved over millions of years with cutting edge technology aligns with the way I approach food and cooking, resulting in fantastic quality”.

For further reading please note that in 2016 “A Review of Research and Development Needs for Murray Cod Aquaculture in Australia” was carried out for the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) which details many aspects of the history, industry development issues and research priorities. Full document can be found at: https://www. dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0010/681580/Report-Murraycod-R-And-D-needs,-Dr-MichaelRimmer.pdf Roy Palmer has been involved in the seafood industry since 1972. His experience includes working for the Asia Pacific Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society and he is the current executive director for the International Association of Seafood Professionals and Aquaculture without Frontiers.

Roy.D.Palmer@seafoodprofessionals.org All photos courtesy of Aquna Sustainable Murray Cod

20 »

» 21

ARTICLE

Selection of carbohydrateactive probiotics

from the gut of carnivorous fish fed plant-based diets Cláudia R. Serra, Eduarda M. Almeida, Inês Guerreiro, Rafaela Santos, Daniel L. Merrifield, Fernando Tavares, Aires Oliva-Teles & Paula Enes *

The gastrointestinal microbiota plays a critical role on host health and metabolism. This is particularly important in teleost nutrition, because fish do not possess some of the necessary enzymes to cope with the dietary challenges of aquaculture production.

F

ish aquaculture is greatly dependent on fish meal (FM), an unsustainable commodity and a source of organic pollutants, almost exclusively provided by fisheries. This is particularly obvious in carnivorous fish production due to their high dietary protein requirement (40–50%), which is mainly provided by FM. Plant feedstuffs (PF) are sustainable alternatives to FM, and among them, soybean meal (SBM), rapeseed meal (RSM), and sunflower meal (SFM), have been acknowledged as the most promising due to their high protein level, world-wide availability, and reasonable price. However, the nutritive value of PF is limited by the presence of several anti-nutritional factors, including high levels of nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP) which are not digested by fish. NSP content in SBM, RSM, and SFM averages 22– 24%. The major NSP components are pectic polysaccharides with arabinose, galactose, and xylose residues predominating in RSM, SBM and SFM, respectively.

Live microorganisms that confer a health benefit to the host when administered in adequate amounts are denominated probiotics. Among

22 »

the bacterial species currently used as probiotics, sporeformers show critical advantages: bacterial spores are remarkably resistant dormant structures, permitting good shelf-storage. Additionally, spores are easily produced in large scale and can be dehydrated, facilitating feed incorporation. Importantly, spores survive gut transit since they are acid and bile tolerant, and become successfully established in the gut. In particular, Bacillus subtilis spores, which enjoy GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) status from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are included in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) list of Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS), experience exponentially growing applications in biomedicine and biotechnology.

Screening fish gut microbiota for bacteria capable of producing extracellular digestive enzymes that hydrolyse NSP present in PF (such as mannans, glucans, xylans, arabinans, and galactans), is a promising and unexplored research topic. This study describes the isolation, identification and characterization of marine fish gut sporeformers capable of producing carbohydrate-active enzymes that hydrolyse NSP and accesses their potential as

probiotics for use in aquafeeds. Sporeformers were isolated from the gut of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juveniles challenged with PF diets based on SBM, RSM or SFM, which have different NSP profiles.

Materials and Methods In the first of two trials, three experimental diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous (47% crude protein), isolipidic (17% crude lipid) and to contain 30% of soy bean meal (SBM diet), 30% of rapeseed meal (RSM diet) or 30% of sunflower meal (SFM diet). A fish meal (FM) based diet was used as the control diet (CTR diet). Fish oil and pregelatinized maize starch were the main lipid and carbohydrate sources, respectively. For the second trial, five experimental diets were formulated to be isoproteic (46%) and isolipidic (18%). A negative control diet (diet CTR−), using fish meal (FM) and plant feedstuffs (PF) (soybean meal, rapeseed meal, corn gluten, wheat gluten, and pea protein concentrate) as protein sources at a ratio of 20:80 of protein from FM: PF, respectively. Three other diets were formulated identical to diet CTR−, with the incorporation separately of 2 lyophilised pure spores preparations (diet FI99 and diet FI162, respectively) at a dose commonly used in fish diets (1 × 109 spores g feed−1), or mixed in equal parts (diet MIX). The fifth diet was a FM-based diet and was used as positive control (diet CTR+).

In all diets of the second trial, fish oil was used as the main lipid source. All diets were supplemented with bicalcium phosphate to avoid phosphorus imbalance.

Both trials were conducted in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) equipped with 15 fiberglass tanks of 100 L capacity, thermo-regulated to 22.7 ± 0.8 °C and supplied with a continuous flow of seawater (36.0 ± 0.5 g L−1 salinity, circa 7 mg L−1 oxygen). Photoperiod was set to 12:12 h light: dark using artificial illumination. In the first trial, 12 groups of 20 sea bass with an initial mean body weight of 34.4 g were distributed to each tank and the

Fig. 1 Morphological diversity (Panels A–J) of representative sporeforming fish isolates obtained from European sea bass intestinal contents. Photographs (at the same scale) of colonies grown 24 h in LB (Luria-Bertani) agar medium, are at the same scale defined in Panel J (0.5 cm). Panel K depicts a representative image of the different development stages of sporulation [(a) vegetative cell, (b) sporulating cell (forespore engulfed by the mother cell) and (c) free spore] that were observed in each sporeforming isolate by phase-contrast microscopy.

Sporulation was induced by nutrient exhaustion in solid Difco Sporulation Medium (DSM).

experimental diets randomly assigned to triplicate groups. The trial lasted 45 days. In the second trial, that lasted 9 weeks, 15 groups of 18 fish with an initial mean body weight of 29.0 g were established and the experimental diets randomly assigned to triplicate tanks.

In both trials, fish were fed by hand, twice daily, 6 days a week, until apparent visual satiation. Utmost care was taken to avoid feed losses.

On sampling days (at day 15 after the beginning of the trial and at the end of the trial, or day 45), fish were fed several times over the day to guarantee that intestines were full at sampling time. At 4 h after the first meal, 3 fish per tank were randomly sacrificed for collection of biological samples under aseptic conditions. To overFig. 2 (A) Diversity of sporeforming genera obtained from European sea bass digesta samples.

(B) Distribution of bacterial species within the Bacillus genus depicted in panel A.

come inter-fish variation the resulting material was pooled into one sample per tank to assess differences between dietary groups. Each sample of digesta (1 g) obtained from fish fed the different dietary treatments was homogenized in 9 ml of buffered saline solution (0.9%). Serial dilutions were prepared and spread on the surface of agar medium. Sporeformers were isolated and characterized for morphology, to confirm spore production by phase-contrast microscopy. Colonies representing different morphologies were picked at random and purified by re-streaking on agar plates of the same media, before storage at −80 °C in LB broth with 30% glycerol. Sporeformers isolates were routinely grown aerobically at 37 °C in LB or DSM. The laboratory strain B. subtilis 168 (BGSC1A1) was used as a control in most of the experiments described here.

Each sporeformer isolate was cultured on solid M9 minimal medium76 = supplemented with 0.2% (w/v) of each of the following carbohydrates: D-glucose (G7528), Dfructose (F3510), D-xylose (X3877), L-arabinose (A3256), D-galactose (G0750) and D-mannose (63580).

Xylooligosaccharides (XOS) and Galactooligosaccharides (GOS), commercially available prebiotics, were added at the same concentration (0.2%). Growth after 24 h at 37 °C was assessed by measuring the colony volume on fixed areas with local background subtraction. Quantification of carbohydrate utilization was performed in liquid M9 minimal medium

alone or supplemented with 0.2% of the different carbohydrates previously tested after an overnight enrichment in liquid LB at 37 °C with agitation.

Identification was carried out for all isolates with promising extracellular carbohydrolytic activities. To tentatively obtain a set of primers specific for the genes encoding Non-Starch Polysaccharides degrading enzymes (NSPases), an initial search was conducted at the Protein Knowledgebase – UniProtKB. A file containing bacterial secreted glycosyl hydrolases (GH) was then created and the ones involved in the utilization of NSP of interest were chosen for further analysis. The protein sequence of each individual enzyme was used to search for similar proteins in the translated nucleotide database (tblastn) (http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov) and to make nucleotide alignments between the sequences obtained. Regions of sequence conservation were chosen to design primer pairs, and PCR amplification was done adjusting the annealing temperature to 55 °C and the extension time to 30 s.

The antimicrobial activity of selected sporeforming isolates was assessed by a colony overlay assay, using different fish pathogens as targets.

Zones of growth inhibition around the producer strains spots after 24 h incubation at 25 °C (for Photobacterium damselae, Vibrio harveyi, Tenacibaculum maritimum and Aeromonas bivalvium) or 37 °C (for Staphylococcus aureus) were considered as positives and the corresponding growth-inhibition halo diameters measured (mm). A cellfree supernatant screening assay was performed by inoculating BHI or Marine Agar (for T. maritimum) plates with overnight cultures of indicator strains, assuring a uniform and complete coverage of the agar plate. After 15 minutes, 1 cm holes were made in the agar and consequently filled with 200 μl of cell-free supernatant of each producer strain, from stationary phase LB cultures grown overnight at 37 °C. Zones of growth inhibition around the producer strain supernatant holes obtained after 24 h incubation at 25 °C » 23

ARTICLE

or 37 °C (as before) were considered as positive.

Preparation of highly purified spores was done according to a new purification method recently described.

Potential resistance to gut transit was evaluated by determining the acid and bile tolerance of each selected isolate.

For that purpose, 48 h DSM spores preparations were heat-treated for 20 min at 80 °C to eliminate vegetative cells and harvested by centrifugation.

After a double wash with Phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), serial dilutions made in B&W salts were plated onto LB agar plates to determine the initial bacterial counts. Spores were then diluted in 1 volume of 0.85% NaCl, pH 2, containing 3 mg ml−1 pepsin, to mimic stomach conditions. Following 4 h incubation, serial dilutions made in B&W were again plated onto LB agar plates to determine bacterial counts, and, after a single wash with PBS, spores were re-suspended in LB, pH 8 containing 1 mg ml−1 pancreatin and 0.3% bile salts. Bacterial incubation continued for 24 h at 37 °C with agitation to mimic passage through the intestine. Finally, serial dilutions made in B&W were again plated onto LB agar plates to determine the final bacterial counts. All plates were incubated at 37 °C during 24 h prior to colony counts.

Results More than 200 bacterial fish isolates (FI) were obtained from the heat-treated gut contents of European sea bass fed each dietary situation. Following purification, 160 isolates representing different samples and colony morphologies were chosen for analysis.

Spore production of each isolate, induced by nutrient exhaustion on sporulation medium, was confirmed by phase-contrast microscopy. All isolates were identified by partially sequencing the 16S rRNA gene, revealing predominance (60%) of Bacillus species among European sea bass gut contents. Oceanobacillus were also present, although to a lower extent (~10%), with the remaining isolates distributed 24 »

Fig. 3 Carbohydrolitic profile of representative sporeformers (A–L) isolated from the gut of European sea bass, when cultured on solid minimal medium (M9) alone or supplemented with D-glucose (Gluc), D-fructose (Fruct), D-xylose (Xyl), L-arabinose (Arab), D-galactose (Galact), D-mannose (Mann), Xylooligosaccharides (XOS) and Galactooligosaccharides (GOS). All photographs are at the same scale.

between the genera Lysinibacillus and Sporosarcina (with 5% each), Aneurinibacillus and Virgibacillus (with less than 1% of the isolated population, each).

Identification to the species level was in most cases inconclusive. Nevertheless, the great majority (>60%) of the isolates belonging to the Bacillus genus fall in the B. cereus group (B. cereus, B. anthracis, B. thuringiensis, B. mycoides, B. pseudomycoides, B. weihenstephanensis, and B. cytotoxicus) or in the B. subtilis - B. licheniformis clade (B. subtilis, B. vallismortis, B. mojavensis, B. atrophaeus, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. licheniformis, B. sonorensis, and B. tequilensis).

The entire collection of 160 isolates was screened for carbohydrolytic potential by substrate specific culturebased methods, and different profiles of carbohydrate utilization could be assigned to different isolates. The great majority of isolates grew well on glucose-supplemented medium, but

not in the other carbohydrates tested.

The quantification of each colony density or volume revealed 43 isolates with higher and/ or broader carbohydrolytic capacity. These selected 43 isolates were checked for minimal biosafety requirements to be considered as putative probiotics, following the guidelines from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The majority (33) of the isolates exhibited some degree of hemolytic activity when cultivated on 5% sheep blood agar plates, with 14 isolates showing strong or β hemolysis. Half of the isolates were revealed to be resistant to at least 1 antimicrobial, and 10 isolates were resistant to 2 or more antimicrobials, defined as MR in Table 2. These tests allowed selecting a strict group of 11 isolates as good candidates to become probiotics for European sea bass, and isolates showing strong hemolytic activity or

Fig. 4 (A) Carbohydrolitic profile of the best 11 sporeformers (codes in the x axis) isolated from the intestines of European sea bass, when cultured in liquid minimal medium supplemented with D-glucose, D-fructose, D-xylose, L-arabinose, D-galactose, D-mannose, Xylooligosaccharides (XOS) and Galactooligosaccharides (GOS) for 24 h at 37 °C with agitation. Growth was quantified by measuring the optical density (OD) at an absorbance of 600 nm. The results presented are the average of three independent experiments with error bars representing the standard deviation. (B) PCR detection of genes coding for β-glucanase (bglS), levanase or β-Dfructofuranosidase (sacC), mannan endo-1,4-β-mannosidase (gmuG), endo-1,5-α-L-arabinanase (abnA) and arabinoxylan arabinofuranohydrolase (xynD) carbohydrases in the genome of fish isolates (FI numbers on top of the figure). The amplicon size, in base pairs (bp) is depicted on the right. Figure was constructed using parts of different gels.

B

any antimicrobial resistance to the different classes of antibiotics tested were not further studied.

The selected 11 isolates were then simultaneously cultured to quantify bacterial growth after 24 h in liquid M9 supplemented with the different carbohydrates.

The results from 3 independent experi-

ments allowed the elimination of fish isolates FI87 and FI89 from the follow-up tests, after revealing their low capacity to metabolize the carbohydrates tested. The presence of specific carbohydrase coding genes in these 11 isolates was investigated using oligonucleotide primers designed to target genes cod-

ing for β-glucanase (bglS), levanase or β-D-fructofuranosidase (sacC), mannan endo-1,4-β-mannosidase (gmuG), endo-1,5-α-L-arabinanase (abnA), and arabinoxylan arabinofuranohydrolase (xynD). No PCR amplification was obtained for the most promising isolates (FI187 and FI226), while all tar-

» 25

ARTICLE

get genes seem to be present in the worst fish isolates FI87 and FI89.

