Aquaculture Magazine April-May 2018 Vol. 44 No.2

2 »

»

1

INDEX

Aquaculture Magazine Volume 44 Number 2 April - May 2018

4

editor´s comments

6

INDUSTRY NEWS

10 Note

Enterra receives new approvals to sell sustainable insect ingredients for animal feed in USA, Canada and EU.

12 article

Feed Conversion Efficiency In Aquaculture: Do We Measure It Correctly?

18

article

on the

cover Diseases of Freshwater Prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii

58

Shrimp Aquaculture Technology Change in Indonesia: Are Small Farmers Included?

22 article

The Oceans: A Perfect Source of Carotenoids.

26

Volume 44 Number 2 April - May 2018

R&D CENTER

The University of Idaho’s Aquaculture Research Institute (ARI).

32 event review

World Aquaculture Society - Aquaculture America 2018 Shaping the Future – Telling Our Story.

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

Editor in Chief Greg Lutz editorinchief@dpinternationalinc.com

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

Editorial Design Francisco Cibrián

36 Latin America Report Recent News and Events.

38 note

Successful Demo Project Brings First In-Pond Raceway System To Latin America.

76 Urner barry

SALMON. TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH. SHRIMP.

80 2 »

Upcoming events advertisers Index

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

40

Aquaculture Stewardship Council News from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

By ASC Staff

42

FISH HEALTH, ETC

Using Pseudo-Science and Disease to Fear-Monger Against Aquaculture: A Veterinarian’s Perspective PART 1

By Hugh Mitchell, MSc, DVM

46

AQUAFEED

Recent news from around the globe by Aquafeed.com

By Suzi Dominy

50

nutrition

52

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

Nutritional needs of Tilapia.

By Paul B. Brown*

Adapting to a Constantly Changing Business Climate.

By Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC

56

SALMONIDS

Contents of favorable and undesirables in farmed salmon.

By Asbjørn Bergheim

58

Shrimp

Diseases of Freshwater Prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii.

By Hui Gong Jiang, PhD

62

THE Shellfish CORNER

68

the fishmonger

70

Perspective and Opinion

Shellfish Aquaculture in the Commons.

By Michael A. Rice*

RE: Mercury… Part Two.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Issues Public Statement Regarding PRV in Atlantic Salmon.

»

3

Are we there yet?

By C. Greg Lutz

W

e hear over and over that aquaculture now produces more than half of the edible seafood on this planet. But the typical consumer, especially in the “developed” nations, has no clue. They only know what they hear on social media and in biased documentaries. These pages have many lessons for us on how public perception, both positive and negative, impacts our industry. Those perceptions also impact the decisions

4 »

Are we there yet? Not even close, it seems.

of policy makers, at whose whimsy the industry can either thrive or decline. When we approached (let alone passed) the point of producing more edible product than wild fisheries, one might have hoped that the utility, sustainability and potential of aquaculture would be recognized.

But instead, we still face a difficult path. Roadblocks. Anchors tied on around our necks to weigh us down. Even deliberate ambushes.

Why are we still so misunderstood?

A great explanation is presented in these pages by our columnist Dr. Hugh Mitchell: A “Pseudo-scientist” generates a hypothetical theory to suit their cause, often ignoring, suppressing and dismissing past or current research that doesn’t support their theories. They get protective of this theory and discourage others from trying to duplicate their “research,” often launching personal attacks on those that voice contradictory information. There are many examples of the media and NGO’s successfully supporting and promulgating “junk science with an agenda” against North American salmon farming.

A real-world example of this has recently come to light in British Columbia. Following what were apparently unfounded claims by selfserving “scientists,” activists and politicians of bias in favor of the salmon farming industry at the British Columbia Animal Health Centre, Don Wright, the Deputy Minister to the Premier of the Province, has released his report on an unbiased review of the province’s Animal Health Centre (AHC) conducted by none other than Deloitte! Not surprisingly, the report found that the public servants and scientists at the Centre are “working well on behalf of British Columbians, and operating without any conflicts of interest.”

The report also identified nine recommendations, focusing on areas such as developing conflict of interest guidelines, conducting regular conflict of interest audits and improving information sharing with the public. It is probably apparent to any objective observer that the bulk of these recommendations serve to prevent frivolous (if not slanderous) accusations such as the ones that originally led to the review. The Ministry of Agriculture, which from some perspectives colluded with regard to the unfounded accusations, indicates that it has started the process of implementing these recommendations.

While the review was clear that there are NO conflicts of interest in the Centre’s operations, there is still “considerable debate among scientists about the impacts of salmon farming on wild stocks in areas like the Broughton Archipelago.” Unfortunately, many so-called “scientists” have ceased to practice the rigor and discipline associated with that noble endeavor. To quote a press release from the Office of the Premier of British Colombia: “Scientists will continue to discuss and debate the different interpretations they may have, which is the basis of the advancement of science.” It will

be painfully obvious in the coming months and years that those who fail to do so in a professional, unbiased manner no longer deserve the title of “scientist.” A review of the available information suggests that at least one DFO employee may already not necessarily merit that title in the opinion of many industry observers, especially after costing the taxpayers that fund her salary an additional $100,000 for the review that resulted from careless if not deliberately defamatory commentary.

Another statement in the report Deputy Minister Don Wright submitted to the Premier regarding this matter was extremely enlightening: “Differences amongst scientists should be based on an assessment of scientific evidence and not be reduced to imputations of bad faith or conflict of interest where there is no evidence to support those claims.” I have seen the same insidious assault on professional, sustainable aquaculture in numerous countries. Alas, if only the self-serving aquaculture “haters” could grasp this concept… we could feed a lot more people and keep a lot more children in schools, with decent clothes. But just like the “bad cops” that betray their badges, these charlatans have betrayed the title of “scientist.” Never mind the

politicians… they have already made their bed, and will keep trying to make ours for us.

I really try to shun the “us vs them” mentality – there’s enough of that already built into our genes as a result of thousands of generations of surviving in small groups that were often forced to compete with each other. But let’s face it, fake news abounds on all wavelengths of the political spectrum – from the alt-right to the ultra-liberal “protectors” of our natural resources. The key word there is “our”… those resources are ours and our children’s.

Unless those “protectors” feel they are somehow sufficiently superior to make our decisions for us, they should allow rigorous science into the debate.

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

Dr. Pearse Lyons Alltech president and founder dies United States. – On March 8th, the Irish-born entrepreneur and founder of Alltech, Dr. Pearse Lyons, died in Kentucky at the age of 73.

To continue driving forward his vision for serving the agriculture industry through field-proven innovations, Dr. Lyons established a clear leadership structure, including: • Dr. Mark Pearse Lyons, Chairman and President • Alric A. Blake, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer • E. Michael Castle II, Vice President and Secretary As the company’s director of corporate image and design, Mrs. Deirdre Lyons will continue to further Dr. Lyons’ vision for Alltech’s global presence and their shared commitment to philanthropy and community involvement.

“Dr. Lyons was a visionary entrepreneur who transformed the

Dr. Pearse Lyons (Photo Alltech).

agriculture industry, beginning with his innovative application of yeast technology in animal nutrition,” said Alric Blake, CEO and treasurer of Alltech.

“We are all deeply saddened by my father’s passing,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, now chairman and president of Alltech. “He always focused on developing people, and he built an extraordinary team over the years. I

know he had full confidence in his team to continue growing the company he built.”

“He saw farther into the horizon than anyone in the industry, and we, as his team, are committed to delivering on the future he envisioned.

He planted seeds that will produce a bountiful harvest for the world in the years to come.”

Whole Oceans Announces Plan to Establish a Land-based Salmon Farm in Maine United States. – After more than six years of research and preparation, Rob Piasio is leading efforts to launch Whole Oceans —a state-of-the-art recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) that will raise Atlantic salmon— on the site of the former Verso paper mill in Bucksport, Maine. The project represents an investment of over $250 million USD. At full capacity, Whole Oceans will produce 50,000 metric tons of Atlantic salmon per year using entirely land-based technology. The construction of the farm is planned to start in August 2018. A team of global leaders in land-based technology, including Billund Aquaculture based in Denmark and the Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute in West Virginia, was assembled for the research and preparation for the project.

Currently, 95% of Atlantic salmon consumed in the U.S. is imported and 6 »

Rendering courtesy John Gutwin of Pepperchrome.

produced using offshore cage farms.

Rob Piasio, Whole Oceans’ CEO, mentioned that the company’s mission is to capture 10% of the U.S. Atlantic salmon market —which has an approximate value of USD 2 billion— using only earth-friendly technologies. The Maine-based company states it has already pre-sold 100% of production for the next ten years.

“The time for RAS has arrived and Whole Oceans will make Bucksport a global leader in sustainable

Atlantic salmon production,” stated Piasio. “But this story is much bigger than just Whole Oceans. This story is also about the resiliency and determination of towns throughout Maine that make projects like this possible.

Whole Oceans is entering a long-term partnership with the community of Bucksport, a responsibility we accept with the greatest care, and together we will strive to make Whole Oceans a source of pride every single day.”