Sporeforming isolates FI92, FI99, FI123, FI142, FI57, FI162, FI164, FI187, and FI226, that simultaneously met the minimal safety requirements to be eligible as probiotics and were the most efficient isolates in metabolizing the carbohydrates tested, were further characterized to determine their sporulation efficiency, an important characteristic for future industrial production and feed incorporation. Isolates FI164, FI187, and FI226 did not reach a minimum titer of 107 ml−1 heat-resistant cells, after 24 h sporulation induction by nutrient exhaustion in DSM liquid medium and were discarded from subsequent tests. Furthermore, FI187 and DI226 did not even reach that minimum level of total (viable) cells, revealing them to be inadequate for future industrial applications. With the exception of FI123, the remaining six isolates presented an efficiency of sporulation higher than 70%, which anticipates a high suitability for costeffective spore production.

Next, the potential to survive passage through the gastrointestinal tract, important for in vivo efficacy, was determined by exposure to sequential simulated stomach and intestinal conditions. Purified spores of isolates FI92, FI99, FI123, FI142, FI57 and FI162 were first subjected, over 4 h, to acidified NaCl containing pepsin, to mimic stomach conditions, followed by 24 h exposure to alkalinized LB medium containing pancreatin and bile salts. While 4 h in simulated stomach conditions had nearly no effect on the isolates’ survival, the subsequent 24 h exposure to simulated intestinal conditions led to a reduction in each bacterial population.

In particular, cell survival was dramatically decreased in isolates FI92 and FI157, similarly to what was observed to the standard strain B. subtilis 168. Isolates FI99 and FI162, which showed higher sporulation efficiency, and consequently higher cell number at time 0, seemed to be the best fit to survive in the gut.

26 »

Fig. 5 Titer of viable cells present in 24 h DSM cultures of each sporeformer fish isolate (codes in x axis) before (grey, total cells) and after (blue, sporulating or heat resistant cells) a 20 min heat treatment at 80 °C. Sporulation was induced by nutrient exhaustion in liquid Difco Sporulation Medium (DSM) at 37 °C, 150 rpm.

Numbers on top of the panel correspond to the percentages (%) of sporulation calculated as the ratio between sporulating cells and total cells. Bacillus subtilis 168 was used as control and the results are the average of three independent experiments with error bars representing the standard deviation.

Fig. 6 Viability of spores from each sporeformer isolate (codes in x axis) when exposed for 4 h (T4, blue) to simulated stomach conditions (0.85% NaCl, pH 2, containing 3 mg ml−1 pepsin) followed by 24 h (T24, yellow) exposition to simulated intestinal condition (LB, pH 8 containing 1 mg ml−1 pancreatin and 0.3% bile salts). The initial viable counts (time 0 or T0) are depicted in grey Bacillus subtilis 168 was used as control and the results are the average of three independent experiments with error bars representing the standard deviation.

The remaining four isolates at this point (FI99, FI123, FI142, FI162) were characterized for their antimicrobial activity against several fish pathogenic strains, namely P. damselae, V. harveyi, T. maritimum, A. bivalvium, and S. aureus.

All isolates showed some extent of antimicrobial activity. Strain FI99 was successful in inhibiting the growth of S. aureus, T. maritimum and to a lower extent V. harveyi. FI123 was only active against Ph. damselae. FI142 inhibited the growth of S. aureus and of Ph. damselae while FI162 was active against Ph. damselae, V. harveyi and T. maritimum.

The control B. subtilis 168 could also effectively inhibit the growth of S. aureus, Ph. damselae and T. maritimum, but this last inhibitory activity was lost when us-

ing its cell-free supernatant as opposed to the killing activity observed with the cell-free supernatant of FI162, clearly indicating that this strain produces an extracellular inhibition molecule(s) capable of inhibiting T. maritimum growth.

In an attempt to infer the germination capacity of these strains inside the animal gut, spores of the same four isolates (FI99, FI123, FI142 and FI162) were subject to different germinants, namely L-alanine and a mixture of KCl, glucose, fructose and Lasparagine (AGFK). For the conditions tested, isolates FI123 and FI142 were unable to germinate, leading to the selection of isolates FI99 and FI162 as the most promising probiotic strains of the 160 initial isolates. A second fish-

Table 1 Probiotics performance

Fig. 7 Antimicrobial activity of sporeforming fish isolates FI99, FI123, FI142 and FI162 against different fish pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus Photobacterium damselae, Vibrio harveyi, Aeromonas bivalvium and Tenacibaculum maritimum). (A) Growth inhibition screened by a colony overlay assay, where the producer strains were inoculated as spots on Luria-Bertani agar plates, grown for 24 h and then covered by Soft Marine Agar (for Tenacibaculum maritimum) or Soft Brain Heart Infusion Agar (for all the other) inoculated with indicator pathogenic strains. (B) Growth Inhibition screened by a cell-free supernatant assay in which a Marine Agar plate seeded with Tenacibaculum maritimum was perforated with 0.5 cm holes and filled with 100 µl of filtered culture medium from overnight grown sporeforming isolates. Bacillus subtilis 168 (Bsub) was used as control.

All photographs are at the same scale.

growth trial assay using challenging plant-based diets (CTR−), revealed that supplementation with 1 × 109 spores g feed−1 of FI99 and FI99 + FI162 (Mix) has a positive effect on the final body weight, the weight gain, the feed efficiency and the protein efficiency ratio of European sea bass juveniles, with a tendency to get closer to a FM- based diet (CTR+).

Conclusions The role of gut microbiota in shaping human and animal health is well established, and the potential health benefit of manipulating the gut ecosystem using probiotics is increasingly being accepted. In carnivorous fish such as European sea bass, an ideal probiotic should not only enhance resistance to pathogens (i.e. by competitive ex» 27

clusion, the most common criteria for selection of probiotic strains) but also help fish in their current dietary challenges, including the utilization of plant-feedstuffs. In this study, the application of PF-based dietary pressure to modulate European sea bass gut microbiota composition and corresponding metabolic functions revealed itself to be a successful strategy to find carbohydrate-active bacteria with probiotic potential. Both strains have been deposited in the Spanish culture collection (CECT- Colección Española de Cultivos Tipo), under the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure, and, were submitted for protection with a Provisional Patent Application (PT No. 115101).

Adapted from Selection of carbohydrate-active probiotics from the gut of carnivorous fish fed plant-based diets.

Cláudia R. Serra, Eduarda M. Almeida, Inês Guerreiro, Rafaela Santos, Daniel L. Merrifield, Fernando Tavares, Aires Oliva-Teles & Paula Enes. Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 6384 (2019) http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/

ARTICLE

APHIS TiLV

Detection Summary By: Aquaculture Magazine

Tilapia Lake Virus (TiLV) was first reported in 2014 and is found in Asia, Africa, Central America and South America. Recently The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service presented information describing the first documented case in the United States.

T

he U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, organized a conference call on May 6, 2019 to present information describing the first documented case of Tilapia Lake Virus (TiLV) in the United States.

The agency’s goal is to prevent the TiLV from negatively impacting U.S. commercial tilapia facilities.

They are working closely with State partners and conducting an epide-

miologic investigation to determine how the disease entered the country and if any additional facilities may be impacted.

TiLV was first reported in 2014 and is found in Asia, Africa, Central America and South America.

It was also reported in aquaculture production facilities in six Mexican states. Veterinarians and scientists are working to fully understand the disease and how to best manage it.

Current scientific evidence suggests

Figure 1. A) Nile tilapia infected with TiLV displaying opacity of the eyes and skin erosions. B) Red tilapia infected in experimental challenge displaying coelomic distention, hemorrhages in the skin, and bulging eyes. Photos courtesy University of Florida IFAS Extension.

28 Âť

that TiLV spreads through direct contact with affected fish. Researchers are also investigating the role of disease transmission from parent to offspring. TiLV can be deadly to farmed and wild tilapia, with death rates between 10-90 percent.

Younger fish may be more affected by the disease. Signs of the disease may include: cloudy or bulging eyes, skin lesions such as darkening, bruising, ulcers or protrusion of the gills, and abdominal swelling. Fish may be slow-moving and off feed.

The agency reported the following information during the conference call: TiLV was initially found at an Idaho farm, in Nile tilapia imported from Thailand. The imported fish suffered about 20% mortality in young fish. The Idaho producer sells fingerlings and 1 to 2 pound live fish for human consumption.

To clear the farm, the farmer will be allowed to continue to sell to the live market.

Samples of infected fish were ultimately submitted to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory for confirmation. Following testing on April 26, the animals tested negative for TiLV. The facility has been released from quarantine by the Idaho State Veterinarian. Idaho will be declared free of TiLV once the Index facility disinfects. Infected fish were traced to two cases, one in Wyoming and one in Colorado, in farms that grow and sell tilapia to live markets.

They will be allowed to clear their farms by selling market-ready fish to their live markets.

TiLV was initially found at an Idaho farm, in Nile tilapia imported from Thailand.

To date no states have instituted, except Michigan, TiLV testing; however, that state has delayed TiLV testing pending establishment of diagnostic standards. There will likely be restriction on future imports and exports but this remains to be determined. The agency will begin negotiations with countries

that receive live tilapia from the United States. These negotiations will occur within the framework of bilateral trade agreements which will take time. Most likely receiving countries will have different testing requirements.

The World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) and Canada were also notified on May 6 that the United States is no longer free of TiLV. The agency noted there is considerable work to complete. There is not a standard test for TiLV, and it is not clear if frozen products can carry the virus (some say yes, others say no). The agency commented there remains a need to determine what the U.S. tilapia farming community wants to occur going forward.

The NAA’s Aquatic Animal Health Committee is working on this issue and for additional information or to provide comment, tilapia farmers should contact the NAA Office at naa@thenaa.net.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has published a Tilapia Lake Virus rapid risk assessment. Visit their website for a description of the pathogen, fish species that are susceptible, and biosecurity practices farmers should adopt.

Editor’s Note: This information is based on a communique from the National Aquaculture Association.

The NAA continually monitors topics of importance to U.S. aquaculture, often behind the scenes with no public recognition for their efforts. Also, the University of Florida’s IFAS Extension organization published an informational summary on TiLV in April. It is a valuable resource for anyone interested in learning more about this emerging threat. Ironically, the Introduction of the document stated that the virus had not yet been found in the United States… which was true at the time it was written…

» 29

ARTICLE

On-site production of

freshwater for control of sea lice in salmon cages Reduced salinity has proven to enable the control of infestation of two By: Asbjørn Bergheim, Martin Gausen, Nils Hovden, Henrik Grundvig and Carlo Barth *

S

ea lice is adapted to highsaline water, and long-term exposure of lice infected salmon to brackish water with salinity below 29 ppt gradually reduces the number of attached and motile stages of lice. In freshwater bath treatments, most sea lice will not survive after 12 - 24 hrs. exposure, despite some discordant reported test results. Efficient treatment of AGD is achieved in lowsaline water of less than 3 ppt, i.e. > 90% freshwater. Test results indicate that soft freshwater (low Ca and Mg content) are more favourable for the control of AGD in bath treatments compared to hard water.

Freshwater delousing of salmon and trout is commonly performed in well boats during 6 – 12 hrs. Such treatment normally causes high mortality of all lice stages (95%).

However, treatment in well boats is considered fairly stressful to the fish, especially due to the pumping operation from the cage to the boat. The need of repeated treatments throughout the growth cycle

30 »

major parasites in seawater salmon cages, sea lice and the amoeba causing amoebic gill disease (AGD).

therefore represents a considerable factor of stress, and additionally extra costs for the farmers. According to the Norwegian Veterinary Institute, use of freshwater during 2015 – 2017 increased from 31 to 96 treatments in total per year.

Transfer of infected fish from the cage to floating enclosures filled with freshwater supplied with extra oxygen has been a common way to treat AGD. In the same way as for lice treatment, short-duration well boat treatment of AGD-affected salmon presently dominates in Norway.

During repeated treatments in well boats the freshwater has to be frequently replaced from external sources such as lakes or rivers, to maintain acceptable water quality.

Reverse osmosis (RO) to remove salt from seawater via membrane filtering is a proven technology and a current alternative to collecting freshwater from onshore sources.

However, high cost level and limited capacity are the bottlenecks of desalination by RO, although newly

developed technologies contribute to increased capacity at reduced costs. Recent studies show that reduced energy consumption of RO is related to improvements of membrane permeability, efficiency of pumps and energy recovery devices. An RO based well boat has been used in Scotland for freshwater salmon treatment since 2016 (Salmon Business).

A recent R&D project focused on production of low-saline water by reverse osmosis as a protective factor to control sea lice at two commercial salmon farms on the west coast of Norway. The project named SelfTreatment, funded by The Research Board of Norway, involved several Norwegian research partners (SINTEF, Institute of Marine Research), industrial partners (Oxyvision AS, Akvafresh AS and others) and the aquaculture companies Marine Harvest and Salmar.

This article briefly describes the outcome of the desalination of seawater and the vertical distribution of salinity in the enclosures sup-

Freshwater delousing of salmon and trout is commonly performed in well boats during 6 – 12 hrs.

Such treatment normally causes high mortality of all lice stages (95%). However, treatment in well boats is considered fairly stressful to the fish, especially due to the pumping operation from the cage to the boat.

A

mixing of water between enclosure and cage. Thus, only vertical intrusion of seawater through the open bottom area impacted the salinity of the enclosure’s water column, to which desalinated water was added at the surface. The adjacent desalination unit, kept on a platform raft, produced 30 – 50 m3 water per hour and supplied two enclosures, i.e. each enclosure received 15 – 25 m3/hr.

To control the concentration of dissolved oxygen, oxygen was either injected by diffusers at 5 m depth or by oxygen addition in the desalinated inlet flow.

Monitoring Production rate of the desalination unit was constantly monitored to calculate daily inflow of low-salinity water to the enclosures. A couple of B samples of produced water were analysed for conductivity and the most abundant dissolved ions.

Image 1. Enclosure supplied with desalinated water within a commercial cage (A) and Akvafresh’s unit for desalination At three depths in the enclosures (B), Marine Harvest, site Haverøy. Credit: Aasmund Femsteinevik (A) and Håvard Lyng Fossum (B). (fixed sensor depths: 1, 3 and 5 m), temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen were monitored with high plied with desalinated water. The Design fish distribution inside of the en- Circular enclosures with circumfer- frequency throughout the sampling closures was determined using the ence of 50 m were put in commer- period. Similar routine sampling took CageEye echo sounder system and cial net cages (see Image 1). Tar- place at different depths in the cages, is presented in the last part of the paulin-covered sides from surface outside the enclosures, and at a referarticle. to 7 m depth excluded horizontal ence point outside the cage net. » 31

ARTICLE

The current velocity and direction at the reference point was continuously sampled at three depths (6, 13.5 and 18 m depth). Use of the CageEye echo sounder system during 18 days in October 2018 demonstrated the abundance of the fish inside the enclosure vs. outside in the ambient cage.

Results and comments Desalination and water column.

The production of desalinated water varied between 0 and 53 m3/hr at an average rate of 38 m3/hr or 912 m3/day (Figure 1). Thus, each enclosure received an average of 456 m3/ day. Operational problems caused no or reduced production for about two weeks during the three months of sampling. Interrupted desalination was mostly due to temporary failures of the electricity supply.

Desalinated water contained 2.4‰ salinity corresponding to a mixture of around 7% high-saline seawater and 93% of freshwater (Figure 2).

As previously mentioned, brackish water with less than 3‰ salinity efficiently removes the amoebic gill parasite (AGD).

On a daily basis, the average current velocity was relatively stable between 4 and 11 cm/s (min – max: 0 – 25 cm/s) during the 10week sampling period (Figure 3).

Fig. 1 Daily produced desalinated water (m3/hr), 1 February – 1 May 2018.

Fig. 2 Concentrations of chloride and sodium, and calculated salinity of desalinated sea water, 2 February 2018 (Salinity = Cl x 1.806).

Fig. 3

During repeated treatments in well boats the freshwater has to be frequently replaced from external sources such as lakes or rivers, to maintain acceptable water quality.

32 »

Current velocity at 6 m depth outside the cages (reference), 20 February – 1 May 2018.

Fig. 4 Daily fluctuation of salinity at three depths (1-3-5 m) in the enclosure.

Recent studies show that reduced energy consumption of RO is related to improvements of membrane permeability, efficiency of pumps and energy recovery devices.

The current pattern at all sampling depths (6 – 18 m depth) was almost similar including both velocity level and direction.

Fluctuating production of desalinated water caused strongly unstable salinity in the enclosures (Figure 4). At routine production of 30 – 35 m3/hr., the salinity range was 10 – 25‰ at 1 m and 18 - 28‰ at 5 m depth, respectively, while the supplied desalinated flow at the surface hardly affected the salt content at 5 m depth. Vertical flow moFig. 5 Ratio between fish abundance inside and outside the enclosure at four depths.

» 33

ARTICLE Fig. 6 Echogram plots inside and outside the enclosure (“pool”) indicating the fish abundance, 5 – 24 October 2018. The vertical red dashed line marks the day at which the lights were installed.

A recent R&D project focused on production of low-saline water by reverse osmosis as a protective factor to control sea lice at two commercial salmon farms on the west coast of Norway.

34 »

tion within the enclosures caused by current, waves/ wind and tidal fluctuations also contributed to unsteady brackish water layers.

The project also included control of dissolved oxygen in the enclosures (Table 1). Most of the time, the upper layer of the water column was supersaturated (> 120% DO) due to excess supply of pure oxygen injected by diffusers. Episodic oxygen deficit (50 - 55% DO) occurred a couple of times but only lasted for brief intervals. At the measured temperature (2 – 7 °C), short time exposure of oxygen deficit at the measured

Table 1 Salinity and dissolved oxygen at three depths (1 – 3 – 5 m) in an enclosure supplied desalinated water, 1 February – 1 May 2018.

Salinity (‰) Average (‰) Max Min N

1m 21.7 32.5 0 33

3m 27.4 33.0 11.0 39

Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) 3m 1m 117.4 123.9 Average (%) 149 149 Max 50 55 Min 37 35 N

5m 31.4 33.0 28.0 37

5m 101.1 109 91 31

level is not considered harmful for salmon.

Further tests to improve the stability of the brackish water layer in the enclosure include several technical attempts, such as optimization of: • Tarpaulin design (depth/ diameter/ shape) • Buoyancy capacity of enclosures • Oxygen injection system • Power supply of desalination unit Fish abundance analysis. Fish abundance measurements were performed with an echo sounder system (CageEye). The overall brightness of the echograms gives a clear picture of the ratio between the fish abundances inside and outside the enclosure. During the study period, the fish density was consistently lower inside the enclosure (“pool”) compared to outside (Figure 5).

Even below the brackish water layer (from surface to 3 m depth), the fish stock seemed to avoid the water column beneath the enclosure.

To statistically evaluate the effect of the enclosure on fish abundance, 12 hr. averages of the raw data were calculated to assess the time evolution of the fish abundance ratio (Figure 5). The relative abundance ratio at different depth layers (<6 – 18 m) in the enclosure (“pool”) vs. outside fluctuated between 0.2 and 0.5. On average, the fish abundance was reduced to 31 ± 4% inside the enclosure. Continuous surface lights, turned on October 17th, only slightly affected the fish’s behaviour.

A notable increase in population of the enclosure before installation of the lights may indicate that the fish gradually got used to the new component in the cage. To verify this trend a longer trial period would have been needed.

*Asbjørn Bergheim, Martin Gausen and Nils Hovden work at Oxyvision AS; Henrik Grundvig works at Hydroson AS and Carlo Barth works at CageEye AS.

» 35

ARTICLE

Growth and Nutrient Removal Efficiency of Sweet Wormwood

(Artemisia annua) in a Recirculating Aquaculture System for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

Aquaculture in most Sub-Saharan African countries, including Kenya, is mainly practiced in extensive and semi-intensive production systems. With the increasing scarcity of freshwater resources due

By Zipporah Gichana, Paul Meulenbroek, Erick Ogello, Silke Drexler, Werner Zollitsch, David Liti, Peter Akoll and Herwig Waidbacher *

A

quaponics is one of the most sustainable approaches that can reduce nutrient discharges from aquaculture and improve income from the production of both fish and crops. In aquaponic systems, the nutrient-rich aquaculture wastewater provides nutrients for plants grown in the hydroponic subsystem. Nutrient removal through plant and bacteria assimilation as well as microbial transformation processes reduce the dissolved nutrient concentrations which in turn improves overall water quality parameters for fish production. This symbiotic relationship conserves water compared to conventional aquaculture systems.

Research and development of aquaponic systems is becoming more popular in industrialized countries such as Europe and USA with recent innovations of decoupled aquaponics that can maintain optimal conditions for fish, bacteria and plants. However, the technology is still in its infancy stage in

36 Âť

to climate change as well as competition from other industries and increased demand from the rapidly growing population, a business-asusual approach may not be an option for the aquaculture sector. most African countries including Kenya, although the tropical climatic conditions are favorable for aquaponics.

It is challenging to provide plants with optimum nutrient concentrations while avoiding any negative impacts on the fish and bacteria because the concentrations of nutrients available for plant growth in an aquaponic systems depend on fish production and fish feeding rates. The appropriate fish feed ratio to plant growing area ranges from 15 to 180 g feed per square meter per day but it is complex to determine the exact fish feed to plant ratio because fish and plant species have different nutritional requirements that are dependent on the growth stage and external factors such as system design.

Plant density is another factor that influences nutrient concentrations in aquaponic systems. Too many or few plants per unit area can affect plant quality and reduce yields. If the density of plants is too high, the concentration of nutrients in the aquaponic system

decreases to levels that may be too low to sustain plant growth and result in nutrient deficiencies. Low plant density may increase nutrient production while nutrient uptake remains the same. This can result in nutrient accumulation and eventually fish mortalities. Therefore, selection of the required plant density that can make optimal use of available space, efficiently utilize nutrients and minimize inter- or intra-specific competition is necessary. However, few studies have systematically investigated the effects of plant density on the performance of aquaponic systems.

The effect of plant density on growth and nutrient removal capacity of Artemisia annua in aquaponic systems has not previously been examined. The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (1) the growth of A. annua in an aquaponic system, (2) the effect of plant density on the plant growth and water quality, and (3) the effect of plant density on the growth performance of Oreochromis

Fig. 1 The experimental aquaponic system (not drawn to scale). Grey circles represent fish rearing tanks, rectangular boxes; hydroponic units, grey and black lines with arrows indicate the direction of water flow with grey representing inlet and black the outlet.

niloticus in a small-scale aquaponic system in Kenya.

In this study, A. annua was selected because of its economic and technical values as a medicinal plant. A. annua is an annual shrub indigenous to China but it can grow in a wide range of temperate and subtropical environments. It belongs to the plant family Asteraceae and is used as a tea infusion in traditional Chinese medicine to treat fever. It is also a key ingredient in artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) effective in treating malaria, which is endemic in Africa. Additionally, A. annua readily absorbs nutrients from the soil due to its abundant and dense lateral roots. Other studies have shown that A. annua can be successfully grown in hydroponics, conditions similar to aquaponic systems. Moreover, the use of organic fertilizers has been reported as one of the most effective approaches to increase plant biomass and artemisinin content in A. annua.

Materials and Methods The study was conducted for 60 days from January to February 2018 in Aqualife fish farm, Machakos, Kenya.

Nine aquaponic systems were constructed under a greenhouse to provide uniform conditions for fish and plant growth. Each system consisted of three 500 L circular fish tanks and a 0.1125 m3 rectangular hydroponic unit (Figure 1). A 210 L plastic barrel filled with sand of different sizes was used for solids removal and a bio filter was constructed from an identical barrel and filled with pumice stones. The media were initially rinsed in clean water and sundried. Fish were stocked in tanks prior to the start of the experiment to allow bacteria to naturally colonize the bio filter substrates. Effluent water from fish tanks flowed by gravity to the sand filter where a centrifugal pump (0.5 HP, 8000 L/ hr) was used to pump the water (6 ± 0.24 L/min) to the biological filter.

Filtered water was then channeled by gravity to the hydroponic beds and

pumped back to the fish tanks. The water flow into each hydroponic unit was adjusted to approximately 1.42 ± 0.23 L/min and no additional fertilizers or pesticides were used. An air pump (>0.03 Mpa, 60 L/min) was used to aerate the fish tanks and the bio filtration unit.

The outlet from each hydroponic unit was constructed as a bell siphon with auto-mechanical water out movement initiating the ebb under water pressure. Three treatments, D1, D2 and D3 representing 48 plants/ m2, 24 plants/ m2, and control with 0 plants/ m2 respectively were replicated three times in the hydroponic units. The average weight of O. niloticus at the start of the experiment was 112.9 ± 6.7 g, 114.8 ± 6.3 g, and 110.5 ± 7.3 g in D1, D2, and D3 density treatments respectively. The fish were broadcast fed twice a day (09:00h and 16:00h) to satiation with 30% crude protein diet during the study period. Sweet wormwood seeds were sown in four seedling trays (filled with loam soil) three » 37

ARTICLE Fig. 2 Trends in ammonia (a), nitrate (b), nitrite (c) and phosphorus (d) concentrations at the outlet from D1 (blue), D2 (green) and D3 (red) aquaponic units during the experiment. Points are means of three treatment replicates and error bars show standard deviation.

Plant density is a factor

that influences nutrient concentrations in aquaponic systems. However, few studies have systematically investigated the effects of plant density on the performance of aquaponic systems.

38 »

weeks before the start of the experiment. Healthy seedlings with an average height of 4.51 ± 0.43 cm, 5.37 ± 1.87 cm and weight of 32. 63 ± 2.7 g, 14.33 ± 0.85 g in D1 and D2, respectively, were then transplanted into six hydroponic units.

Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity were measured twice daily in the fish tanks and hydroponic grow beds using Hach probes (HACH HQ40d Portable meter, Loveland, Colorado, USA). Water samples were collected in triplicate every two weeks from the fish tanks, inlet and outlet of the hydroponic units. On the day of collection, these samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus and alkalinity using a bench-top Hanna multi-parameter photometer (HI83200). The nutrient removal efficiencies of different plant

densities in the grow beds were calculated using the following equation: removal efficiency (%) = (Ci−Ce / Ci)×100 where Ci = concentration at inlet and Ce = concentration at outlet.

Fish were sampled biweekly and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g and the mean weight calculated. The performance of fish was evaluated using growth parameters such as weight gain, feed conversion ratio (FCR), survival rate in (%) and specific growth rate (SGR). The heights of the plants were measured biweekly while weights were measured at the start and end of the experiment. Final wet weights were measured after uprooting the whole plant from the hydroponic units. The fresh weights were then used to determine the relative growth rate (RGR), which was calculated as (lnW2−lnW1) / (t2−t1), where

Artemisia annua.

W2 and W1 are weights at time t2 and t1, t2 and t1 are initial and final periods and ln is the natural logarithm. Plant yield (kg / m2) was calculated using the fresh weight obtained per square meter in each treatment.

Results In general, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite concentrations were relatively high at the start of the experiment except in contrast to phosphorus (Figure 2). Ammonia concentration was high at the start of the experiment (week 2) but decreased with time. Nitrate and nitrite levels were inconsistent during the sampling period with high concentrations at week 2. Phosphorus concentration increased gradually during the sampling period with high concentrations at week 8 in the three aquaponic treatments. Moreover, all the nutrient concentrations were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in D1 than in D2 and D3 treatments. There were significant (p < 0.05) interactions between plant densities and sampling days for all nutrient concentrations except phosphorus.

The high plant density aquaponic system (D1) was effective in the removal of ammonia (64.1 ± 14.7%), nitrate (57.5 ± 4.2%), nitrite (47.0 ± 7.9%), and phosphorus (46.6 » 39

ARTICLE Fig. 3 Ammonia (a), nitrate (b), nitrite (c), and phosphorus (d), removal efficiency (%) of different plant densities in the aquaponic system. D1 represents 48 plants/m2, D2; 24 plants/m2 and D3; zero plants /m2 (control). Different letters above boxplots indicate significant differences between density treatment (one–way ANOVA) (p < 0.05).

The removal of nitrogen

through nitrification and denitrification processes is perhaps underestimated and nitrogen removal through plant assimilation overestimated in most aquaponic systems.

40 »

± 9.5%). The calculated percentages of nutrient removal in D2 were 44.5 ± 6.8%, 35.9 ± 5.9%, 30.4 ± 11.1% and 35.4 ± 7.8% for ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and phosphorus respectively.

The removal efficiency of ammonia (38.0 ± 12.1), nitrate (24.8 ± 9.2), nitrite (21.5 ± 11.9%) and phosphorus (27.3 ± 11.9%) was low in the control treatment (Figure 3). A significantly higher nutrient removal efficiency was observed in D1 (p < 0.05) than in D2 and D3. However, no significant differences were observed between D2 and D3 treatments except for nitrate removal (p < 0.05). All systems were more effective in removing ammonia than nitrate, nitrite and phosphorus.

The relative growth rate of A. annua ranged between 0.05 and 0.06 g/ d in the high density and low-density treatment. The final weight, weight gain and productivity of A. annua were significantly higher in the D1

(p < 0.05). However, there was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in plant height and relative growth rate.

Growth rates of fish in D1 and D2 treatments were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in the D3 treatment. The mean weight gain followed a similar trend to that of the growth rates. Feed conversion ratio and survival rate were comparable (p > 0.05) in all the treatments.

Discussion In this study, water quality parameters were within recommended limits for the culture of O. niloticus in tanks except for ammonia and dissolved oxygen. The high ammonia levels may be attributed to high pH levels (7.97) that favored the evolution of ammonia in the culture water. The pH in this study was less than 8.0 indicating that the proportion of toxic ammonia in the culture water was low. Mean dissolved

» 41

ARTICLE

Fish performed better in systems

with plants than in the control system that was without plants.

Results suggest that the growth of fish was influenced by water quality in the culture tanks.

oxygen was lower than recommended (5 mg/ L), and levels below 3.5 mg/ L affect growth and feed conversion.

The low DO levels could be attributed to the chemical transformation processes in the aquaponic system including fish respiration, production of high organic loads in the aquaponic system, activities of heterotrophs in addition to oxidation of nitrifying bacteria and oxygen absorption by plant roots. Root respiration decreases in low DO conditions, causing a reduction in water and nutrient absorption as well as plant growth.