Danish Aquaculture Industry Will Support Scotland’s Aquaculture Growth Ambitions Denmark and Scotland. – Scotland’s plan to double its aquaculture sector by 2030 requires the support of an efficient and stable supply chain. With this in mind, representatives from the Scottish industry were invited to Denmark to share their ambitions and to give an insight into the way in which their industry is working together to unlock future growth with the Danish Fish Tech Group.

Scotland’s plan to expand their aquaculture industry consists in seeing the industry grow from GBP 1.8 billion (USD 2.5 billion) to GBP 3.6 billion (USD 4.9 billion) and generating more than 9,000 new jobs. Danish suppliers expect to play a strategic role in it.

The Danish Fish Tech Group, part of the Danish Export Association with close to 100 members, is Denmark’s largest export network for suppliers to the global fishing, aquaculture and seafood process-

ing industries. According to Elaine Jamieson, head of food and drink at Scotland Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Danish aquaculture is a mature industry with numerous strengths; therefore, the Scottish aquaculture industry can learn a lot about Denmark’s aquaculture supply chain and its approach to exporting.

“Our key recommendations are to address the biological challenges like sea lice, to rationalise the regulations we are working within, and thirdly, to innovate the supply chain with new product technologies,” said

Stewart Graham, CEO at the Scottish engineer and equipment supplier Gael Force. “In Scotland, we have massively underexploited the supply chain. Thus, we are interested in how networks of suppliers like Danish Fish Tech Group and their member companies work, what we can learn from them to help the Scottish supply chain, and how we can continue to form partnerships that can lead to benefits in export or investments.”

The Danish Fish Tech Group will be present at Aquaculture UK 2018 this May 23-24.

“Fish from Greece” New Marketing Campaign to Promote Greek Aquaculture throughout Europe Greece. – The Hellenic Aquaculture Producers Organization (HAPO) will launch a new marketing campaign to promote its aquaculture products commercialized in Europe. The campaign aims to boost consumption of Greek aquaculture—consisting mainly of bass and bream—and to establish a connection with international consumers in order to strengthen its position in the market, as mentioned by Undercurrent.

The campaign will help establish the “national identity of a great brand by capitalizing on Greece and by identifying the unique values and characteristics of farmed fish that grows in the Greek sea as opposed to fish farmed in other countries”, said Ismini Bogdanou, HAPO’s marketing and communications manager.

The marketing initiative will be officially launched at the Brussels Seafood Expo later this year, and it will include digital advertising in several countries, the creation of a new logo, the placement of food trucks, and other initiatives.

HAPO was established in 2016 by 21 Greek farmers, with a combined production of 81,947 metric tons.

That year in Greece, aquaculture sites totaled 1,097, including 336 fish farms and 596 shellfish farms. Greek bass and bream production in 2017 was estimated at 110,000 metric tons, slightly up year-on-year. Production is expected to rise to 118,000 tons by 2020 and further strengthen in the following years, according to HAPO. »

7

INDUSTRY researchNEWS report

NTU Scientists Discover Fish Scale-Derived Collagen Effective for Healing Wounds Singapore. – Scientists from the Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU Singapore) have established that water-soluble collagen derived from fish scales could be effective for various biomedical applications, such as wound healing. The NTU scientists’ findings were published recently in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Biomaterialia.

Collagen contributes to wound healing and is also promising as a carrier of drugs that can enhance wound healing, such as growth factors. However, in its natural, unmodified form, collagen becomes soluble only in acidic conditions, which damage the drugs. By using chemical modification, the NTU scientists were able to create water-soluble collagen from the fish scales, opening up the possibility to incorporate drugs in collagen that could be successfully used to fabricate wound dressings with superior healing potential.

NTU Singapore scientists have found potential biomedical uses for collagen derived from fish scales, which are usually discarded. From left: Associate Professor Andrew Tan, research fellow Dr. Wang Jun Kit and Assistant Professor Cleo Choong (Photo NTU Singapore).

The team’s findings have caught the attention of international collagen-based biomedical product manufacturing companies that are interested in using non-mammalian sources to overcome biological and cultural drawbacks associated with bovine and porcine collagen. For this study, the research team partnered with a local fish farm that supplied them with fish scales from sea bass, snakehead and tilapia; they have also found that bullfrog skin represents a good source

of collagen. Currently, the team is exploring ways to scale-up the collagen extraction process for effective wasteto-resource management.

For the past six years, the NTU team behind this research has been focusing on ways to convert low-value, unmarketable aquaculture waste to higher-value resources. Other projects by the NTU team involve deriving carbohydrates from shrimp shells and brown seaweed for biomedical applications.

Canadian Government Committed to Improving Aquaculture and Fisheries Environmental Performance Canada. – The Government of Canada is fully committed to supporting research, development, demonstrations and adoption of clean technologies for the agricultural sector.

On March 19th, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Lawrence Macaulay announced the Agricultural Clean Technology Program. This CAD 25 million, three-year investment will help the agricultural sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the development and adoption of clean technologies. Provinces and territories are eligible to apply for federal funding through this program, and are encouraged to work with the industry on projects that focus on precision agriculture and/or bioproducts. The program will launch in April 2018, and a program guide will be available in the coming weeks.

8 »

Bayness Sound - Oyster skiff Photo VIUDeepBay (CC BY 2.0)

Salmon Photo r h (CC BY 2.0)

In addition to the Agricultural Clean Technology Program, Natural Resources Canada will provide CAD 155 million for clean technology research and development and demonstration projects, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada will invest CAD 20 million to assist Canada’s fisheries and aquaculture industries in improving their environmental performance.

“This investment will help Canadian farmers stay on the cutting edge of clean technology by target-

ing developments in bioproducts and precision agriculture. Our government has made both agriculture and clean technology a priority for growth in our economy. This new program will contribute to Canada’s place as a world leader in agricultural clean technology, helping farmers to develop new and efficient uses of energy, while also protecting our environmental resources and mitigating climate change,” said Lawrence MacAulay, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Aqua-Spark, Pioneer Investment Fund for Sustainable Aquaculture, Announces Investment in Global Accelerator for Aquaculture: Hatch Accelerator 1.0 In March, Aqua-Spark, an investment fund focused exclusively on sustainable aquaculture, announced its investment in Hatch Accelerator 1.0, the first-ever global accelerator program dedicated to the aquaculture industry.

The investment will be used to accelerate a group of eight companies between April and June of 2018. In December 2013 Aqua-Spark launched with a mission to make the rapidly-growing fish farming sector sustainable.

While Aqua-Spark focuses on the growth-stage of Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Hatch was created with the mission of investing in early stage aquaculture opportunities. It was founded in 2017 by Carsten Krome, Georg Baunach, and Wayne Murphy, with support from Alimentos Ventures, which was created by Carsten Krome. Together, the cofounders realized an opportunity and need to help mature early-stage companies and technologies that have the potential to transform the landscape.

With a shared history and similar goals (Krome previously worked for Aqua-Spark), Hatch and Aqua-Spark are creating a complete support system to nurture aquaculture startups from innovative ideas through commercialization. More success among these aquaculture startups translates into faster growth towards a more sustainable industry.

“Aqua-Spark often encounters great ideas, products, and technologies that could have benefitted from ideation phase support,” explained Mike Velings and Amy Novogratz, cofounders of Aqua-Spark. “Further, it is imperative that we develop a way

to finance early stage aquaculture ventures, which Hatch is doing. Between Aqua-Spark and Hatch, there is a clear opportunity for a symbiotic partnership that will improve collective deal flow. We can direct smart, early-phase companies to Hatch, and as Hatch actively finds and grows early-stage startups, Aqua-Spark can absorb those that have progressed beyond accelerator. It is a holistic win for the aquaculture industry as a whole.”

Hatch, located in Bergen, Norway, uses an intensive 3-month program that provides top teams with aquaculture expertise from across the world— along with industry and investor connections, and the facilities required to fast track product development. AquaSpark is an investment fund with a focus on sustainable aquaculture businesses around the world. The smallto-medium enterprises (SMEs) in which they invest are working toward the sustainable production of aquatic life, such as fish, shellfish, and plants.

Aqua-Spark believes that committing to a long-term vision is the way to realize effective and lasting results.

Since 2015, the fund has invested in 10 complementary SMEs, including: • Sogn Aqua (2 investments): A Norwegian fish farm with the potential to change the way red-listed Atlantic Halibut is farmed • Calysta (3 investments): A biotechnology company that is transforming fish feed, making it healthier and more environmentally sound • eFishery (2 investments): A crucial technology for monitoring fish feed with the power to revolutionize commercial aquaculture

• Chicoa Fish Farms (2 investments): A fish farm that offers a vertically integrated solution to the freshwater aquaculture industry in Mozambique • Matorka (2 investments): a landbased, geothermal Arctic Char farm in Iceland • Indian Ocean Trepang: An innovative sea cucumber farming operation in Madagascar • Love The Wild: A US-based company that produces sustainable, delicious ready-to-prepare seafood kits • Protix: A highly technological and data driven insect producer • Proteon: A leader in natural, safe, and environmentally sustainable phageplatform technology, an alternative to antibiotics • Cryoocyte: A reproductive technology platform for high precision fish farming Thus far, Aqua-Spark has EUR 57 million under management, dedicated to invest in elements of the aquaculture industry that will make fish farming sustainable. The goal of the fund is to grow to EUR 1.5 billion AUM by 2025— ultimately making sustainability big and profitable enough so it becomes the only way to farm fish.