PH levels in this study were slightly above the recommended level for recirculating aquaponic water. This may have influenced nutrient availability and plant biomass because plant production is reduced at relatively high pH levels. The nutrient removal capacity of aquaponic plants is influenced by (1) the growth stage and nutrient needs of the plant and (2) the activity of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in the aquaponic system. Young plants have low nutrient requirements, but this increases during vegetative growth. Moreover, aquaponic plant roots provide a surface area for the attachment of microbial organisms that oxidize toxic ammonia to nitrates.

Therefore, low ammonia, nitrate and nitrite removal at the beginning of the experiment can be attributed to the nutrient needs of the plants as well as the young roots which could not 42 Âť

provide a large surface area for the attachment of nitrifiers. Similar findings were reported in an aquaponics system for catfish (Clarias gariepinus), water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) and mustard green (Brassica juncea) production. The high nutrient concentration at week 2 might indicate that the nitrifiers had not established while low ammonia levels at week 8 might be attributed to high ammonia oxidation rates after the proper establishment of nitrifying bacteria. The concentration of phosphorus at week 2 was low due to increased demand for root development because the plants were still young. Moreover, young plants engage in luxury uptake of phosphorus to counterbalance an anticipated phosphorus need at a later stage.

The system without plants removed a proportion of nutrients from the effluent water, indicating that other processes apart from plant uptake contributed to the removal of nitrogen in the aquaponic system. Microbial processes in the plant root zone play a major role in the removal of nutrients in gravel-based aquaponic systems. This implies that the actual plant uptake of nutrients might not have contributed significantly to the overall nutrient removal.

Anoxic conditions that generally develop in media-based aquaponics provide a suitable environment for denitrification which removes a substantial amount of nitrogen from the system. Therefore, the removal of nitrogen through nitrification and denitrification processes is perhaps underestimated and nitrogen removal through plant assimilation overestimated in most aquaponic systems.

The removal of phosphorus was not as efficient as nitrogen removal. Fine solid accumulation as well as lack of flow and circulation in media based aquaponic systems normally creates anaerobic pockets. Under anaerobic conditions, low molecular organic compounds are converted to polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), poly-P and glycogen are degraded, and phosphorus is released.

In this study, plant density did not affect the relative growth rate of A. annua in the aquaponic systems. Similarly, previous aquaponic studies showed that density did not impact the growth rates of halophytes or barley plants.

However, decreased plant growth in high plant densities has been reported. No nutrient deficiencies were observed in the high plant densities (48 plants/ m2) in this study. This suggests that A. annua can be grown at higher plant densities than the 48 plants/m2 under the investigated conditions and that wastes from a recirculating aquaculture system can support the growth of A. annua.

Fish performed better in systems with plants than in the control system that was without plants. Results suggest that the growth of fish was influenced by water quality in the culture tanks. Specific growth rates of O. niloticus were lower than those reported in some previous aquaponic studies and FCR values in all the treatments were slightly higher than the recommended 1.5â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2 for intensively cultured tilapia.

The minimal water exchange (weekly) during the study period probably influenced the ammonia levels and the growth of fish. However, the survival rate was > 95% in all the treatments.

The aim for aquaponics systems is to culture valuable plants that can generate high income per unit area and time. Our findings indicate that A. annua is one of the plants that can be grown in aquaponic systems because of its nitrogen removal capabilities and its high economic value as the only source of artemisinin, a well-established and widely used antimalarial compound. The plant also has diverse medicinal uses including aromatherapy, boosting the immune system, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and it has antimicrobial capabilities against diverse pathogens. *Adapted from: Growth and Nutrient Removal Efficiency of Sweet Wormwood (Artemisia annua) in a Recirculating Aquaculture System for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Zipporah Gichana, Paul Meulenbroek, Erick Ogello, Silke Drexler, Werner Zollitsch, David Liti, Peter Akoll and Herwig Waidbacher. Water 2019, 11(5), 923; https://doi. org/10.3390/w11050923

» 43

LATIN AMERICA REPORT

Latin America Report: Recent News and Events Opportunity for Benchmark to take control of a salmon breeding operation and pursue an independent strategy in Chile Benchmark, the aquaculture health, nutrition and genetics business, announced an update on its joint venture with AquaChile, its Chilean breeding and genetics partner. In January 2019 Agrosuper completed the acquisition of AquaChile; as a consequence, Benchmark has the opportunity to take control of a salmon breeding operation in Chile currently owned by the JV, allowing it to pursue an independent strategy. The Company is in discussions with AquaChile regarding the dissolution of the joint venture.

The discussions envisage a return of the Company’s original equity investment in the JV, together with Benchmark’s IP rights, the genetic stock and biomass, and resources sufficient to operate the 50m egg facility.

The Company expects to reinvest the returned funds in the wholly owned business in the coming years to allow the Company to enhance biosecurity and achieve full scale production at the bio-secure, land based facility. The Company expects that the proposed strategy will deliver returns in line with those set out when entering the JV.

Photo credit: Benchmark Chile.

44 »

Photo credit: Benchmark Chile.

Benchmark Genetics, under the joint venture with AquaChile, has been successful in accelerating its entry into the Chilean market as a local player with the launch of Benchmark Genetics Chile in October 2018, and the successful establishment of its genetics programme locally, creating a strong platform for growth. Chile is the world’s second largest salmon producing country, and an important market in Benchmark’s long term strategy.

IBM’s Blockchain-Based Technology announces traceability platform in collaboration with the Sustainable Shrimp Partnership in Ecuador The Sustainable Shrimp Partnership (SSP) has joined the IBM Food Trust ecosystem, which will help provide traceability of SSP shrimp from farm

to fork. The platform will use blockchain technology to deliver greater accountability and transparency to customers and consumers for every element of SSP’s premium Ecuadorian farmed shrimp production and journey to the consumer’s plate.

As part of the Food Trust ecosystem, SSP’s members, which comprise responsible shrimp producers based in Ecuador, will enter data about how the shrimp is produced onto the blockchain. Ultimately, retailers around the world will be able to see this data and trace it in every stage so that they can ensure the quality of the shrimp they are selling to consumers.

SSP plans to enable consumer access via an app, enabling individuals to view provenance data about the shrimp they buy.

Food Trust enables real-time, endto-end and immutable traceability data of a food product to verify supply chain history, and can also provide verification of the shrimp’s SSP qualification– including confirmation it is zero-antibiotic approved and certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) Standard. Food Trust provides a secured platform to which data can be uploaded and shared, and can help verify the authenticity of

product claims. The technology will be accessible to buyers, retailers and consumers, and allow permissioned parties to have visibility into key product information.

SSP shrimp is produced to the highest social and environmental standards – ASC certified, zero use of antibiotics, and with neutral impact on local water quality. With the introduction of blockchain technology, SSP shrimp will be the first shrimp products on the IBM Food Trust solution.

For more information on IBM Food Trust visit: https://www.ibm. com/blockchain/solutions/foodtrust

The Promise of Patagonia: a marketing campaign to enhance commitment to the welfare of the region’s salmon and to the environment The Chilean salmon industry will refocus its marketing efforts to highlight the Patagonia region of Chile, where much of the sector’s salmon is grown.

Ricardo Garcia, the chairman of the marketing Chilean Salmon Marketing Council, as well as the CEO of

Camanchaca and the vice chairman of Salmones Camanchaca, said the campaign – which is focused on the U.S. market and will include print, online, and out-of-home channels – will aim to tie the awareness and appreciation American consumers have for the Patagonian region to its salmonid products. The campaign will be tied into the sector’s pledge to reduce its antibiotics usage by 50 percent by 2025.

The CSMC has hired Ketchum, a global public relations firm specializing in marketing, branding, and corporate communications for the food and beverage industry, to lead the creative aspect of the campaign.

CSMC Director James Griffin said the campaign would highlight five core commitments the industry has pledged to work toward: producing high-quality, healthy, and nutritious salmon; preserving the pristine territory of Patagonia and supporting the communities of Chile; ensuring the health and wellness of the salmon the industry grows; using the highest processing standards and employing and supporting talent throughout the value chain; and assuring consistent availability to enable the delivery of salmon year-round to customers.

Chilean salmon companies that are members of CSMC and which are participating in the campaign include: Cermaq Chile, MultiExport Foods, Australis, Salmones Camachaca, Bluemar, Ventisqueros, Salmones Austral, Marine Farm, Salmones Magallanes, and AgroSuper (which now includes Aquachile, Los Fiordos, and Verlasso following acquisitions). » 45

NEWS

Advancing Minority -Owned Businesses in Aquaculture Aquaculture Magazine

A new federal program aims to help grow the industry and is backed

by a $400,000 grant.

Dr. George Brooks Jr. (Aquaculture Magazine’s Aquaponics columnist) presenting at a recent MBA aquaculture event hosted by FSMSDC in partnership with the Southern Region Minority Supplier Development Council and the Chicago Minority Supplier Development Council at the University of Phoenix in Chicago.

B

usiness development organizations, the University of Miami and the U.S. Department of Commerce have partnered on a program that will help minority-owned businesses around the nation engage and expand in the aquaculture industry. The new Minority Business Enterprise 46 »

Aquaculture Program is operated by the Florida State Minority Supplier Development Council (FSMSDC) in partnership with the Southern Region Minority Supplier Development Council and the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Funded by a $400,000 grant from the U.S.

Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency, the program’s goal is to increase the U.S. presence in the world’s fastestgrowing form of food production.

The program is working to identify and promote minority-owned businesses that have the potential to grow in the industry. The partners will provide qualified businesses with a combination of technical assistance, outreach, education and one-on-one consultations through live events, targeted educational information, individual in-person counseling and digital support.

“Through this new program, we will identify, promote and support businesses in this important food industry,” said Beatrice Louissaint, president and CEO of the FSMSDC, a nonprofit dedicated to helping minority-owned businesses grow and advance. “The MBE Aquaculture Program is open to eligible minority-owned businesses based anywhere in the U.S., and we are excited to be able to offer assistance around the country.”

To be eligible for the MBE Aquaculture Program, a business must be 51% owned or controlled by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans (including Alaska Natives, Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal entities), Asian Indian Americans, or Hasidic Jewish Americans.

Companies that are interested in participating should visit MBEaquaculture.com, or contact Program Director Myrtha Wroy at (305) 7626151 or myrtha@mbeaquaculture. com

» 47

AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

News from the

Aquaculture Stewardship Council ASC Joins Wal-Mart China for Launch of New Seafood Traceability Strategy Wal-Mart China has partnered with ASC to launch its fresh meat and seafood traceability strategy. Songlin Wang, Senior Advisor in ASC China’s commercial team delivered a presentation about ASC’s standards at the official launch event in Shenzen in April. Wal-Mart announced that it would launch its traceable own-brand ‘Marketside’ products first in South China, and they will account for 12.5 % of its total packaged seafood by 2020.

“We are very pleased to work collaboratively with other organizations like Wal-Mart China to provide Chinese consumers with responsible, quality and traceable seafood products,” said Songlin Wang. “As responsible aquaculture becomes increasingly important to Chinese consumers, we will continue to work with producers and retailers to ensure they have plenty of ASC certified products to choose from.”

Wal-Mart China already has products from five ASC standards for consumers to choose from – salmon, prawns, mussels, tilapia and pangasius. “In recent years WalMart has placed the development of fresh food traceability in a position of strategic importance. We have been actively building our fresh food traceability system based on 48 »

our strong technological strength, the resources of our suppliers and the robustness of our supply chain,” said Bengti Tan, Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Wal-Mart China.

This partnership is the latest example of ASC’s growing influence and recognition in China, which is a vital region for aquaculture both in terms of production and consumption.

Almost 60,000 tons of responsible seafood are produced in the country every year.

ASC and Fair Trade USA Join Forces to Drive Improvements in Indonesian Aquaculture Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Fair Trade USA have joined together to implement an ambitious new project funded by the Walton Family to drive improvements in the aquaculture sector in Indonesia, the second biggest producer of farmed fish in the world.

“Improving fish farming practices in Indonesia will have a significant and positive impact on our

mission to improve standards of aquaculture around the world,” said Roy van Daatselaar, Producer Support Manager and project lead for ASC. “Collaboration is an integral part of the ASC program. This project will draw on the complementary strengths of our two organizations to bring lasting benefit to the local community through initiatives that will lead to better outcomes for the environment and those that work on, and live near, the participating farms. We’re grateful to The Walton Family for making this ambitious project possible.”

The two organizations will combine their access, knowledge and experience to encourage improvements in the environmental and social impacts of Indonesian aquaculture. They are working collaboratively to explore ways to streamline joint certification, help update farming practices, and encourage greater responsibility. This collaboration will drive improvements on the ground and help promote engagement of producers in the market.

ASC and Fair Trade USA will also collaborate with the Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) to support further development of the local IndoGAP standards and policies. The collaboration will help streamline the approach to implementing more responsible aquaculture practices in Indonesia.

The Walton Family approved an approximate $500K grant following a joint application by ASC and Fair Trade USA. The two-year project will deliver sustainable benefits for the producers, their employees, the surrounding communities and ecosystem. It began in January 2019 and an MOU was recently signed by Chris Ninnes, CEO of ASC and Julie Kuchepatov, Director, Seafood at Fair Trade USA.

ASC Helping Japanese Seriola Producers Work Together to Improve Practices ASC was the only certification scheme present at the recent general meeting of the Japanese Seriola Ini-

tiative (JSI), a group of producers working towards greater sustainability and transparency in their industry. JSI was founded in 2018 in order to work together pre-competitively to improve practices, and members include Japan’s biggest seriola producers, as well as feed companies.

This year’s general meeting took place in Fukuoka on March 14.

ASC has been involved in the group from its inception, and ASC’s standard is used to guide the group’s objectives and performance. Several of the members are already ASC certified with another currently undergoing certification. ASC Japan’s Commercial Manager, Koji Yamamoto, was present at the annual general meeting to answer questions, receive feedback and provide guidance.

“We’re very happy to see this kind of collaboration and help where we can,” said Koji. “There were a number of tangible actions and constructive questions from members at this year’s meeting, which demonstrates how proactive they are in working with ASC to improve practices. I’m excited to see Japan’s major producers working pre-competitively to drive up standards, because Japan is an important country for this fish, both as a producer and consumer.”

Seriola farming is an important part of the Japanese economy, representing the largest output of the country’s aquaculture industry both in terms of volume and value.

Its quality is valued by sushi chefs, while its versatility means it can be prepared in a number of ways.

While most seriola produced in Japan is currently consumed by the domestic market, producers are increasingly looking to export their products to markets such as the US. “There are a number of motivations for these producers to ensure responsible practices and transparency, not least to aid access to new markets overseas,” said Koji. The » 49

AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

members of JSI include Kurose Suisan Kaisha Ltd., the first ASC certified seriola producer in the world; Maruha Nichiro – also ASC certified; and Azuma-Cho Fishery Cooperative, Japan’s largest seriola producer currently in assessment for ASC certification. Associate members include a number of feed producers, enabling to group to work towards greater responsibility along the supply chain. WWF Japan played a role in the group’s establishment.

New Group Certification to Make it More Accessible for Small Producers to Apply for ASC Certification ASC’s new Group Certification methodology, which will make applying for ASC certification more accessible for small producers, has been launched at an event in Vietnam. “Group Certification will help to further drive up aquaculture practices around the world, without lowering the robust requirements of the ASC standards,” said Van Roetert, Head of ASC Programme

50 »

Assurance. “We are delighted to have launched this in Vietnam, where there are so many smaller producers who can benefit from the opportunity to implement ASC’s requirements.”

Group Certification will allow smaller-scale producers to join together as a group to collectively implement the requirements of ASC standards. This allows them to share the costs and resources involved in meeting these requirements and auditing them. While it will allow smaller producers to collectively apply for certification, the applicable requirements of the standard remain the same, and every part of the group must meet these requirements to achieve certification.

Group Certification has been developed by ASC over several years, guided by a technical working group made up of stakeholders including industry representatives, scientists, and NGOs – see below for a full list of working group members.

The process has involved public consultation and seven pilot groups in Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Finland. The launch event took place on 9 April in Can Tho, Vietnam, and was attended by nearly 100 stakeholders. The launch presentation by Van Roetert was followed by a presentation by Mr Tran Dinh Luan, Vice Director of Vietnam’s Directorate of Fisheries (D-Fish), which has previously collaborated with ASC to benchmark some ASC standards to the country’s Vietgap standard. Mr Luan spoke about the benefits of group certification to small-scale farmers and the importance of this small-scale farming to many people’s livelihoods in rural areas of Vietnam.

Another speech was given by Mr. Nguyen Van Lam, Director of the ASC certified Cai Bat cooperative in Ca Mau, and the presentations were followed by a workshop for stakeholders. ASC will also be providing more guidance and train-

ing on group methodology to farmers and auditors. Other participants at the event included NGOs, ASC producers and suppliers, and those involved in the development and piloting of the new methodology.

Can Tho is situated in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, an important area for the country’s shrimp and pangasius farming. A significant proportion of shrimp produced in Vietnam comes from small-scale producers who may be able to take advantage of group certification.

“I’d like to take this moment to thank all the members of our technical working group for giving us the benefit of their diverse expertise in the development of this methodology, and for their continued support during all those years,” said Van. “I’d also like to thank everyone involved in our pilot groups around the world for helping us to test this methodology in the field.”

The new Group Certification methodology is now available on ASC’s website (pdf). A six-month effective period will follow before audits can take place using the methodology – this allows ASC to provide additional tools to implement the methodology and give producers and auditors time to familiarize themselves with the methodology.

the products of aquaculture are not only found in the seafood aisle, but however they’re used it’s vital that shoppers have confidence that they were produced in a way that minimizes the environmental and social impacts.”

“We’re very excited that we are first out with a dual certified supplement product, but we also hope that our launch can make more of our colleagues in the industry aware that there are sustainable alternatives and that they also find solutions that contribute to protecting our fish stocks for the future,” said Emil Oldén, BioSalma CEO. Omega-3 fats are a group of essential unsaturated fats that the body needs to stay healthy, and are particularly linked to heart health. Two of these fats, EPA and DHA, are found in high quantities in oily fish such as salmon. BioSalma’s certified product can be found on Apotea.se and in selected ICA stores. BioSalma intends to make all its existing Omega-3 products certified this year.

World’s First ASC and MSC Certified Omega-3 Supplements Launched in Sweden Since April 23, BioSalma’s Omega-3 Pure and Natural product has been fully certified to both ASC and MSC standards. The supplements provide Omega-3 derived from fish oil, from fish that are responsibly farmed or caught in Norway. BioSalma has worked for two years to ensure its entire supply chain is certified. “We’re delighted that Swedish consumers shopping for Omega-3 supplements have a responsibly-sourced option,” said Inger Melander, ASC Commercial Marketing Manager for Northern Europe. “This is a reminder that » 51

GENETICS

Genetic Improvement on the (Aquaculture) farm… economic aspects to keep in mind

When an aquaculture producer considers investing in genetic

improvement, be it in the form of “improved” seedstock, an in-house initiative, or an outside consultant, the appropriate frame of mind is that the investment should, and will, result in economic returns that C. G. Lutz / Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

A

s I have tried to convey over the years, the mechanics of genetic improvement available to most aquaculturists fall into two simple approaches: selection or crossbreeding/ hybridization (or a combination of these strategies as seen in Figure 1). Selection is quite simple: it’s based on the genetic influences, or “additive effects” that individuals transmit directly to their offspring. Superior performance is passed along and concentrated from generation to generation, with the focus of attention on each reproducing individual’s genetic value.

Crossbreeding and hybridization, in contrast, are based on capturing the superiority that can result due to combinations: specific combinations of species, of varieties, or even of individuals. Remember the term “hybrid vigor?” The focus of this approach is on ‘combining abilities’ (both in general and in specific combinations) of the animals or populations that are available for us to utilize as breeding stock. That’s it.

Simple, right? Well… kinda.

Let’s get the discussion of crossbreeding/hybridization out of the way. Superiority in hybrids or crossbreds results from combinations of the genes they received at fertiliza-

52 »

substantially exceed the amount invested. tion, but these combinations disappear when the next generation is produced (Figure 2). When the goal is to produce a superior animal (or one that will not serve as predictable breeding stock), two distinct lines or varieties can be maintained separately. Individuals from one line are crossed with those from the other to produce offspring for grow out.

The trick, of course, is to find two lines that, when crossed, provide sufficiently superior offspring to capture the costs involved. In plant breeding trials, it is not uncommon to evaluate crosses among hundreds of lines in order to identify truly outstanding combinations.

In many instances, one femalemale combination will consistently produce better results than the reciprocal cross (Figure 3). Payoffs (faster growth, higher survival, more uniform size, etc.) are often significant while costs are generally minimal. Typically, costs include slightly more sophisticated infrastructure and the labor and record-keeping involved in maintaining two lines and crossing them. In real-world applications, a common benefit from this approach is to sell crossbred post-larvae or fingerlings that exhibit superior performance, but if they are crossed with each other the following generation will exhibit ex-

Figure 1 Economic gains from a combined selection and crossbreeding program with L. vannamei. Crossing two distinct lines (A and B) resulted in improved yields and uniformity, and after two generations of mass selection (A+ and B+), the same pattern was observed. Note that Line B was even more responsive to selection than Line A.

Figure 2 Gains from combining complementary lines are temporary, and when crossbred or hybrid individuals are crossed among themselves the resulting variation includes a few individuals that are similar to each of the parental lines and a hodge-podge of everything in between. Note that in this example we are only looking at 3 loci (A, B, C) and two alleles, while many more would be involved in a real-world situation.

Two inescapable costs inherent in any selection program are 1) the loss of genetic variation within a population over time and 2) the accumulation of inbreeding.

treme variation – often to the point of being unsuitable for commercial production (Figure 2).

Now, selection is focused on an individual’s genetic value and the extent to which that value will be transmitted to its offspring regardless of who the other parent(s) will be. The science behind selection involves determining the genetic potential of an animal, because the

performance we observe (growth, dress-out percentage, disease resistance, etc.) is usually a combination of the genetic potential of the individual and the day-to-day good or bad luck it has encountered along the way since hatching (Figure 4).

Because an individual animal’s genetic worth or potential is not always easily observed or measured, many worthwhile approaches to se-

Figure 3. Male line (top), female line, and spawning ponds at a very successful crossbred tilapia fingerling operation in Honduras.

lection have been developed for animals and plants over the past century. Some are more complicated (or expensive) than others, and depending on the circumstances some produce larger or more rapid gains.

Modern methods include screening many genes at the same time in order to get a better picture of the genetic worth of an individual animal, but this approach is still in its infancy in aquaculture. When a significant portion of the variation in performance that we observe can be attributed to genetic effects that are passed along directly to offspring, selection is fairly straightforward.

But if most of the variation we observe is actually the result of influences that cannot be passed along from generation to generation, selection gets complicated.

Two inescapable costs inherent in any selection program are 1) the loss of genetic variation within a population over time and 2) the accumulation of inbreeding. There is no way around this, no matter what you may be told. This truth is confirmed over and over again in numerous books and classic treatises on quantitative genetic theory. No selection program can avoid the accumulation of inbreeding, but some approaches can reduce ‘unnecessary’ inbreeding. If the goal is to maintain the genetic variation you » 53

GENETICS Figure 4 The variation that we can observe in the animals we work with includes various components: Genetic variation (the dotted line), variation caused by the immediate environment and random variation arising from the circumstances throughout the life of each individual. As illustrated with the red arrows, two individuals can have the same genetic potential but display very different performance.

Which approach is “best” for any given situation will depend on the extent to which the characteristics we can observe and measure correlate to the actual genetic value of the animals we are working with. A fancy term for this is heritability.

began with and completely avoid inbreeding… you might as well abandon any plans to initiate a selection program.

So, that being said, there are several different approaches available for aquaculture selection programs.

Which approach is “best” for any given situation will depend on the extent to which the characteristics we can observe and measure correlate to the actual genetic value of the animals we are working with. A fancy term for this is heritability.

Heritability just refers to the portion of the total measured variation that can be assigned to genetic factors that are inherited. When that portion is low, most of the variation we measure may be due to random chance, or to genetic influences that are not directly inherited. We cannot have much confidence that many of the biggest fish in a pond are actually genetically superior.

54 »

Mass Selection When heritabilities are high (0.2 or higher), the most economically efficient selection strategy is mass selection. Costs are low, payback is high. Each individual is judged by the values we can measure, and the “best” animals are retained as breeding stock to produce the following generation. This practice does not result in detrimental accumulation of inbreeding provided sufficient

numbers of breeding stock are maintained in every generation, so we don’t need to know what family any individual animal came from.

It is difficult to take advantage of the benefits of mass selection if there is little genetic variation to work with. Often, especially in aquaculture, producers may be unaware of just how closely related their stocks were when the populations were established. If the founding population was, say, 50,000 animals, this could still represent a very small number of breeding stock depending on the species in question.

Additionally, after a population has been established, if the number of breeding individuals is very low in any given generation due to disease or technical problems, restoring broodstock numbers in subsequent generations to their prior levels will

» 55

GENETICS

Figure 5. Substantial investment may be required to produce large numbers of similarly aged single-spawn families.

It is difficult to take advantage of the benefits of mass selection if there is little genetic variation to work with.

56 Âť

not magically recreate the genetic variation that was lost. Inbreeding only accumulates over time.

Still, if done properly there are many cost-saving advantages to mass selection in commercial applications. Labor costs are reduced.

Broodstock can reproduce freely and eggs can be collected and incubated en masse. Full-sib, half-sib and unrelated families can all be maintained in a single population. Obtaining similar-aged offspring on which to impose selection is easily achieved and selection can be conducted on smaller batches of animals throughout the year (at least, in tropical species like shrimp and

tilapia). Facilities can be designed to maximize production and genetic progress, rather than partitioned to accommodate large numbers of families.

Family Selection When heritabilities are low (typically 0.15 or lower), as stated above, we cannot assume that the biggest fish (or shrimp, or oysters, or sea cucumbers, etc.) in a pond are all genetically superior. Or even that most of them are. A low heritability means the portion (in this case, 15% or less) of an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s superiority that will be transmitted to its offspring is generally low, because what

Figure 6

In sophisticated, modern selection

Initial investments and operating costs are relatively minor in mass selection programs, and progress can be rapid if heritabilities are sufficiently high and an effective population size of 200+ individuals can be maintained in every generation.

programs, a detailed pedigree can provide information on the performance of an individual’s siblings, parents and other family members, and when combined with the individual’s own performance this data can provide a better idea of its true genetic worth or potential.

we are observing or measuring reflects many other factors. We need to use as much information as we can get our hands on to make our best guess as to which fish to keep for spawning. In sophisticated, modern selection programs, a detailed pedigree can provide information on the performance of an individual’s siblings, parents and other family members, and when combined with the individual’s own performance this data can provide a better idea of its true genetic worth or potential. This concept, however, was established and practiced long before the software and record-keeping tools were developed to maintain complex pedigrees – it’s called family selection. In this case, we rely on measuring the performance of all (or many) of the fish in each family, and selection is based on retaining the best performing families to produce the following generation. This is because the information provided by the family mean is more reliable than individual measurements when heritabilities are low.

Family selection requires that each fish can be identified in such a way as to know which family it came from. If families are raised separately, more bias can be introduced, so this approach works best if some type of physical or molecular marker can be used to allow families to be grown in a common environ-

ment. Both types of markers are often needed, however, because once superior families have been identified using molecular markers, one still needs to know what individuals are from what family when collecting the selected families for use as new breeding stock.

Many ‘consultants’ have promoted family selection in recent years to large operations (read: deep pockets) around the world as a means to avoid inbreeding. This, of course, is not the case, and these folks are either misinformed or misleading. But don’t take my word for it. To quote Kjersti Turid Fjalestad, the great Norwegian fish geneticist: “There are two major limitations to family selection. Intensive family selection can quickly result in rapid accumulation of inbreeding because whole families are selected. Another weak point of family selection is that as only 50% of the additive genetic variation is expressed between families, only 50% of the variation can be utilized. The other 50% of the additive genetic variation are expressed within families.”

So, from an economic perspective, if it is absolutely necessary to improve a trait that has low heritability but high value family selection may provide sufficiently useful information to offset the costs involved. But progress will be slow and those costs will be significant.

Some examples of costs include infrastructure and equipment to produce multiple families, labor costs associated with producing and rearing multiple families, costs involved (time, labor, space) with producing single-pair spawns (Figure 5), costs involved in separately collecting and incubating eggs and larvae from multiple single-pair spawns, maintaining enough distinct families to have a meaningful program (typically several hundred), obtaining sufficient numbers of simultaneous or very closely-aged single-pair spawns (to allow meaningful comparisons), obtaining and using appropriate molecular and physical markers and, finally, providing a comfortable lifestyle for the consultants involved in the project. None of this is would be

» 57

GENETICS Figure 7 Investments and operating costs are typically high for family selection, but if the heritability of the trait in question is <0.15, this may be the best approach, providing the trait is of sufficient economic importance to offset the costs involved.

Many ‘consultants’ have promoted family selection in recent years to large operations (read: deep pockets) around the world as a means to avoid inbreeding. This, of course, is not the case, and these folks are either misinformed or misleading.

necessary if the trait being selected for had a higher heritability. For low heritability traits and with the inherent inefficiency of family selection, gains per generation will be small.

The trait in question must have very high economic importance to cover the extensive costs involved. Otherwise comparable results may be possible through mass selection and improved management or grow out practices.

Within-Family Selection There are times when the “best” approach to selection is not mass selection, nor family selection. In fact, this approach is basically the opposite of family selection because

the family means become meaningless. This strategy is actually quite useful when families must be raised separately or over different time periods. To account for the potentially significant variation that arises from so many different tanks or cages or ponds, individuals within each family are judged solely on how they compare to the siblings they have been raised with. The largest individuals within each family are selected to serve as breeding stock. This approach can result in lots of problems for fish such as tilapia, catfish or many other species, where more aggressive individuals can bully more docile siblings, leading to selection for undesirable behavior rather than

Figure 8 A practical way to evaluate the trade-off between costs and returns in a genetic improvement program.