Hatch provides and fosters a global go-to community for entrepreneurs, commercial players, researchers, and investors alike. It currently runs a cohort of eight companies from April until June 2018, and will run another cohort in Cork, Ireland in Q3/Q4 2018. It plans to expand its program to South East Asia in 2019. »

9

note

Enterra

receives new approvals to sell sustainable insect ingredients for animal feed in USA, Canada and EU Enterra Feed Corporation has received new approvals to sell its insect-based feed ingredients in the United States, Canada and the European Union.

T

he Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) in the United States has agreed to Enterra’s request to include Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal in feed for salmonids, which includes salmon, trout and Antarctic char, in their list of authorized feed ingredients. The supporting material and the change in the definition was reviewed and supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“This is the first time an insect meal product approved in North America for the aquaculture industry and we’re excited to be the first to market,” said 10 »

Andrew Vickerson, Chief Technology Officer at Enterra.

In 2016, the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) approved the company’s first product, Enterra Whole Dried Larvae.

Enterra manufactures and markets feed ingredients derived from the larvae of the black soldier fly, a beneficial insect species that can be found naturally in tropical and temperate regions around the world. The larvae are reared under controlled conditions on locally sourced, pre-consumer food waste containing valuable nutrients that would otherwise be lost in landfill, compost or waste-to-energy facilities.

Instead, the insect larvae consume and convert the waste nutrients into usable protein, fat and energy. The larvae are then dried to produce Enterra Whole Dried Larvae, or defatted to produce Enterra Meal, a powdered protein ingredient similar in profile to fishmeal but with much less impact on the environment.

Fishmeal is a common ingredient in salmonids feed due its nutritional profile and digestibility, but the production of fishmeal, which is primarily made from wild caught marine fish, has depleted fish stocks in the world’s oceans. Sustainable alternatives are in high demand from feed manufactur-

ers around the globe as the market for salmon continues to grow.

New Canadian approval for insects in tilapia and poultry feed Enterra also received approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to sell Enterra Whole Dried Larvae in Canada as a feed ingredient for tilapia and poultry, including chickens, ducks, geese and turkey. This builds on previous approvals for the same product in salmonid feed in 2017 and broiler chicken feed in 2016.

Enterra Whole Dried Larvae are sustainably produced at the company’s unique farm facility in Langley, British Columbia, Canada. They are a wholesome, nutritious supplement for poultry, birds and other insectivorous pets.

“Insects are what chickens forage for in the wild,” said Vafa Alizadeh, Feed Division Manager at Otter Farm and Home Cooperative in Aldergrove, British Columbia. “Our customers want to provide their flocks with a natural treat that is healthy and nutritious,

and this Canadian-made product fits the bill.”

Approval to export insect ingredients to EU Enterra is now registered in the EU Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES), which allows the company to export its insect feed ingredients to all member countries of the European Union. New EU regulations came into effect on July 1, 2017 to permit the use of insect ingredients in aquaculture feed. Approvals for poultry and pig feed are expected to follow.

Rapid production expansion to meet growing demand With production at its Langley facility at maximum capacity, Enterra is planning to expand to a second, larger facility near Calgary, Alberta, Canada in Q4 2018. The company is also developing additional facilities in the coming years to keep up with demand for its sustainable feed ingredients.

More applications are currently in process for Enterra’s products to serve additional markets in the USA and Canada.

» 11

article

Feed Conversion Efficiency In Aquaculture:

Do We Measure It Correctly?

Pacific white shrimp Photo Valentin Kager (CC BY 2.0)

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) is the most common measure for evaluating feed efficiency in the livestock industry. However, this Jillian P. Fry, Nicholas A. Mailloux, David C. Love, Michael C. Milli and Ling Cao

G

overnments and other stakeholders are seeking strategies to boost food production efficiency and food system resiliency, and aquaculture (farmed seafood) is commonly viewed as having a major role in improving global food security based on longstanding measures of animal production efficiency. The most widely used measurement is called the ‘feed conversion ratio’ (FCR), which is the weight of feed administered over the lifetime of an animal divided by weight gained. By this measure, fed aquaculture and chickens are similarly efficient at converting feed into animal biomass, and both are more efficient compared to pigs and cattle.

FCR does not account for differences in feed content, edible portion of an animal, or nutritional quality of the final product. Given these limitations, 12 »

measure does not take into account important factors that allow identifying challenges to be solved to ensure global food security. we searched the literature for alternative efficiency measures and identified ‘nutrient retention’, which can be used to compare protein and calories in feed (inputs) and edible portions of animals (outputs). Protein and calorie retention have not been calculated for most aquaculture species. Focusing on commercial production, we collected data on feed composition, feed conversion ratios, edible portions (i.e. yield), and nutritional content of edible flesh for nine aquatic and three terrestrial farmed animal species.

Food animal products provide a concentrated source of calories, protein, and some micronutrients. There are, however, well-documented inefficiencies in terrestrial livestock production. Approximately 36% of global crop-based calories (3.41 × 1015 kcal) are fed to livestock, and of those, just 12% enter the human food supply.

Aquaculture, or farmed seafood, is the fastest growing food animal sector and now contributes more to the human food supply (by weight) than wild caught seafood (adjusting for wild-caught fish not eaten by people) or beef. (We use the term, seafood, to refer to aquatic animals caught or farmed for human consumption in marine and freshwater settings.) Seafood, from farmed and wild sources, provides 17% of global animal protein, and accounts for over half of animal protein supplies in some developing countries. Aquaculture is heterogeneous in terms of farmed species and production methods. Fed aquaculture, including both intensive and semi-intensive systems, involves relatively high stocking densities and either farm-made feeds or commercial compound feeds formulated to meet nutritional requirements.

» 13

article

The efficiency with which animals turn feed into meat and other food products, such as eggs or milk, varies by species and production method. A common measure of this efficiency is the feed conversion ratio (FCR), calculated as the ratio of feed intake to weight gain. Typical FCRs for animals raised using commercial feeds and intensive production methods (i.e. not extensive production like grazing) are as follows: beef cattle: 6.0–10.0, pigs: 2.7–5.0, chickens: 1.7–2.0, and farmed fish and shrimp: 1.0–2.4. Aquatic animals have lower (more efficient) FCRs than large terrestrial animals in part because they expend less energy to move, stay upright, and regulate their body temperatures due to buoyancy and because most are ectothermic.

Expanding aquaculture is thus widely viewed as an opportunity to meet rising demand for animal products using less feed, especially compared to pigs and cattle. FCR is a limited measure of efficiency, however, because it only accounts for the weight of feed inputs and not the nutritional content of the feed, the portion of the animal that is inedible, or the nutritional quality of the final product. Using FCRs relies on an implicit assumption that various species are similar across these areas, making FCR a potentially flawed tool for cross-species comparisons.

Methods For this study, we calculated the protein and calorie retention typical of commercial production for several

farmed aquatic and terrestrial animals by developing equations and collecting data necessary for filling in each variable. We included nine major aquaculture species: common carp (Cyprinus carpio), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), pangas catfish (Pangasius pangasius), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus and other cichlids); and three livestock groups (cattle raised for beef, pigs, and chickens raised for meat). The aquaculture species included in the study comprised over half (57%) of global production of fed aquaculture in 2012, and the livestock are the top land animals produced for meat in the US and globally.

We collected data from numerous sources on FCRs, feed composition, yield/edible portion, and nutritional profiles of edible flesh, and using these data we calculated protein and calorie retention. For each species, two types of simulations were run: protein retention and calorie retention.

Results Based on global production levels for each aquatic species (i.e. a weighted 14 »

average), we estimate that for every 100 g of protein in aquaculture feed for these nine species/species groups, 19 g are available in the human food supply (19% retention), and for every 100 kcal in aquaculture feed, 10 kcal enter the human food supply (10% retention). Protein and calorie retention values for aquatic and terrestrial species were similar. Protein retention means ranged from 14%– 28% for the nine aquatic species, and 13%– 37% for livestock. Calorie retention means ranged from 6%– 25% for the aquatic species, and 7%–27% for livestock. Chickens performed best for both protein and calorie retention, followed by Atlantic salmon.

The factors that drive protein retention are the FCR, concentration of protein in feed, and edible portion.

There is little variation in protein levels in edible flesh among aquatic and terrestrial species. Aquatic species have FCRs similar to chickens and lower than pigs and cattle, but require higher levels of protein in their feed

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio). PhotoPeter 0. Connor (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Photo Lisa Morrow (CC BY-ND 2.0)

» 15

article

compared to livestock. For example, the relatively high mean protein retention for Atlantic salmon (28%) is due to a low FCR (1.2–1.5) and high edible portion (0.58–0.88); these factors offset the high levels of protein in Atlantic salmon feed (35.5%– 44%). Chicken has the highest mean protein retention (37%), due to a low FCR (1.9), low feed protein level (18%–23%), and high edible portion (0.70–.78).

For calorie retention, there is more variation in calories in edible flesh (compared to the above described variation in protein in flesh) and less variation in feed calories by species compared to feed protein levels.

Similar to above, chicken and Atlantic salmon have the highest mean calorie retention: 27 and 25%, respectively.

Pigs have an FCR (3.9) that is less efficient than chicken and aquatic species, but high calories in edible flesh (211–304 kcal per 100 g) and the high

edible portion (0.68–0.76) improves pig calorie retention (16%). Giant tiger prawn and tilapia have the lowest mean calorie retention for aquaculture, 6% and 7%, respectively. These values are driven by low calorie content in edible flesh and low edible portions.

When using the protein and calorie retention measures as derived above, the values for aquatic species are, with the exception of Atlantic salmon, more similar to retention values for pigs and cattle. Therefore, aquatic species, taken together, have little or no efficiency benefit over livestock when assessed on the basis of these alternative measures, which is the opposite of the result when comparing FCRs. We estimate that 19% of protein and 10% of calories in feed for aquatic species are ultimately made available in the human food supply, with significant variation between species.

FCRs for selected aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal species. (Fry et al. ,2018)

Comparing all terrestrial and aquatic animals in the study, chickens are most efficient using these measures, followed by Atlantic salmon. Despite lower FCRs in aquaculture, protein and calorie retention for aquaculture production is comparable to livestock production. This is, in part, due to farmed fish and shrimp requiring higher levels of protein and calories in feed compared to chickens, pigs, and cattle. Strategies to address global food security should consider these alternative efficiency measures.

Our results reveal a different ranking in terms of efficiency of farmed animal species when measured by FCR versus protein and calorie retention. We do not argue, however, that retention measures should replace FCR as the major indicator of feed efficiency. Instead, the best path forward is to use multiple measures to compare efficiency of various types of food production, including animals and plants. Discussions of sustainable food systems should be informed by a combination of factors including FCRs and nutrient retention, and also environmental footprint measures including resource use (e.g. land, water, fertilizer), greenhouse gas emissions, and negative externalities including biodiversity loss and water pollution.

To facilitate uptake of retention measures by researchers and other stakeholders, we provide our data sources and equations, which can be refined and applied to additional species, settings, and nutrients.

Adapted from a recent article in Environmental Research Letters. To view or cite the original article, use: Jillian P Fry et al.

2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 024017

Protein and calorie retention for selected aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal species (Fry et al., 2018).

16 »

Jillian P Fry1,2,3,6, Nicholas A Mailloux1 , David C Love1,2 ,Michael C Milli1 and Ling Cao4,5 1 Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University, 615NWolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, United States of America jfry3@jhu.edu 2 Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615NWolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, United States of America 3 Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, United States of America 4 Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, 616 Serra St, Stanford, CA, United States of America 5 Institute of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic ofChina 6 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

» 17

article

Shrimp Aquaculture Technology Change in Indonesia: Are Small Farmers Included?

Indonesian brackishwater shrimp aquaculture was first recorded in Dali Yi1, Thomas Reardon1,2 and Randy Stringer1

M

angroves and impounded waters were gradually replaced with constructed dykes, and shrimp production was limited by algae growth in ponds. The practice exploded after nearly seven centuries, when an abrupt economic, political and industrial revolution occurred.

Globalization led to sharing of Japanese and Taiwanese technological advances that facilitated production of shrimp post-larvae and formulated feeds on an unprecedented scale.

18 »

the 1400’s. Initially focused on fish, some shrimp larvae were grown out in mangroves with impounded water, using an extensive approach.

Increased global demand commanded the attention of the Indonesian government between the 1970’s and 1980’s which then encouraged the adoption of the tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) to satisfy the interest and high prices offered in Japan and the United States. Combined with the political consequences of overfishing, including banning of coastal trawlers, and government investment in infrastructure such as shrimp hatcheries and water canals, aquaculture investment was encouraged.

In the late 1980’s, the governmental scheme, “Nucleus estate, small scale out-grower scheme” was proposed, which was favorable to shrimp aquaculture. A joint venture between farmers and shrimp companies commenced where farmers were supplied with water, electricity, financing and technical assistance that helped expand the size of shrimp companies. Furthermore, other stakeholders such as feedmills, hatcheries and cold storage businesses emerged to deliver the needs of high yielding, intensive production.

Intensive production of P. monodon however, led to outbreaks of White Spot Syndrome Virus, constraining production. In response, the government adopted policies and encouraged the industry to develop Penaeus vannamei culture. Whereas P. monodon stocks were disease prone and occupied the lowest trophic zones of the pond, the P. vannamei were disease free, occupied all trophic levels of the pond and exhibited better growth.

This includes increased tolerance to high stocking densities, improved feed conversion efficiencies, higher average daily growth rates, wider tolerance to water quality and more consistent quality and sizes.

Sourcing from disease free stock, survival rate of P. vannamei is more than twice that of P. monodon. Furthermore, this survival is consistent whereas survival of P. monodon is highly variable.

The adoption of P. vannamei has decreased the risk of production losses.

When combined with P. vannamei’s tolerance to high stocking densities, farmers are able to raise output without substantial risk of high losses.

Production of P. vannamei has involved adopting new husbandry practices, investments in pond infrastructure to improve depth, circulation and draining, and sourcing shrimp stock from abroad. Furthermore, at stocking densities typically used in intensive systems, immediate feeding is necessary because the shrimp biomass overwhelms the pond algae’s carrying capacity. In contrast, extensive farms that raise P. monodon can rely upon the natural pond algae to supply the low stocking density. Farmers are able to delay the purchase of feed until the quality of juvenile shrimp and pond’s capacity to support production is known. As a result, by raising P. monodon, the farmer has an option to exit should production be suboptimal. If production is considered good, then formulated feeds are introduced once the natural pond biota’s carrying capacity is exceeded.

This leads to four types of production, farms that have adopted P. van-

namei or not, and whether formulated feed is adopted or not.

By the late 2000s, Indonesian brackishwater culture experienced an explosion in production volume.

Three companies dominated 70 to 80% of Indonesian shrimp output while medium scale enterprises were responsible for another 15% of the total output. Collectively, they represent semi-intensive or intensive production. The remainder involves traditional technology farmers adopting extensive technology. Collectively and over the past fifteen years, the combination of high yield varieties and formulated shrimp feeds has led to an average of 18% growth.

Disparities between production output and stocking density lead the study authors to question whether small farmers practice intensive production within their farming systems or not, and if so, their reasons for intensification. The two types of intensification studied are shifting from P. monodon to P. vannamei and intensification by adoption of formulated feeds.

It is anticipated that this research adds to the role of agriculture to economic development, specifically the role of aquaculture in poverty reduction and economic improvements and to examine what factors influence small farmer adoption of intensification.

Methods Between July and August 2010, the authors undertook a survey that collected adoption of P. vannamei and manufactured feed, prices, land and capital holdings and village characteristics. The study population was drawn from randomized shrimp aquaculture households from two districts from Central Java and South Sulawesi each.

Central Java represents an urbanized Indonesia with dense infrastructure but inferior aquaculture production compared to farms in South Sulawesi, which is less urbanized, developed and more reliant on agriculture and contains waters more suited to aquaculture production. As P. vannamei producers were less common than P. monodon, over-sampling was undertaken during the survey to be able to draw sufficient conclusions. Bias was found to be minimal.

Results The authors found that household farms, driven by intensification of production systems were adopting P. vannamei. This resulted in a 20% prevalence at the time of study, and almost 70% of farmers raising P. vannamei had adopted feed while less than 20% of P. monodon had done so. The average shrimp farm pond size was 2 hectares; however, farm sizes were » 19

article

normally distributed. Twenty five percent of farms were less than 0.5 ha while almost 20 percent were larger than 3 ha. With this segregated distribution, the authors observed a higher adoption of P. vannamei and feed in larger farms than in smaller farms.

More than half of farm households did not possess water pumps required for recirculation. Interestingly, lagged ownership between pump ownership and P. vannamei adoption was observed, leading the authors to conclude that intensification was correlated with water pump ownership. Statistically, farm size was not a significant reason for adoption of P. vannamei when controlling for parameters correlated to farm size such as land tenure, credit access and human capital. However, it was an important factor for adoption of feed.

Farm size and feed adoption in P. monodon farms were inversely related. Specifically, the smallest shrimp producers were most likely to adopt feed. This is possibly due to micro-

20 Âť

farm sourcing of small feed quantities from small retail stores. Larger farms have naturally occurring biota that can support shrimp. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the large farms’ demands for feed are inadequately provided by small retail outlets, requiring distributors and wholesaler. This is perceived to be a barrier to using feed in larger farms.

For P. vannamei farms, the authors found farm-scale to be correlated to the probability of adopting manufactured feed for farms under 0.5ha. As farms larger than 0.5 ha did not experience this scale-effect, the authors conclude that farms larger than 0.5ha had sufficient economy of scale to adopt manufactured feed for P. vannamei. The authors also found the holding of water pumps was a large factor influencing adoption of P. vannamei cultivation because water pumps were necessary to reduce waste accumulation and improve water circulation. This improved the environmental conditions for high stocking density.

Without assets such as water pumps, farmers producing P. monodon were less likely to adopt feed and hence used traditional extensive production. While trivial, investment of a single water pump can amount to half of the annual returns from a hectare of shrimp ponds. The authors refer to this as the low productivity trap, where the asset poor-farms were relegated to producing P. monodon in extensive environments.