58 »

superior growth or feed conversion.

Like family selection, this approach involves significant costs in terms of facilities, record-keeping and labor, and is usually not economically efficient for large-scale improvement programs.

Costs vs. Returns So, before adopting any genetic improvement approach, look at it based on simple economic principles. Examine the costs (which are fairly easy to quantify if you give it some thought and ask the right questions) and examine the potential returns (which are usually somewhat nebulous but can be predicted if you know the anticipated heritability, the selection intensity and the numbers of individuals or families you will be working with). Some illustrations are provided here to show the key points for an analysis.

When establishing a mass selection program, some initial costs will be incurred, but after the facilities, supplies and labor are in place and protocols are established the dayto-day costs are fairly small (Figure 6). Gains (genetic and economic) should begin in the following generation, and continue to accrue (although perhaps not as rapidly as in the illustration here). In contrast, for family selection initial costs and on-

Figure 9 In the parent generation, all the animals below the selection threshold (everything other than the portion of the population shaded in gold) is discarded. Genetic variation is lost. This is how selection works. After Oldenbroek and van der Waaij.

It is only when the sum of

the values above the “steady state” equals the sum of the expenditures that the program has actually paid for itself and begins to produce on-going economic benefits.

going outlays are substantially greater (Figure 7), but for traits with low heritabilities and high economic value gains may accumulate even more rapidly than with mass selection.

In either of these examples, there is a tendency to look for the point at which the difference between daily or monthly costs and revenues returns to a value comparable to the “steady state” before the improvement program was initiated, and assume that everything from that point forward is an economic gain to the enter-

prise. But that is not really the case, because the costs incurred have not yet been offset (Figure 8). It is only when the sum of the values above the “steady state” (seen in green) equals the sum of the expenditures (in red) that the program has actually paid for itself and begins to produce on-going economic benefits.

In summary, like any initiative a business considers undertaking, all the costs of a genetic improvement program must be weighed against all the benefits one might reasonably

expect. If facilities do not lend themselves to the proposed methods, costs to modify or upgrade will be high. If heritabilities are low, progress will be slow. And, as selection programs retain only the best performing individuals or families while discarding the rest (Figure 9), genetic variation will inevitably be lost and inbreeding will accumulate with every successive generation. But that’s the price of progress and nothing to be afraid of! (Figure 10).

Figure 10 A comparison of the accumulation of inbreeding vs the accumulation of response (improvement) in a well-organized program of mass selection. After 15 generations inbreeding impacts are still negligible and more than offset by selection response. A good value for the investment.

Dr. C. Greg Lutz is the author of the book Practical Genetics for Aquaculture and the Editor in Chief at Aquaculture Magazine. editorinchief@dpinternationalinc.com

» 59

FISH HEALTH, ETC.

Alaskan Sea Ranching: Yes, they do “do aquaculture” in Alaska Hugh Mitchell, MSc, DVM

I am sitting in the Pioneer Bar in Sitka, Alaska, chatting up a

commercial salmon fisherman. He responds after I answer his question on where I am from and what I am doing up there.

Fig. 1. Port Armstrong, AK of Armstrong-Keta, Inc.

“

Wow, you are up here helping the hatcheries? Good stuff. Never met a fish veterinarian before.

Thanks for your work. Those hatcheries are important. I can go out and troll eight 13-pound Chinook in a day and sell them in Juneau for $13 a pound!

Them’s lawyer’s wages!”

60 »

In the waters off of Alaska in 2016, 109 million salmon were harvested with a whole fish value of $406 million. Today, just slightly less than 30 salmon hatcheries up and down the Alaskan coast annually put out about 1.5 billion Pink, Sockeye, Chum, Coho, and Chi-

nook salmon fingerlings. Estimates are that these represent about 22% of the harvested salmon in Alaskan waters each year. They are initially put into net pens to olfactory imprint them on the bay, to minimize straying up other rivers and for fishermen to catch them on their return.

There are a couple each of Federal and State hatcheries that contribute, but most of this production is via non-profit regional aquaculture associations (see below), plus some scattered independents. The catch ends up being about 2 to 3% of what is released from hatcheries.

I try and probe for his sentiments on why Alaskans don’t also raise salmon right through their life cycle in cages (“egg to fork” – a practice which is actually illegal in Alaska) and point out that they could be world leaders in both sea ranching and salmon farming, suggesting that the risk of net pen culture to wild salmon is sorely overplayed.

The response to my suggestion of growing some up right to harvest is met with extreme indignation: “Nope. Those aren’t salmon. To be a real salmon, they have to spend at least a certain amount of time as wild fish. That just is how it should be.”

I refrain from arguing. I actually can’t say that I blame this sentiment. The Alaskan Seafood sector (1 in 10 people of the Alaskan workforce is employed by some aspect of salmon fishing) has been hit hard in the past with the explosive growth of farmed Atlantic salmon from mainly Norway and Chile. In the early 2000’s it was responsible for a reduction of the value of the industry from about $400 million to $130 million and caused considerable hardships up and down the Coast. This was mainly due to Chile taking over a Japanese market that had formerly been 90% from Alaska. Since then, a smart marketing campaign led by the Alaskan Seafood Marketing Board has clawed

Fig. 2. Ben Contag, manager at Port Armstrong, AK of Armstrong-Keta.

back and positioned wild salmon as a premium product. The result has been a revitalization of the salmon fishing industry and a rejuvenation of the coastal economy. Now, these effective tactics have sometimes been a bit questionable in accuracy (such as portraying Atlantic salmon farming as being less healthy, less premium and bad for the environment), but they are successful and a long way from when the first hatchery was built in 1869 on Kodiak Island.

The amazing success story of the Alaskan fishery’s current sustainability is one steeped in the intrigue of: politics, in-fighting, and State versus Federal power strug-

gles. In the early days, there was little management of the stocks and over-fishing severely impacted returns. Legislation in 1889 attempted to curtail this, but lack of enforcement doomed its usefulness. In the 1900’s the act was amended to stipulate that canneries build hatcheries to produce 4 times the salmon that they catch and process, but they protested that that was something they couldn’t afford to do. For the first quarter of the century, debate ensued as to whether the fishery could be sustained through natural propagation without enhancement.

Congress funded federal hatcheries in 1903 and the Federal government tried to impose stricter regulations,

but runs severely diminished by the 1910’s. This caused the canneries to finally come around, although they struggled with the mandate of 50% escapement (to allow broods to go upstream). This did, however work, and runs increased resulting in many of the hatcheries closing down. In 1933, 126.4 million salmon were caught – a historical record.

However, through the 1930’s and 1940’s, fish traps were responsible for another depletion. Hatcheries came back into the picture both by the Alaska Territory Fishery Service and the US Department of Fisheries, but this did not help the two-decade decline. In 1959 only 25 million salmon were harvested by fishermen that were then four times the number that they were in the early 1900’s. Alaska received statehood in 1959 and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game was formed. Lack of enforcement and illegal fishing continued to be a problem, with runs being up and down through 1971. In 1974, State legislation allowed private nonprofits to build and operate hatcheries, while the State itself worked on improving habitat. Currently there are 6 regional aquaculture associations (AA’s) (down from 8 in 1976), each with several hatcheries:

The Alaskan Seafood sector (1 in 10

people of the Alaskan workforce is employed by some aspect of salmon fishing) has been hit hard in the past with the explosive growth of farmed Atlantic salmon from mainly Norway and Chile.

Fig. 3. Humpback whale sounding in Silver Bay, site of Medvije Creek and Sawmill Creek Hatcheries of the Northern Southeast Aquaculture Association.

» 61

FISH HEALTH, ETC.

The Alaskan salmon fishery is important both economically and as part of the social fabric of Alaska. The Alaskan sea-ranching assisted industry is a testament to the benefits of aquaculture. Farming, however, is not familiar to this State, and foreign fish farming has left most Alaskans with an extremely bad taste regarding full “egg-tofork” aquaculture.

Fig. 4. Adam Olson, manager of Medvije Creek Hatchery, NSRAA near Sitka, proudly shows off the soon-to-be released salmon.

Prince William Sound AA; Southern Southeast Regional AA; Northern Southeast Regional AA; Cooke Inlet RAA; Valdez Fisheries Development A and Kodiak Regional AA. The 1.5 billion salmon are hatched and then imprinted on the bays via a stint in net pens (technology honed by the Atlantic salmon farming industry of Norway). They are funded by a 2 to 3% tax on all fish caught within a region. The fishermen are able to camp out at the mouths of the bays and catch the returns.

The AA’s are allowed to also catch a certain small percentage for “cost recovery.” Alaska Depart-

The amazing success story of

the Alaskan fishery’s current sustainability is one steeped in the intrigue of: politics, in-fighting, and State versus Federal power struggles.

62 »

ment of Fish and Game also has some facilities, but these are mainly for research. The total harvest is between 123 and 221 million salmon a year, but Alaska’s 40-50% share of the global market in the early 1980’s declined to less than 20% in 2000, mainly due to the farm produced Atlantic salmon from Norway, Chile and Scotland.

Getting to know some of the dedicated individuals at the various facilities throughout the Alaskan hatchery system proved to be a glimpse into why salmon enhancement is an enormous success story.

Armstrong-Keta, Inc. a Juneaubased private company is one of the independent “non-profits” with fish facilities situated on the south end of Baranoff Island (island of Sitka) in a cove/ residential enclave called: Port Alexander. Although they are close to NSRAA they are not part of the Regional AA system and are funded solely from their cost-recovery take of a percentage of returning fish. Their annual production targets are currently around: 105 million Pink salmon; 60 million chum; and 5 million Coho.

In my travels around Alaskan salmon hatcheries, I have been impressed with the enthusiasm and openness of the personnel. Ben Contag is the manager of the Port Armstrong fish facility. He is one of

Fig. 5. Trail Lakes Hatchery of the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association near Moose Pass, AK. Main salmon stocked is Sockeye (about 14 million a year). Manager is: Kristin Bates.

» 63

FISH HEALTH, ETC.

Fig. 6. Solomon Gulch Fish Hatchery on Port Valdez. Managed by Rob Unger.

those individuals who is extremely passionate about his occupation.

These are my favorite clients. Fish culture is a not a job to them but a way of life. After all these years, I find that there is always something that I can learn from their craft. The skills required in animal husbandry (“stockman-ship”), including fish, are always undervalued. After I step off of the float plane, he is nonstop with information and questions. We go over several fish health issues sprinkled in with his history and the history of Port Armstrong.

A native of Ecuador, he came up to the US in 1984, went to college in Sitka, worked initially for NSRAA, and started working for ArmstrongKeta in 2005. He lives there with his family and fellow hatchery workers in a boardwalk connected village

Fisheries and politics seem to be integral to one another in most regions of the world. I learn that there currently are concerns about the impact of hatchery fish affecting the truly wild salmon through genetics and consumption of resources.

64 »

that was constructed solely to house the hatchery crew. They have gardens and a few livestock pens with goats and chickens. Eleven workers in total, his two daughters left for a while, only to return. One is married to one of his workers and the other is engaged to another. Suffice it to say, they all love the isolated lifestyle and cannot see leaving any time soon.

Back near Sitka, I visit one of the non-profit NSRAA hatcheries that is on the “road system” (as they term it in Alaska, vs. those facilities only accessible by boat or float plane) called Medvejie Creek.

The Manager is Adam Olson, again a young, enthusiastic, keen, and very competent hatchery “stockman”. His wife, Rebecca manages the Sawmill Creek Hatchery that I passed on the way in. Adam received his Bachelor of Science in biology from Roger Williams University in Rhode Island and came to Alaska in 2005. He has always been with NSRAA, starting as a technician at another facility. “Medvejie” is at the end of Silver Bay and from the road I can see a pod of Humpback Whales “bubble net” feeding out in the Bay. The hatchery workers are fairly nonchalant about this, as they “do that all the time.” The whales have been known to camp out and chow down on the released salmon

– an emerging predator problem.

The goal of Medvije Creek is to put out 60 million chum fry a year, together with lesser numbers of Chinook and Coho. We go over some fish health concerns and then I am called by the float plane pilot that there is an opening in the weather to try and get into “Hidden Falls” on the other side of the island. I abbreviate my stay and head back to Sitka for the rare opportunity to visit another NSRAA facility before I have to head home to Seattle.

Early in the new year, I am back up to attend the Alaskan Fish Culture Conference. It is held in a different region every other year. This year it is in Valdez and I take the opportunity to visit Trail Lakes Hatchery (on the road system from Anchorage and part of the Cooke Inlet Aquaculture Association).

I also have a chance to tour the impressive Solomon Gulch Fish Hatchery of the Valdez Fish Development Association across the inlet from the city. Rob Unger, manager and conference program organizer this year, gives us all a spirited and detailed tour of the facility which puts out 270 million pink salmon a year. Interestingly, the water running through the raceways is silty from the glacier run-off, apparently of no consequence to the fish health. Once again, he exhibits the Alaskan dedication and passion that seems to be the standard across the hatchery system. My talk at the conference was a requested review on Bacterial Kidney Disease, a chronic and long battled disease in wild and hatchery-reared salmonids that is associated with the bacterium: Renibacterium salmoninarum. Related to the human tuberculosis bacteria (but unable to infect humans) some fish bacteriologists have theorized that it is actually a normal resident of salmonids and only causes disease when given the opportunity to build up in a fish and/or population. It has been found in wild sal-

Fig. 7. Tasting the fruits of all the hard work of rearing and catching. Sitka, Alaska.

monids in the Arctic, thousands of miles away from any hatchery. Lots of good discussion and sharing of information back and forth happen after my talk.

Fisheries and politics seem to be integral to one another in most regions of the world. I learn that there currently are concerns about the impact of hatchery fish affecting the truly wild salmon through genetics and consumption of resources. However, like many ecological issues, passion not science can be a key driver in sentiments and resultant policies. The lucrative charter fishing companies, for example, are accusing the released chum and pink of impacting the more prized sports fish: Chinook and Coho, by

One can’t deny that fish farming, as it is done in Alaska, works extremely well.

eating up all their resources. The validity of these claims is hotly debated at the conference.

The Alaskan salmon fishery is important both economically and as part of the social fabric of Alaska.

The Alaskan sea-ranching assisted industry is a testament to the benefits of aquaculture. Farming, however, is not familiar to this State, and foreign fish farming has left most Alaskans with an extremely bad taste regarding full “egg-tofork” aquaculture. A large part of this resentment is due to the competition impacting the value of the fishery. Alaska’s coastline is vast (34 thousand miles – not including the islands!). To many aquaculturists “from away,” it seems unfortunate that Alaskans don’t realize that they could be a world leader in both searanching and net-pen aquaculture.

This would greatly help to alleviate even more of the massive US seafood deficit ($16 billion). But, alas, traditions die hard and one can’t help but wonder if the same sort of struggle went on 10,000 years ago as man moved from hunting and gathering to an agrarian lifestyle. Sea ranching is part-way there, but the ocean is vast and full egg-to-fork aquaculture takes up so little space but can produce so much. However, with that said, one can’t deny that fish farming, as it is done in Alaska, works extremely well.

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

» 65

AQUAFEED

Recent news from around the globe

by Aquafeed.com

By Suzi Dominy*

Can algae-based salmon feed reduce sea lice infestations? Researchers

at Nofima and UiT The Arctic University of Norway have been tasked by the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund (FHF) to find out.

Fig 1. Credit: Janne Brodin, NMBU.

Feed efficiency is more than feed intake Foods of Norway has developed a new method for selecting salmon with higher feed efficiency with the potential to considerably reduce production costs and the environmental footprint of the aquaculture industry. The study was performed in Atlantic salmon over the last 3 years by Food for Norway at the 66 »

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) in partnership with AquaGen. Their results will allow for fish to be selected with higher feed efficiency without measuring feed intake.

The assumption was that growth correlates with feed utilization. This is generally true, but growth does not explain everything. The fastest growing fish are not always the

most efficient. They may also be the most voracious ones, meaning they make poor use of their feed. In addition to high feed costs, voracious fish also contribute to a high level of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion in the sea and thus have a negative impact on the environment.

Researchers have now successfully documented genetic variations in feed efficiency in Atlantic salmon by measuring the utilization of nutrients from the feed in body tissues.

The results show that some fish are indeed more efficient in converting nutrients into muscle, so they are better “body builders”.

Researchers said that growth alone can only explain around 60 percent of the variation in feed efficiency. By adding nutrient metabolism to the picture, almost 80 percent of the variation can be explained.

“This new method may enable us to identify parent fish in our breeding population that display a particularly high feed efficiency, allowing us in turn to enhance this trait in the eggs that we sell to our customers”, said Senior Scientist in AquaGen and Associate Professor at NMBU, Jørgen Ødegård.

In 2019/ 2020, Foods of Norway will carry out follow-up studies to validate the method by using rainbow trout and by performing a large-scale experiment with Atlantic salmon in the ocean.

Study questions sustainability of plant ingredients Feed companies are increasingly substituting fishmeal with plantbased ingredients which is recognized to be a more sustainable practice. A multidisciplinary team of researchers studied the trade-offs between marine and terrestrial resources in shrimp feeds. They found that the substitution of fishmeal moved pressure to land-based production systems with environmental repercussions.

The study modeled incremental fishmeal substitution, from 20-30 percent to zero, by plant ingredients such as soybean meal concentrate, rapeseed meal concentrate, pea protein concentrate and corn gluten meal, which are typically included in modern feeds for the two main shrimp species produced globally, whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon). The team then assessed the impact that this could have on marine and terrestrial resources, such as fish, land, freshwater, nitrogen and phosphorus.

Researchers found that complete substitution of 2030 percent of fishmeal, depending on the species, could lead to an increasing demand for freshwater of up to 63 percent, land of up to 81 percent and phosphorus of up to 83 percent.

Wesley Malcorps from the University of Stirling’s Institute of Aquaculture said that “substituting plant ingredients for fishmeal is considered by many to be environmentally sustainable, as it reduces dependency on finite marine resources. However, this would shift resource demand from the oceans onto the land, potentially adding pressure to the land-based food production systems, which are already under pressure to meet global demand for food, feed, biofuels, and bio-based materials. In turn, this would affect the environment and biodiversity, as well as the availability and prices of crops”. » 67

AQUAFEED

Malcorps suggested that finding an optimal balance between marine and terrestrial resources in aquafeed, strategically including high quality fishmeal, improving the use of fish by-products and food waste in feeds and investigating the potential for novel ingredients such as microbial biomass, algae and insect meals should be explored.

Calysta is doing just that and together with Thai Union offered the first taste of shrimp fed with Calysta’s FeedKind® protein produced from natural gas at the Seafood Expo Global in Brussels. The shrimp served were also farmed on marine feed ingredients derived from Thai Union tuna byproducts.

Alan Shaw, President and CEO of Calysta, said that “Thai Union is one of the world’s largest seafood producers and, like us, they are committed to improving sustainability and traceability in the shrimp farming industry – making this partnership a significant moment for the seafood sector. Calysta’s aim is to help create a future where the world’s growing population has guaranteed food security. By introducing a sustainable alternative protein that allows us to determine whether a shrimp was fed FeedKind protein with a simple test, FeedKind offers the industry a new level of transparency”.

“In line with our SeaChange® sustainability strategy, Thai Union is always looking for innovative ways to bring greater traceability and more sustainable products to market. By working with FeedKind, we are able to offer shrimp that have been grown using feed that has completely replaced the fishmeal with an innovative alternative protein. The fact that the protein has a unique carbon signature that helps provide traceability and reduce seafood fraud, are other significant benefits”, Darian McBain, Global Director of Corporate Affairs and Sustainability at Thai Union, said.

68 »

Raising vegetarian fish Seafood sustainability can be improved by diversifying what we eat and prioritizing low-trophic species in this diversification. While legions of researchers are pursuing plantbased and alternative proteins that can suitably nourish the carnivorous fish the market demands, Kampachi Farms says the more direct and simpler way, is to culture natural marine herbivores.

Nenue (Kyphosus vaigiensis) is an herbivorous reef-fish with a longstanding presence in Hawaiian cuisine and Kampachi Farms has been studying its suitability as a potential new species for aquaculture.

The most interesting feature of this species is its unique digestive system that allows them to graze on macroalgae. They subsist on seaweed by using fermentation in the gut to break down the complex carbohydrates of limu. The company performed several rounds of growout trials with juveniles that have shown that they can thrive on diets based on aquatic plant material as well as corn and wheat. The company said that herbivory precludes the need for wild-caught forage fish, reducing the overall ecological footprint, and perhaps renders them better suited to small-scale fish farming in less-developed countries.

Kampachi research also found that adult nenue spawn readily in captivity. Larvae are exceptionally hardy in preliminary hatchery efforts in an extensive green water culture system. The company is planning larger-scale runs in the near future. Nenue also have ctenoid scales, with a rough texture and row of tiny teeth at the edge. This armor dramatically aids in ectoparasite resistance. Between ready acclimation to captivity, routine marine fish larval rearing, parasite resistance and a broad plant-based diet, this fish has all the trappings of success in sustainable aquaculture, the company stated.

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

Fig 3. Nenue (Kyphosus vaigiensis).

» 69

SALMONIDS

Land-based production of salmon to harvest size has become a hot topic

Grow-out of salmon and steelhead trout is predominated by sea cage

farming. Floating cages have been the conventional production system

By Asbjørn Bergheim*

since the start of the commercial industry in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

O

nshore farming in tanks and raceways of larger salmon to harvest size has seemed a utopian dream, due to high investments and non-competitive production costs.

For several reasons, for example sea lice complications and mortality issues, the production costs have shown an increasing trend in marine cages.

Not the least, the need for frequent delousing throughout the production cycle in many cage farms contributes to higher costs.

Based on a recently performed analysis at The Norwegian University of Science & Technology, the estimated production costs of salmon to harvest size in land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and sea cages were USD 5.23/kg and USD 3.76/kg, respectively. The open-cage scenario even included five sea lice treatments. High production costs in land-based farms are particularly connected to high investment costs. According to the analysis, the investment level is 15 times higher per square meter of farming area for RAS. Above all, the future of landbased grow-out of salmon is dependent on possible attempts to cut production costs. All land-based producers have probably lost money so far on the salmon they have produced (Aslak Berge, pers. comm.). The sales 70 »

Figure 1. Swiss Lachs – a mountain land based facility with farm building, smokehouse and shop (courtesy: Ronald Herculeijns).

price for gutted fish is set by marine farming which totally dominates the volume.

In the foreseeable future, the big question is whether on-land production to harvest size can be achieved competitively in terms of cost. The economic sustainability is closely linked to the intensity of the production. While the peak density at harvest size is about 15 kg per cubic meter in cages, land-based farms cannot be profitable at fish densities below 80 kg per cubic meter or even higher (Steve Summerfelt, Campell River Mirror, 30 September 2011). Such

densities are possible under heavily controlled conditions. High energy demand is one of the main disadvantages of RAS farms, both environmentally and economically. Thus, access to low-price electricity is an essential cost-saving factor.

Higher prices can only be achieved in niche markets. The small portion of salmon produced in high-cost systems like semi-closed cages, RAS modules and ‘organically’ produced salmon are still typical niche products sold to consumers who are less concerned with price and willing to pay premium prices. Like any other

Onshore farming in tanks and raceways of larger salmon to harvest size has seemed a utopian dream, due to high investments and non-competitive production costs.

Figure 2. Aerial photo of Atlantic Sapphire’s large facility for production of Atlantic salmon, Miami Bluehouse, under construction, February 2019 (courtesy: Karl Øystein Øyehaug).

mainstream food, Atlantic salmon has become a commodity product purchased by consumers focusing on one criterion: price.

Despite the challenging costs, several land based salmon farms have popped up in new countries such as in Poland, Denmark, USA, UK, Switzerland, Norway and Canada. Postsmolt salmon grow in freshwater, and can be produced in the mainland and at high elevations in the mountains.

Swiss Lachs, located at 439 meters above sea level in the Italian region of Switzerland is a good example (Figure 1). The RAS facility was de-

signed and delivered by Krüger Denmark. Alpine water is pumped from the ground to run the farm, while the fecal waste is turned into biogas. The first batch of 3.5 kg head-on-gutted salmon was delivered from this farm last autumn. Eggs are imported every second month from Iceland and reach harvest size after 24 months.

The fish is sold fresh and smoked, to inland retailers and food stores. According to the marketing director, Ronald Herculeijns, they plan to produce 600 tons in six batches per year.

Swiss Lachs has its own integrated smokehouse and on-site shop.

Most land-based enterprises plan to produce from several hundred to one thousand tons per year. These are small farms compared to the production plans of Atlantic Sapphire’s RAS facility in the state of Florida. In mid2020, the company aims to deliver its first harvest of 10,000 tons (Karl Øystein Øyehaug, pers. com.). The initial construction phase of this large facility is in progress (Figure 2).

The present land based salmon facilities have a total capacity of maximum 15,000 tons produced per year, but the volume is expected to rapidly increase. In the next 10 years, such production might move towards 200,000 – 300,000 tons and will probably be part of the global growth in aquaculture (Christian Sørensen, Hatchery Int., Jan/Feb 2019). “With no doubt there will be land-based production in areas like the U.S. and Asia, but in our expectations, in 2030 we believe no more than 10 percent of the global demand for salmon will be covered by land-based production.”

Dr. Asbjørn Bergheim is a consultant at Oxyvision Ltd. in Stavanger. His fields of interest within aquaculture are primarily water quality vs. technology and management in tanks, cages and ponds, among others. asbjorn@oxyvision.com

Figure 3. Swiss Lachs’ smolt tank (courtesy: Swiss Lachs).

» 71

THE LONG VIEW

Mapping the I Implications of Import Refusal Records By: Madeline Craig *

Records of import refusals are a frequently overlooked and

underutilized tool for evaluating the state of the aquaculture industry.

The FDA’s publicly available import refusal records may be able to shed some light on the prevalence of certain contaminants in different exporting countries over time, as well as the volume of food waste associated with these import refusals.

72 »

n the past decade, nearly every facet of shrimp aquaculture has been under increasing scrutiny—from the production of feed ingredients to the processing plant—but not much attention has been given to what happens to farmed shrimp once it reaches its destination markets. How much of that shrimp was treated with a banned antibiotic, but made it to the consumer’s plate anyway? How much of the shrimp that required all that land, water, and energy to produce makes it to the border of its destination only to be discarded?

High-profile media reports have already illuminated problems such as the presence of slavery and forced labor in the seafood industry at large, as well as the widespread use of banned antibiotics, but the United States remains one of the largest and most open markets for farmed shrimp, despite these issues. This means that shrimp that could be refused entry into the EU, Japan, or other major shrimp markets are likely to still be viable for shipment to the U.S. This has two main implications: an increase in the likelihood of threats to public health and safety, and the possibility for increased instance of food waste if imports are refused and discarded.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) publicly available import refusal records may be able to shed some light on the prevalence of certain contaminants in different exporting countries over time, as well as the volume of food waste associated with these import refusals.

Food production accounts for 70% of human water use, 25-35% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 38% of our total land use. It is well documented that we are currently using resources at one and half times the rate that the planet can sustain, and wasting fully a third of every calorie produced. Within that context, it should be clear that reducing any waste in the food industry should be a top priority. This is especially true if, as in the

» 73

THE LONG VIEW

case of shrimp, that food is the number one seafood consumed in the U.S. by volume (approximately 4 pounds per person annually).

So what is the process for screening shrimp aquaculture products intended for the U.S. market? The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol are the first to process and record a shipment; it then proceeds to the FDA. Using a predictive screening algorithm, which assesses instances of contamination, type of product, and the country/ processor of last handling, the FDA’s predictive algorithm flags which incoming shrimp are at highest risk of contamination or infraction. FDA staff then physically examine only around 1% of all imported shrimp. Of that one percent, the ones that are found to have violated an FDA standard are detained and usually destroyed. The sheer volume of shrimp consumed in the U.S. means that even this small percentage of detained product can represent a sizeable amount of waste.

Between 2002 and 2018, the top five reasons that shrimp coming into the US was detained were (1) the presence of salmonella, (2) drug/ antibiotic residue, (3) the product was found to be “filthy”/ unfit for consumption, (4) it contained nitrofurans, or (5) it contained any other “unsafe food additive”. Three of these top

Image 1 FDA Shrimp Import Refusals 2016-2018 (Top 8 reasons for refusal).

five reasons for refusal—and more than half of the top ten—are due to the presence of a substance (usually an antibiotic) that was purposefully added to the product. It’s unsurprising that the countries that produce and export the most shrimp are also among the top offenders for contaminants and other violations by number; nevertheless it’s interesting to map these trends.

Other top reasons for refusal include a simple failure to print the name of the processing company on the package, the absence of any English on the label, an absent or incomplete nutrition label, or evidence that the product has been packaged

in unsanitary conditions. In many instances, a shipment was refused for not just one, but for multiple reasons.

However, the idea that some of the discarded shrimp may have been perfectly fine to consume, but had to be discarded because of a lack of English on the label is hard to swallow.

No one benefits from such an avoidable waste.

Within the industry, these problems have been more or less persistent over the course of the past sixteen years, but they vary from country to country because of different lessons learned or tools developed. If these past trends could be utilized to help guide our expectations or manage-

Image 2 Image 2. Shrimp Import Refusals by Country – Top Ten Offenders.

Using a predictive screening algorithm, which assesses instances of contamination, type of product, and the country/ processor of last handling, the FDA’s predictive algorithm flags which incoming shrimp are at highest risk of contamination or infraction.

74 »

ment of growing markets, then some unnecessary food waste might be avoided. When we think about resource use in aquaculture, we tend to focus now on things like feed conversion ratio and farm management. A topic that isn’t necessarily the first to come to mind is the volume of resource waste represented by this discarded shrimp.