The authors found other factors of P. vannamei adoption were returns on investment, distance from hatcheries and incidence of disease outbreaks. If returns on P. monodon were lucrative, there was less adoption of P. vannamei. The returns on investment however, did not influence the decision to adopt feed to as large of an extent.

Conclusion In this study, the authors aimed to identify whether landor capital-poor farm households were excluded in adopting P. vannamei and manufactured feed. Adoption of P. vannamei and formulated shrimp feeds by Indonesian shrimp farmers were vital to increase production. Based on the results, there was no evidence of farm size influencing adoption of P. vannamei. However, the lack of productive assets significantly constrained adoption of both P. vannamei and use of shrimp feed.

Feed adoption was most likely found in P. monodon microfarms and least likely with microfarms cultivating P. vannamei. The authors found a potential threshold for feed adoption at 0.5 hectares where sizes above facilitated sufficient economies of scale.

Adopted from Yi, D., Reardon, T. and Stringer, R. (2016). Shrimp aquaculture technology change in Indonesia: Are small farmers included?. Aquaculture (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.11.003 1 University of Adelaide, Global Food Studies Michigan State University Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Resource Economics.

2

Âť 21

article

The OCEANS:

A PERFECT SOURCE OF CAROTENOIDS Carotenoids are a class of phytonutrients (plant compounds) responsible for bright red, yellow and orange coloration in many fruits and vegetables. They are fat-soluble pigments distributed widely in Rajalaxmi Lenka and Sandeep Shankar Pattanaik

S

nature in many plants, algae, micro-organisms and animals.

tructurally, they are composed of conjugated double bonds (their carbon units are bonded together by alternating single and double bonds).

The amount of conjugated double bonds a carotenoid contains changes the wavelength of light it can absorb.

Carotenoids are found in carrots, pumpkins, sweet potatoes, peaches, papayas, turnip greens, peas, spinach and other types of plants. In animals, they are found everywhere from unicellular organisms to fish, shrimp, copepods, mussels and other groups.

Hence, carotenoids are one of the most widely distributed and diverse natural pigments. They are found in almost all living matter, from the most primitive bacteria (Archebacteria) and prokaryotic bluegreen algae (Schizophyceae) to the highly developed flowering plants (Angiospermae), and

from unicellular organisms (protozoa) to mammals. It is estimated that total annual production of carotenoids in nature is near 100 million tons.

Generally carotenoids are classified into 2 types depending on the degree of substitution.

1. Carotenes –oxygen free carotenoids which contains only carbon and hydrogen. Examples include Lycopene and Beta carotene.

2. Xanthophylls – carotenoids containing 1 or more oxygen atoms, such as Lutein or Zeaxanthin.

Animals are unable to synthesize carotenoids by themselves so dietary incorporation is important. Many seafood products such as shrimp, lobster, crab, crayfish, trout, salmon, redfish, red snapper, and tuna, have naturally orange or red integuments and/or flesh due to carotenoid pigments.

Fish as carotenoid sources The effectiveness of a carotenoid source in deposition and pigmentation is species specific. In fish, carotenoids are normally concentrated in the skin in the form of esters. Considerable amounts of carotenoids are also often found in the muscle tissue, the ovaries and liver. Finfish such as salmonids and red sea bream contain carotenes. Pigmentation of salmonids is due to the presence of unesterified astaxanthin in the tissue, while the red coloration of sea bream skin is due to the deposition of astaxanthin fatty acyl diesters. In channel catfish, lutein and zeaxanthin are found in the skin, flesh, abdominal fat and liver. Generally, tunaxanthins are found in yellow and blue-green fish, astaxanthins in red marine fish and zeaxanthins are found in anchovies, some flatfishes, sharks and rays. Tunaxanthins, luteins

Anchovies.

Blue leg hermit crab.

Coconut octopus.

22 »

Colorful ocean seashells photography.

Flat fish.

Isopoda Idotea granulosa.

and zeaxanthins are typically isolated from brackish water fishes and luteins and alloxanthins from fresh water fishes. Carotenoids may be present in a variety of forms, such as free forms, esters, glycosides, sulfates and carotenoproteins.

Crustaceans such as shrimp contain astaxanthin and its esters in the meat as the main pigment, which is present due to ingested β-carotene or zeaxanthin converted through oxidative transformation. As a result they act as a good source of this natural antioxidant, which may provide some health benefits to consumers. Carotenoids are also widely extracted from shrimp waste containing astaxanthin and its esters as major pigments. This waste can be a valuable source of natural carotenoids, which can be used as a pigment source for feeding purposes in aquaculture.

Astaxanthin and canthaxanthin are the common carotenoids isolated from invertebrate carotenoproteins.

Crustaceans exhibit various colors of carotenoids. The shore crab Carcinus maenas is typically green or orange-red in color, while the English freshwater crawfish Astacus pallipes is greenish brown in color. Astaxanthin is the main carotenoid found in Procambarus clarkii, along with idonirubin, idoxanthin, crustaxanthin and αcrustacyanin.

The hermit crab Clibanarius erythropus contains many carotenoid pigments like β-carotene, echinenone, canthaxanthin, phoenicoxanthin and astaxanthin.

In the lobster Homarus vulgaris, the exoskeleton associated with the uropods and the bases of the limbs is colored a brilliant blue, the carapace is nearly black, and the antennae are bright red, all due to carotenoid pigmentation. The epidermis is magenta red and the eggs are dark green due to the presence of the carotenoprotein ovoverdin. The blue coloration of

the carapace of the lobsters Homarus americanus and H. gammarus is due to a complex between the carotenoid α-crustacyanin and a specific protein.

In copepods (Diaptomus vulgaris), cladocerans, and in the eggs of Daphnia, hyaline blue color carotenoids are seen. From the isopoda, several carotenoids can be isolated, such as β-carotene, echinenone, canthaxanthin, β-carotene. Lutein has been isolated from Idotea resecata, I. granulosa, and I. montereyensis, while zeaxanthin, astaxanthin, idoxanthin, and crustaxanthin can be isolated from I. metallica.

Crustaceans as carotenoid sources Decapod Crustaceans fall into two broad classes based on their metabolic conversion capacity. The first group can convert β-carotene to astaxanthin within their internal organs (Penaeid shrimp, for example) and a second group that can convert β-carotene to astaxanthin in their internal organs but also can convert metabolic intermediates in other tissues of their bodies (such as lobsters and crabs).

Crayfish.

Molluscs as carotenoid sources Mytiloxanthin and isomytiloxanthin are two carotenoids that can be isolated from Mytilus edulis. Similarly alloxanthin (also called pectenoxanthin or cynthiaxanthin), diatoxanthin and pectenone are typically isolated from Pecten maximus, Patinopecten yessoensis and Scapharca broughtoni. Astaxanthin, pectenolone, pectenol and tetraol are all found in P. yessoensis. Some other bivalve carotenoid sources are 4-hydroxyalloxanthin found in the Japanese sea mussel M. coruscus, fucoxanthinol found in Tapes philippinarum, amarouciaxanthin found in Paphia euglypta and mactraxanthin found in Mactra chinensis.

Unique carotenoids like hopkinsiaxanthin has been isolated from gastropods such as Hopkinsia rosacea, isorenieratene from Anisodoris nobilis, Dendrodoris fulva, and Doriopsilla albopunctata. Triophaxanthin has been isolated from Triopha carpenter.

Other major carotenoids found in » 23

article

gonads are β-carotene, isocryptoxanthin and echinenone and in heparopancrease are β-carotene and halocynthiaxanthin. It can be concluded that gastropods are a source of diversified forms of carotenoids which are unique from other sources in nature.

Octopus researchers have found 3 stereoisomers of astaxanthin. Similarly Tsushima et. al. found 2 new carotenoids along with 25 known carotenoids from cephalopods. Fucoxanthin ester, canthaxanthin, echinenone, zeaxanthin, lutein, and fucoxanthinol are the major carotenoids found in cephalopods.

Lobster.

gastropods are β-carotene, zeaxanthin echinenone and b cryptoxanthin.

Other unique carotenoids found in Fusinus sp. are canthaxanthin, 4,4ˊdihydroxypirardixanthin, and fritschiellaxanthin in muscle of these gastropods while major carotenoids in their

Sea squirt copepod.

Sea shell fusinus.

24 »

Triopha catalinae.

Importance of Carotenoids as Ingredients in Aquatic Feed 1. Precursor of Vitamin-A Since animals have the capability to convert β-carotene to vitamin A, carotenoids are one of the precursors. But since xanthophill and other carotenoids are not included in this category, some animals convert those forms to β-carotene which can then be further converted into vitamin A.

Extraction of different component from crustacean shell waste.

Researchers have shown that astaxanthin is converted to β-carotene in the intestinal wall of H. fossilis. In Rainbow trout, canthaxanthin is first converted to echinenone and then to β-carotene, which is the source of retinol for these fishes.

2. Reproduction in fish and shellfish Carotenoids are mainly responsible for the color of various fishes, which can serve as an attractant for the female by the male or vice versa. They also have roles in gonodal development, maturation, fertilization, hatching and early growth. Hatchability and viability have also been shown to be higher in eggs having high astaxanthin content.

energy to the chemical energy of ATP intramolecular linkage.