Even if there was improved resource efficiency at the farm level, it does no good if the product reaches its intended destination only to be discarded.

It’s time to start holding the proverbial microscope to the import process for shrimp. A vast majority of the shrimp on US plates is imported aquaculture product—as much as 92%, according to NOAA. That’s a lot of foreign shrimp that needs to pass muster, and the FDA just doesn’t have the capacity to test all or even most of the incoming shrimp. Moving forward, it would benefit the entire planet if more attention and resources were allocated to food regulatory bodies such as the FDA, both within the U.S. and abroad, and if more care were taken with respect to product and shipment labeling and documentation.

Madeline Craig is the Aquaculture Program Associate at the World Wildlife Fund. She received her BA in International Development and the Environment from McGill University.

She has lived and worked in Panama, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

» 75

URNER BARRY

TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Liz Cuozzo, Lorin Castiglione*

Tilapia Tilapia Total tilapia imports for February gained 6.6 percent compared to the previous month. Frozen whole fish (1.9%), frozen fillets (11%) and fresh whole fish (70%) saw increases, while fresh fillets fell 8 percent. On a year-to-date basis, all categories were tracking behind YTD 2018 volumes.

Frozen Channel Catfish (Ictalurus) Fillet Pricing Shipments in February entered the U.S. with a declared value of $2.35 per pound, gaining $0.04 from the previous month. The wholesale market continued to remain steady with consistent sales. The current U.S. wholesale price was listed at $3.55 per pound, $0.13 below that time last year.

were continuing on standard moisture frozen Pangasius fillets as inventory levels remained high within the U.S. Some industry players believe prices could continue to soften into the early summer before firming back up. If Vietnam packers were able to secure orders within Europe at the Brussels Seafood show, prices may firm up sooner with the increase in demand.

Imports of Frozen Pangasius (Swai) Fillets February imports of frozen Pangasius fillets registered 14.2 million pounds, retreating 29.9 percent from the previous month. Compared to the same month a year ago, imports showed an increase of 17.6 percent from February 2018. Looking at cyclical behavior of total imports, this February fell 21.7 percent below the previous 3-year average for the month. European data runs through February 2019 and reveals imports retreated 13.6 percent from the preImports of Frozen Channel vious month. Nonetheless, both U.S. Catfish (Ictalurus) Fillets Imports of frozen channel catfish fil- (23.8%) and European (27.1%) imlets in February typically decline, how- ports were up compared to YTD figever February 2019 saw a 47.4 percent ures of 2018. increase from the previous month.

The U.S. saw a major spike in im- Frozen Pangasius (Swai) Fillet ports in December 2018 ahead of the Pricing 25% tariffs that were supposed to go According to the data from the USinto effect in January but were post- DOC, replacement prices for Febponed. With all that volume, January ruary 2019 gained $0.01 per pound imports fell to a record low, resulting from the previous month, recording in an increase in volume for the sec- at $2.17. Please consider that the reond month of the year. On a YTD placement cost we publish from the basis 2019 trails 2018 by 37.6 percent USDOC is not Delivery Duty Paid and falls 49 percent below the previ- (DDP); therefore, if we are to propous 5-year average for the month of erly assess this cost we must add exFebruary. tra to this price per pound. Discounts

Imports of Whole Fish Tilapia Imports of frozen whole tilapia remained about steady into February, increasing slightly, up 1.9 percent from the previous month and registering 6.2 million pounds. Compared to the previous 3-year average for this month, February 2019 fell 21.5% below the average; however we must note, February 2016 had a record high month of imports totaling 10.6 million pounds.

Pangasius and Channel Catfish Imports of Pangasius frozen fillets retreated 29.9 percent from the previous month totaling 14.2 million pounds.

Compared to the same month a year ago import volume was up 17.6 percent. Volume from China fell 11.6 percent totaling 493,191 lbs. as most of their production is used for domestic consumption. Frozen channel catfish fillet imports gained 47.4 percent from the previous month, however on a YTD basis 2019 was trending 37.6 percent below the same 2018 timeframe.

76 Âť

Imports of Fresh Tilapia Fillets Imports in February fell 8 percent from the previous month as seasonally expected, and declined compared to the same month last year by 11.6 percent. Although the monthly behavior is seasonally normal, imports have been decreasing consistently over the last 2 years. Imports from Ecuador were 27.1 percent lower YTD. Similarly, imports from the main supplier, Honduras, were down 18.4 percent through the first two months of the year. However, imports from Costa Rica were 32.1 percent greater YTD. Shipments from Colombia fell 11.3 percent YTD and nearly 7 percent compared to February 2018. Overall, imports of fresh

tilapia fillets were down 9.7 percent on an YTD basis registering the lowest cumulative (Jan-Feb) figure since 2004.

low January due to an influx of product coming into the country in Q4 2018 ahead of the 25% tariffs which have since been postponed. Compared to the previous 3-year average, February 2019 fell 34.4 percent below average.

to environmental factors, we will see if that is true for 2019.

Frozen Analysis Cont. & Other Inputs Fresh Tilapia Fillet Pricing YTD weighted replacement costs registered $1.77 for January to FebFrom a replacement cost basis, as ruary, $0.09 lower than the same well as the adjustments made to the timeframe last year. YTD import weighted import price per pound Frozen Tilapia Fillet Pricing (which includes only the top five Replacement prices fell $0.05 to volume fell well below previous years suppliers), we found that the Feb- $1.75 per pound for the month of as product rushed into the country in ruary figure of $3.06 fell $0.08 per February. We must remember that December 2018 ahead of the tariffs. pound from the previous month but when costs overseas advance it is YTD Pangasius and tilapia imports had increased $0.12 from February likely that U.S. importers will try to were neck and neck for the year, with 2018. The market in the U.S. contin- pass the increase onto the U.S. mar- 155,545 pounds separating the two. ued to be reportedly steady. ket. With a decrease in replacement The undertone of the tilapia market costs and steady wholesale prices, the remained steady, while the Pangasius Imports of Frozen Tilapia Fillets ratio of these two numbers adjusted market undertone was barely steady Seasonally, imports decrease going to 1.17. Wholesale prices remained as prices continue to soften. into February, however, imports of steady, at an average of $2.05 per frozen tilapia fillets gained 11 per- pound. The market was stable, prices * Liz Cuozzo lcuozzo@urnerbarry.com cent totaling 18.2 million pounds for held firm throughout Lent. Typically, Lorin Castiglione lcastiglione@urnerbarry.com the month of February after a record we see prices rise in the summer due Âť 77

URNER BARRY

Shrimp

UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Jim Kenny, Gary Morrison*

U.S. Imports All Types, By Type February imports were released and show a nearly 10 percent decline in the volume of warm water shrimp products entering the U.S. when compared to the same month in 2018.

The lower imports were generally broad based, following the trend set in the first month of the year, with most countries sending less shrimp to the U.S. than February 2018.

India (+20.1%) and Mexico (+14.4%), the major gainers, both shipped more shrimp to the U.S. in the month of February. The pace of gain widened for both, with the former being the largest shipping country on both a monthly basis and yearto-date basis. In fact, volume from India through the first two months outpaces the next three spots, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Vietnam, com-

78 Âť

bined. Indonesia (-25.2%), Ecuador (-6.5%), Vietnam (-23.8%), Thailand (-31.6%), and China (-45.7%) all shipped less shrimp.

Declines were seen in headless Shell-On, which includes easy peel (-3.5%); peeled (-7.5%); breaded (-9.1%); and cooked (-28.5%). For cooked shrimp, this reversed the gain in imports that was seen in January.

Monthly Import Cycles by Country (All Types) India: India continued to hold its leadership position in shrimp imports by a wide margin. The gap widened as most other major countries, with the exception of Mexico, continued to ship less shrimp into the U.S. for the first two months of the year. India shipped 20.1 percent more shrimp in February 2019 than the same month the previous year.

The total monthly February imports from India were over 37 percent of all shrimp imported for the month.

Growth in shell-on and peeled was noted, as product imported in February increased 16.9 percent and 22.5 percent from last year.

Indonesia: Just like many of the other trade partners, shipments from Indonesia moved significantly lower in February, continuing the trend for the first month of the year.

Shipments from Indonesia to the U.S. were 25.2 percent lower, with large declines in both shell-on (-28 percent) and peeled (-28.5 percent).

Despite the large monthly decline, Indonesia remained responsible for nearly 20 percent of all shrimp imported into the U.S. in February.

Ecuador: The pace of declines slowed in February for shrimp shipments from Ecuador. While ship-

ments from Ecuador into the U.S. were 6.5 percent lower in February, this was a much smaller decline than many other countries. Shell-on product declined 5.1 percent and peeled declined 2.6 percent.

Thailand and Vietnam: The number four and five markets remained intact, but the gap narrowed against number six Mexico. Vietnam shipped 23.8 percent less and Thailand shipped 31.6 percent less for the month.

Shrimp Price Timelines; Retail Ads Retail: Retail buying opportunities in the month of February edged up from last year and remained elevated to the last few years. Lower prices were the main driver as the average ad prices moved $0.07 lower monthto-month. Shrimp remained an at-

tractive alternative to other proteins as a result.

U.S. Shrimp Supply & Gulf Situation Wild, Gulf of Mexico: The effort in the region has been seasonally slow, and without any chance of meaningful replacement, seller attention has remained largely focused on inventory management. The National Marine Fisheries Service has released February 2019 landings (all species, headless) of 2.07 million lbs. compared to 2.71 million in February 2018. The two-month total was 4.51 million lbs.; 135 thousand pounds or three percent below the Jan-Feb 2018 total of 4.65 million lbs. * Jim Kenny jkenny@urnerbarry.com Gary Morrison gmorrison@urnerbarry.com

Âť 79

Upcoming

aquaculture events

JUNE ASIA-PACIFIC AQUACULTURE 2019 Jun. 18 – Jun. 21 Chennai, India T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@was.com W: www.was.org

SEPTEMBER AQUACULTURE INNOVATION EUROPE Sep. 10 – Sep. 11 London, UK T: +44 (0) 20 3696 2920 E: events@kisacoresearch.com W: https://aquaculture-innovation.com/events/aquaculture-2019 14° FIACUI 2019 Sep. 25 – Sep. 26 Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México T: + (210) 504 36 42 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.fiacui.com

OCTOBER URNER BARRY’S GLOBAL PROTEIN SUMMIT Oct. 8 – Oct. Chicago, USA W: https://globalproteinsummit.urnerbarry.com/

AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2019 Oct. 8 – Oct. 10 Berlin, Germany T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

NOVEMBER 2nd INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE Nov. 7 – Nov. 8 Ensenada, Baja California, México T: + (210) 504 36 42 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.aquaculturemag.com LAQUA 2019 Nov. 20 – Nov. 22 San José, Costa Rica T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org SUSTAINABLE OCEAN SUMMIT Nov. 20 – Nov. 22 Paris, France W: https://www.oceancouncil.org/

FEBRUARY AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2020 Feb. 09 – Feb. 12 Honolulu, Hawai T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org JUNE WORLD AQUACULTURE 2020 Jun. 08 – Jun. 12 Singapur T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

AUGUST WAS NORTH AMERICA & AQUACULTURE CANADA 2020 Ago. 30 – Sep. 02 St John’s Newfoundland, Canadá T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org SEPTEMBER AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2020 Sep. 29 – Oct. 02 Cork, Ireland T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

advertisers Index

AERATION EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, FILTERS AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, ETC AQUATIC EQUIPMENT AND DESIGN, INC.....................................75 522 S. HUNT CLUB BLVD, #416, APOPKA, FL 32703. USA. Contact: Amy Stone T: (407) 717-6174 E-mail: amy@aquaticed.com DELTA HYDRONICS LLC...............................................................35 T: 727 861 2421 www.deltahydro.com FRESH FLO..................................................................................67 3037 Weeden Creek Rd. Sheboygan, WI 53081, USA Contact: Barb Ziegelbauer T: 800 493 3040 E-mail: barb@freshflo.com www.freshflo.com MDM INC.....................................................................................39 T: 1 800 447 8342 E-mail: sales@mdminc.com www.pmdminc.com YSI.........................................................................................45 1700/1725 Brannum Lane-P.O. Box 279, Yellow Springs, OH. 45387,USA. Contact: Tim Groms.

T: 937 767 7241, 1800 897 4151 E-mail: environmental@ysi.com www.ysi.com ANTIBIOTICS, PROBIOTICS AND FEED ADDITIVES LALLEMAND ANIMAL NUTRITION................................................29 Contact: Bernardo Ramírez DVM Basurto.

T: (+52) 833 155 8096 E-mail: bramirez@lallemand.com www.lallemand.com MEGASUPPLY...................................................................BACK COVER Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama: T: +504 2-782-6230 Venezuela: T: +58 (212) 235-6680 F: +58 (212) 235-7054 https://www.megasupply.net/

80 »

RICH SA.........................................................................................1 T: +30 210 9846752 F: +30 210 9852691 E-mail: rich@rich.gr www. rich.gr EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS 2ND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE........................................... INSIDE BACK COVER November 7 and 8, 2019. Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico.

Caracol Science Museum and Aquarium.

14° FIACUI 2019..........................................................................41 Sep. 25 – Sep. 26 Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México W: www.fiacui.com AQUA EXPO 2019 WORLD AQUACULTURE CONFERENCE...........43 October 21- 24, 2019. Guayaquil, Ecuador. Convention Center.

Contact: Gabriela Nivelo T: (+593) 4268 3017 ext. 202 E-mail: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com LACQUA 2019....................................................INSIDE COVER November 19 - 22, 2019. Herradura Convention Center (Windham).

San José, Costa Rica.

E-mail: worldaqua@was.org www.was.org XIII SIMPOSIO CENTROAMERICANO DE ACUICULTURA.........47 August 20 - 23, 2019. Choluteca Honduras.

E-mail: andah@andah.hn INFORMATION SERVICES

AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE.........................................17, 63, 73 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

PANORAMA ACUÍCOLA MAGAZINE.............................................21 Empresarios No. #135 Int. Piso 7 Oficina 723 Col. Puerta de Hierro, C.P.45116 Zapopan, Jal. México Office: +52 (33) 8000 0578 Contact 1: Subscriptions E-mail: suscripciones@panoramaacuicola.com Office: +52 (33) 8000 0629 y (33) 8000 0653 Contact 2: Christian Criollos, Sales Manager E-mail: crm@dpinternationalinc.com www.panoramaacuicola.com AQUAFEED.COM..........................................................................69 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.............................................................27 Assistant/Associate Professor – Seafood Specialist Food Science and Human Nutrition Department Requisition # 41188 E-mail: psarnoski@ufl.edu. http://apply.interfolio.com/58084 URNER BARRY.............................................................................79 P.O. Box 389 Tom Ride. New Jersey, USA. Contact: Steven Valverde.

T: (732)-575-1967 E-mail: svalverde@urnerbarry.com OTHERS INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY........................................................55 Fiji Islands Farm and Hatchery E-mail: shg@cpacasia.com TANKS AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE REEF INDUSTRIES.......................................................................25 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