4. Protein stabilization Since carotenoids are unstable compounds, they are found along with proteins which make them more stable. Hence caroteinoprotein is more stable than carotenoid. By proteolysis of any crustacean shell sample, carotenoid can be extracted.

regulations (European Union, 2014), synthetic astaxanthin can be added up to 100mg/kg diet.

Conclusion In India alone many tons of shrimp waste are generated. These wastes are highly perishable and pollute receiv5. Antioxidant activity ing waters. But they are a huge source Since they have antioxidant activity, of carotenoids and/or carotenoprocarotenoids can protect cells in many tein. Moreover these are an impororganisms from oxidative damage. tant source of protein that can be Carotenoids having a similar conju- used as shrimp waste meal in animal gated double bond system have chain- diets. Research should focus on utilizbreaking antioxidant capabilities. ing the unused shell waste in ways to enhance its nutritive value as well as 3. Photoprotection 6. Color enhancement to get better carotenoid yields from Carotenoids are also useful in protect- As animal can’t synthesize carotenoids, this material. ing photosynthesizing organisms, as dietary incorporation of carotenoids Photos provided by the author.

College of Fisheries, OUAT, Berhampur, Odisha, India well as non-photosynthetic bacteria. enhances the outer appearance to 760007 Sandeep Shankar Pattanaik, ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai, They are also involved in electron make fish more attractive and enhance Maharastra, India 460001 transfer during conversion of light their market value. According to EU Contact: sandeep.aqcma604@cife.edu.in » 25

R&D Center

Photo David Cline, 2017.

The University of Idaho’s

Aquaculture Research Institute (ARI) The University of Idaho’s Aquaculture Research Institute (ARI) is approaching its 30-year anniversary. Over this time span, the Institute has evolved from a start-up, regional resource to become a leading university aquaculture research center in the U.S., especially in the areas of fish nutrition and feed sustainability, fish health management, Ron Hardy, Ken Cain, Brian Small, Matt Powell, Vikas Kumar and Gary Fornshell

F

acilities have grown to include two distinct research sites that together provide optimal conditions for rainbow trout research and also provide the capacity to conduct aquaculture research on coldwater/ coolwater species, warmwater species and, soon, marine species. The Institute’s mission is to serve the aquaculture industry by conducting 26 »

selective breeding of rainbow trout and conservation aquaculture. practical research on major issues facing the industry but also maintain a strong academic presence as a premier institute conducting cutting edge research with high academic impact. These dual missions provide a unique platform to deliver high-quality graduate education to tomorrow’s aquaculture educators, researchers and industry professionals.

History The ARI was established by the University of Idaho (UI) in 1988 with the aim of providing focused research and graduate education in aquaculture in support of the Idaho aquaculture industry. Since aquaculture involves many scientific disciplines, the purpose of the institute was to facilitate inter-disciplinary research, education, and outreach across uni-

versity departments and colleges and thereby support sustainable aquaculture production in Idaho and the nation. Administrators within UI realized that aquaculture research expertise was located in several university colleges, i.e. Agriculture and Life Sciences, Natural Resources, Biology, Engineering and Business.

As is the case in many universities, programs in each of these colleges were not integrated into a cohesive aquaculture focus but rather operated independently of each other.

By connecting these programs, UI administrators intended to create an aquaculture program that was greater than the sum of its parts and they expressed the hope that ARI would become one of the leading aquaculture programs in the Western U.S., particularly in light of changes in aquaculture programs at other western universities. This judgement proved to be insightful.

For the first eight years, the ARI’s activities and facilities were located on the Moscow campus in Northern Idaho. In 1996, the University of Idaho expanded its activities in southern Idaho by leasing the Tunison Fish Nutrition Laboratory from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Tunison Laboratory is located in the

Burbot tagging.

Fish sampling at UI Hagerman.

center of Idaho’s aquaculture industry, which produces over 70% of the rainbow trout grown as food fish in the U.S. In 1998, ownership of the property was transferred to UI by the U.S. Congress. UI now owns a 4-acre property with modern and extensive facilities designed for fish nutrition and genetic studies and is supplied with abundant, constant temperature (15ºC) spring water. As the Hagerman programs grew, the Tunison office and laboratory space filled up.

In 2005, the Tunison lab was demolished and a new 14,000 ft2 building containing offices, a classroom and analytical laboratories was built. The new building was dedicated in 2006.

For the next decade, the ARI operated at two locations - the Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station and on UI’s campus in Moscow, Idaho, where two fish rearing laboratories were located. In 2017, construction began on a new $3M building that will be a state-of-the-art facility employing the latest RAS technology to support research studies on both freshwater and marine fish species.

This facility will be operating by the end of 2018.

Scope In its early years, the ARI had strong programs in fish population genetics and fish nutrition and feeding. These foundational programs evolved and expanded so that today, the research capacity that supported these programs is focused on sustainable aquaculture production. The primary research focus is on continued development of sustainable feeds based upon use of sustainable ingredients, low pollution feeds that limit phosphorus and nitrogen discharge into the environment and innovative feed production technology. Analytical tools developed for population genetics research have been expanded and applied to selective breeding of trout for high performance on all plantprotein feeds. This research thrust, conceived as an opportunity by ARI over 20 years ago, has been in operation in partnership with the USDA’s Agriculture Research Service for 18 years over nine generations of breeding, resulting in a strain of rainbow trout that grows rapidly on sustainable, all plant-protein feeds.

Meanwhile, population genetic research on fish, based originally on » 27

R&D Center

microsatellites, expanded after several years into development of genetic tests to diagnose trout diseases and is now focused on conservation genetics of Idaho’s anadromous Pacific salmon and steelhead trout populations using advanced high-throughput sequencing. This program evolved to become a formal collaborative program with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, a partnership of four major Native American Tribes in the region. Ongoing ARI genomics research is linking physiological outcomes to the genetic architecture of the fish, genome-to-phenome, to enhance our ability to predict fish traits from the makeup of their genomic DNA. The fish health management program has also developed a strong focus on basic research in the field of fish immunology. This includes foundational work in the area of mucosal immunology and the development of patented fish health products including vaccines designed for practical application for the industry. Fish health studies are also linked to fish nutrition through studies of functional feed ingredients, such as pre- and probiotics, and immunomodulators to enhance

Hagerman lab equipment.

28 Âť

Hagerman fish nutrition lab.

the fish’s immune system. These programs connect with each other and to the fish selective breeding program through studies on mucosal health and the microbiome. Overall, the past decade has seen a convergence of scientific disciplines to study critical challenges facing the global aquaculture industry, supported by advances in scientific technology in genomics, physiology and other fields.

Farmed fish now supply the majority of fish consumed in the world, and ensuring farmed fish are safe and

healthful to consumers is another focus area for ARI. Just as fishmeal has become a limiting commodity for use in fish feeds, fish oil is now equally limiting. As a result, alternative oils are increasingly being used to replace a portion of fish oil in farmed fish feeds, especially salmon and trout feeds. ARI has conducted many research studies to explore strategies to maintain healthful levels of omega-3 fatty acids in farmed fish fillets while replacing fish oil in feeds at various stages in the production

Trout research lab at UI Hagerman.

cycle. Exploratory studies to assess the potential to use selective breeding to develop a strain of rainbow trout that maintains elevated levels of longchain, polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) are also underway. This effort is also supported by a convergence of scientific disciplines, fish nutrition and fish genetics, to advance sustainable aquaculture.

Impact ARI research has greatly benefited Idaho’s aquaculture industry as well as other agricultural sections in the region. For example, when ARI first

Photo David Cline, 2017.

leased the Tunison Lab, the Idaho trout industry was facing new regulations that placed limits on the amount of phosphorus that the industry, in total, could discharge in public waters, mainly the Snake River. The industry could only meet the new discharge limits by reducing production and this threatened their economic viability. ARI research on feed formulation, digestibility of phosphorus in feed ingredients and the phosphorus requirement of post-juvenile trout led to development of new feeds that allowed the trout industry to easily meet phosphorus discharge regula-

tions without lowering total production.

Another example of early research by ARI involved proposed regulations to protect native populations of cutthroat trout. Regulations that were proposed would have had major impacts on the region’s agricultural industries, both crop and livestock production. Population genetic studies conducted by ARI showed that cutthroat populations that were thought to be distinct reproductive units were actually not distinct, and the proposed regulations were not implemented.

In recent years, trout from the selective breeding program at ARI have been released to the regional trout industry, allowing them to incorporate the improved strain into their broodstock populations. These fish have also been extremely useful in research to identify genetic markers associated with high growth performance when fed low or zero fishmeal feeds. These markers have the potential to accelerate genetic improvement of other species of farmed fish.

ARI has built strong programs in aquaculture development and fish health/disease management. This has resulted in issued patents and commercial licensing of Fish Health Âť 29

R&D Center

Rainbow trout (photo David Cline, 2017).

products and diagnostic tools. Current efforts in this area are focused on gaining regulatory approval for commercialization of a fish vaccine for coldwater disease (CWD), one of the most significant diseases impacting salmonid culture nationally and internationally.

Another area of significant impact has involved the development of aquaculture methods for a species of freshwater cod (burbot – Lota lota). An international collaboration between the UI- ARI, the British

Sturgeon at UI Hagerman.

30 »

Columbia Ministry of the Environment, The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has led to the re-establishment of this species in the Kootenai River in North Idaho.

This population was nearly extinct by the early 2000’s, but through efforts led by ARI to develop culture methods the population has rebounded.

Culture technology was recently transferred to KTOI and a new conservation aquaculture hatchery was constructed for large scale burbot culture. Releases of hatchery fish from the ARI program and the new KTOI Twin Rivers Hatchery have contributed to the recovery of this species and IDFG now anticipates opening a sport fishery in Idaho for the first time in nearly 30 years. Future work at the ARI is aimed at establishing burbot as a viable commercial food fish species in the U.S.

quality education that emphasizes both academic and practical aquaculture learning. ARI has developed a strong foundation that positions it to expand research to include new species, both freshwater and marine.

Trout aquaculture production in the U.S. has been relatively stagnant over the past 15-20 years because of water resource limitations. Expansion will require higher production from existing water resources, but challenges associated with rearing water quality, farm water discharge regulations and fish health management must first be overcome. Addressing these challenges will require further integration of research disciplines in a holistic way.

This approach, a strength of ARI, and the technological solutions that result will contribute to addressing the challenges facing the global aquaculture industry as it strives to meet expected demand for safe and healthful fish in the foreseeable future.

Future Over the past 30 years, the ARI has expanded its facilities, capabilities, research staff and research areas where it can excel. ARI is now the leading university aquaculture program in the western USA providing industry with an array of services and providing students with access to a high-

Dr. Ron Hardy is the Director of the ARI and a Professor in the Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences; Dr. Ken Cain is the Associate Director of the ARI and a Professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences; Dr. Brian Small is the Director of the Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, ARI and a Professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences; Dr. Matt Powell is the Associate Director of the Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, ARI and an Associate Professor in the Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences; Dr. Vikas Kumar is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences and Mr. Gary Fornshell is the Aquaculture Extension Educator for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

» 31

event REVIEW research report

World Aquaculture Society - Aquaculture America 2018 Shaping the Future – Telling Our Story

Once again, the U.S. Aquaculture Society, along with the World Aquaculture Society, held a successful meeting in Las Vegas, bringing together world aquaculture experts to discuss research and technology advances to support the sustainable development of the industry in the United States and worldwide.

M

ore than 2,000 people from 61 countries got together at Aquaculture America in Las Vegas, Nevada, from February 19 to 21. The Paris Hotel received members of the whole aquaculture supply chain from the U.S. and worldwide, who had the opportunity to participate in the conference program and visit the trade show. Additionally, prior to the event the U.S. Aquaculture Society offered two continuing education workshops: advanced aquaponics and statistics in aquaculture - the general linear model, a unifying and simplifying theme of statistics.

Aquaculture America 2018 started officially the morning of Tuesday, February 19, when students, fish farmers, researchers, suppliers and other members of the industry gathered in the main venue to witness the opening ceremony hosted by Dave Cline. During the ceremony, the U.S. Aquaculture Society and the National Aquaculture Association gave several awards to aquaculture professionals.

One noteworthy moment was the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award given to Thomas Zeigler. This award recognizes people who have made significant contributions and broad impacts throughout their career in aquaculture in the United States through research, education, extension and/or industry development.

32 »

Sven Trossaert and Wouter Meeus, from Trome, promoted their finest quality aquaculture systems and tanks.

Greg C. Lutz, Editor in Chief of Aquaculture Magazine.

Wenger offered their extrusion processing solutions to aquafeed producers.

Byron Irwin from Ecodrum™, leading supplier of in-vessel mortality composting equipment that is venturing in the aquaculture industry.

The conference featured

624 speakers and 63 sessions.

Ricardo Arias, Joe Mcelwee, Tom Drury and Julius Bjarnessan from Pentair.

Enrique Güemez, Kaitlin Chofer, Alex Tsappis, Shannon Barnett and Keith Filer from Alltech.

YSI promoted their AquaManager desktop software which allows you to control and set up any YSI monitoring instrument on the network to view data, set alarming options, and change relays or set points depending on aplication.

High Volumne Oxygen promoted their aireation equipment.

Shawn Glover, Chief Technology Officer of Industrial Plankton Inc.

The Importance of Storytelling One of this year’s meeting highlights was a plenary conference given by Dave Lieber, speaker and columnist of the Dallas Morning News, who spoke about the importance of storytelling. In front of a room full of aquaculture producers and members of the industry, Lieber confessed that before being invited to the event, he had never heard of aquaculture, nor did he know that this activity provides more than a half of the world’s seafood supply and that it has great potential for contributing to global food security. He emphasized that the fact that many people do not know about aquaculture has a positive side; it allows people involved in aquaculture to be the ones to tell the story about this activity.

During his lecture, Lieber talked about the power of storytelling and how a story connects us with our environment. The key point in storytelling is to have something to tell, which we have in aquaculture. Lieber mentioned that aquaculturists have a heroic role in the history of global food security, and that they should take advantage of it. The general public needs to know what aquaculture is and how it is done, and storytelling is an excellent tool to transmit this. During his entertaining conference, Lieber shared some key points that have to be considered when telling a story. Definitely, this conference brought a fresh air to the event, » 33

event REVIEW research report

and we hope that attendees take into account the potential of storytelling in their advertising campaigns and aquaculture socialization programs.

Additionally, after his lecture, Lieber gave a 90-minute workshop about storytelling, where participants had the opportunity to learn more about this amazing marketing tool.

The Conference Program The conference featured 624 speakers and 108 poster presentations from academia, industry, government and non-profit organizations.

The conference program was divided in 63 sessions, during which a wide variety of topics were covered, including genetics, aquaculture production systems, economics, feed ingredients and nutrition, fish health and diagnostics, marine fish aquaculture, management tools for aquaculture, microalgae production, aquaponics, among many others.

The growth of the aquaculture industry in recent years has been impressive; nevertheless, there are several challenges that need to be addressed, both within the industry (optimization of production systems, nutrition, diseases, genetics, among others) and outside the industry, such as the public perception of aquaculture. This last topic was specifically addressed in a conference session.

Furthermore, as nutrition and feeding play a central role in the sustainable development of aquaculture worldwide, fish and crustacean nutrition and the development of alternative feed ingredients continue to dominate aquaculture needs. During a couple of sessions—feed ingredients, advanced aquaculture nutrition, finfish nutrition and alternative feeds—researchers and aquaculture professionals presented recent advances in nutritional requirements, assessments of the effect of diverse feed additives and alternative feed ingredients in different aquaculture species, the use of insect meal as a protein source, and many other subjects.

34 Âť

WAS employment service.

More than 108 posters were presented during Aquaculture America 2018.

Matthew Guillot from WMT.

Thomas Zeigler receiving the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award. Photo U.S. Aquaculture Society.

Conference venue.

Calitri Technology fish counters generated great interest among attendees. David Calitri explaining the advantages of their equipment.

Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) and Biofloc Technology (BFT) received a lot of attention in both the conference program and the trade show. Specific sessions were dedicated to each topic. The use of closed systems and a greater control of rearing conditions are consolidated trends that address the sustainability of aquaculture.

Although marine aquaculture is developing rapidly, there are several knowledge gaps that must be filled (nutrition, genetics, reproduction, production systems, etc.). It is also necessary to solve issues related to spatial planning and regulations. This is why the conference programs included various sessions focused on marine aquaculture where these issues were discussed. There is still a lot of work to be done, but this type of event offers a meeting platform to share experiences and technological and scientific advances achieved by researchers and fish farmers in re-

lation to marine aquaculture, as well as many other pressing issues that limit aquaculture development.

To review the full 2018 Aquaculture America conference program please visit: www.was.org/meetings/

The Trade Show The trade show featured 174 booths, offering the latest technology and innovation to potential customers.

In previous years, while walking around the trade show, it was possible to identify a strong presence of companies focused on animal nutrition: feed, ingredients and feed additives. This year was no exception; however, a large number of exhibiting companies offering equipment, software and consulting services on closed aquaculture systems were also present in the trade show halls.

Companies such as a3® aeration, Adsorptech, and Aqua Hill Aeration Inc. promoted their highly efficient aeration systems. Many companies

related to water treatment—such as AST—promoted their filters and water treatment systems. This allowed us to perceive the current trend for more controlled and closed rearing systems, such as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), which allow a more efficient resource use, as well as biosecure rearing conditions.

A strong presence of aquaculture associations and organizations was identified in Aquaculture America 2018; most of them had a booth in the trade show where they promoted their activities and invited attendees to join them. Among these were the Aquaponics Association, the California Aquaculture Association, the Nature Conservancy, the Soybean Meal Information Center, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Fish Culture Section of the American Fisheries Society, the World Aquatic Veterinary Medical Association, and, of course, the World Aquaculture Society (WAS), the National Aquaculture Association and the U.S. Aquaculture Society.

Additionally, as part of the conference program, the U.S. Trout Farmers held a session that included the presentation of a few conferences and their annual meeting.

New Orleans Welcomes Aquaculture America 2019 In 2019, Aquaculture America will be held in one of most interesting southern cities: New Orleans, Louisiana, from March 6-10. The event will be held by the U.S. Aquaculture Society, in collaboration with the World Aquaculture Society, the Fish Culture Section of the American Fisheries Society, the National Shellfisheries Association, the National Aquaculture Association and the Aquaculture Suppliers Association.

Next year, organizers expect to have even more sessions, speakers and countries represented, so don’t miss the opportunity to attend one of the most relevant aquaculture events in America. See you in New Orleans! » 35

Latin America Report

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

Argentina and Norway Sign Aquaculture Collaboration Agreement to Boost Aquaculture Development in the South American Country Argentina. – After more than a year and a half of joint work, Argentina and Norway signed an aquaculture collaboration agreement at the beginning of March 2018. This agreement represents a milestone for aquaculture development in Argentina.

This initiative is the result of collaboration between Innovation Norway, the Ministry of Agribusiness of the Nation, the Argentine Agency for Investment and International Trade (AAICI), the Cabinet of Ministers and the Government of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands.

Two of the main objectives of this agreement are exchanging research material and academic information, and coordinating technical training in aquaculture. More specific objectives include a feasibility study of aquaculture development in the Beagle Channel in Tierra del Fuego.

Luis Miguel Etchevehere, Minister of Agribusiness of the Nation, shared that this is the first of many agreements they plan to complete.

He also stressed the importance of “deepening international coopera-

36 »

tion strategies to increase sustainable food production and conserve our resources.”

Peruvian Authorities Restrict Shrimp Imports From Countries with AHPND Confirmed Presence Peru. – As a preventive measure, the National Fisheries Health Agency (SANIPES) will not issue sanitary certification for importing live Litopenaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodon from countries where the presence of acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) has been confirmed.

Among the countries with confirmed presence of AHPND are China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, and

the USA (in the state of Texas).

Despite that AHPND only affects shrimp production and has no impact on human health, this preventive measure has been established to avoid disease entrance to Peru, which could cause severe production losses.

The preventive measure will remain effective until the countries, zones or sanitary compartments affected with AHPND are declared disease-free, in compliance with the conditions established by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

The measure includes shrimp acquired for aquaculture, reproduction, research, education, diagnostic

samples, animal feed, repopulation, exhibition and decoration, as well as products and by-products of these species, both fresh and frozen, and supplies for their feeding (cysts, brine shrimp biomass, polychaetes, oysters, algae and probiotics), with the exception of products derived from the aforementioned species of shrimp that have been heat-sterilized and hermetically sealed, together with cooked crustaceans, fish oil, fish meal and chemically extracted chitin.

Biosecure Greenhouse for the Development of New Technologies Mexico. – In February 2018, a biosecure greenhouse for the management of genetically modified organisms of agriculture and aquaculture, developed by the Northwestern Center for Biological Research (CIBNOR), started operating with the purpose of complying with the Biosecurity Law for Genetically Modified Organisms, according to a press release from the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (Conacyt).

The greenhouse aims to facilitate the development of new high-impact technologies through the application of basic science and to optimize training of specialized human capital, all with the objective of positively impacting the socioeconomic development of northwestern Mexico.

More specifically, research work will focus on the identification of genes from plants of commercial interest, optimization of biofuel production systems based on microalgae biomass, and other topics.

The fiberglass igloo-shape greenhouse structure is hermetic and aerodynamic, and it also has the capacity to resist wind travelling at up to 240 kilometers per hour, making it resistant to the impact of weather phenomena.

The greenhouse will allow CIBNOR postgraduate students to develop new technologies at low cost,

Biosecure Greenhouse. Photo: CONACYT.

scale processes that have been developed at the laboratory, and promote an innovative academic education.

Historic Japanese Oyster Stocking in Tongoy Bay Initiates with Aquaculture in Management Areas Chile. – In March 2018, more than 25,000 seeds of Japanese oysters (Crassostrea gigas) were stocked in the management area of Tongoy Bay (located in the Coquimbo region).

Artisanal fishermen from the Association of Divers, Artisanal and Freelance Fishermen of Tongoy and the technical team of the Aquaculture Program in Management Areas of Universidad Católica del Norte (UCN) carried out the seed stocking.

This event represents a milestone for the initiation of aquaculture activities in management areas, and is part of the “Technological Diffusion Program in Japanese Oyster Cultivation in AMERB for the Region of Coquimbo: Regulatory and socio-productive considerations”, an initiative supported by Innova Chile

of CORFO and performed by the UCN. Leonardo Carvajal, president of AG Tongoy, shared that they can currently perform aquaculture activities in 40% of the 612 hectares that make up the management area and that they are receiving the tools to start with this activity in the region.

“For the association it means inserting another resource to the existing ones and being able to give other artisanal fishermen, who have an interest in becoming fish farmers, the possibility of association.”

During the first phase of the project, several workshops given by professionals from different fishing institutions, such as SUBPESCA and SERNAPESCA, will take place. Additionally, three other organizations are working on the project: Cooperativa de Los Choros, Cooperativa de Los Vilos Ltda., and AG San Pedro de Los Vilos. Regarding commercialization, efforts are being made to promote the new product in the market, with the seal of quality and handmade origin.

Photo Su Yin Khoo (CC BY-SA 2.0)

» 37

note

Successful Demo Project Brings First In-Pond Raceway System To Latin America

A tilapia farm in Campeche, Mexico, is the first aquaculture operation in Latin America to experience labor savings and enhanced production from the In-Pond Raceway System (IPRS)

F In-Pond Raceway System at La Granja Tilapia.

im Zhang, USSEC; Francisco Romellon Jr., Francisco Romellon Sr., La Granja Tilapia; Jairo Amezquita, USSEC at the In-Pond Raceway System at La Granja.

38 »

irst introduced to Chinese fish farmers by the International Soy in Aquaculture Program of the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC), the IPRS technology has been widely adopted throughout China and Vietnam for its many advantages in product safety, operational efficiencies and resource conservation.

A 12-month demonstration project of the technology at La Granja Tilapia Farm brought the IPRS to Latin America, where pond aquaculture of tilapia and shrimp is expanding for a demanding domestic and export market. The demonstration was a notable success, producing 50 percent more yield while using less water, electricity and labor.

“We are very satisfied with this system,” said Francisco Romellón Sr., President of La Granja. “We’re now building raceways in four more ponds.” The Romellón family was in the business of wild shrimp and turned to aquaculture as shrimp stocks decreased. After initially producing shrimp, the family turned to tilapia in 2008 and steadily increased

production each year to supply a growing domestic market. La Granja expects to produce 2,200 metric tons of tilapia in 2018.

“The consolidation in the retail market with chain stores required us to keep increasing production with more technology, aeration, probiotics, and in that way we grew to the point of establishing a hatchery in 2016,” said Francisco Romellon Jr., Francisco’s son. “To supply the national market year-round with fresh product, we need to ensure product safety with a closed cycle, and the IPRS is in our plan.”

Jairo Amezquita, USSEC Project Manager for Aquaculture Utilization in the Americas Region, first told the Romellón’s about how the IPRS could improve their efficiencies while conserving resources, and about the technology’s rapid adoption in Asia. Together with Jesse Chappell and Esau Arana of Auburn University, who originally developed the technology, they provided instructions for building the demonstration raceways.

“We were skeptical of the new system at first,” said Francisco Romellón, Sr., “but were surprised at the much faster growth rate. We saved a lot of water and electricity, and it took much less effort in harvesting. We’re able to stock much smaller fingerlings at five grams, and don’t have to move them at 70 grams, so we can do several cycles a year without stopping.”

The U.S. Soybean Export Council connects U.S. soybean farmers with opportunities to improve human nutrition, livestock production and aquaculture. USSEC operates internationally and works with aquaculture programs in different nations to help ensure sustainability and profitability for industry producers.

» 39

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

News from the

Aquaculture Stewardship Council Minamisanriku Town, Miyagi Prefecture in northern Japan has achieved an unusual distinction.

During an event held at the town hall, city officials announced that the town has earned certifications for both the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

The accomplishment was the focus of the Symposium on International Certifications that took place in the Minamisanriku Town Hall and provided an opportunity to celebrate the town’s focus on sustainable development following the near total destruction of the area as a result of the devastating tsunami caused by the Tōhoku earthquake in March 2011.

“I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Minamisanriku Town for its achievement in securing the unique combination of

40 »

aquaculture and forest management certifications. The resilience of this community is admirable, and the commitment to both social responsibility and the preservation of the environment is a testament to the strong values of the people of Minamisanriku Town,” said Koji Yamamoto, ASC General Manager Japan.

“I am pleased to see a growing commitment to certification and responsible aquaculture across Japan and particularly in this region. With the achievement of both the ASC certification and the FSC certification, Mi-

namisanriku Town will be recognised globally as a leader in the sustainability movement.”

Aquaculture in the Shizugawa Bay area dates back to the nineteenth century. However, the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake not only devastated 95 percent of Minamisanriku Town, but also destroyed the area’s aquaculture sector. The destruction of the area proved to be a catalyst for change.

During the recovery, Minamisanriku Town adopted new strategies to ensure the region’s growth and sustainable development. These changes included updates in the methods used to farm oysters, including better citing to ensure that farms are not placed in areas with key biological or ecological functions, improved management of the organic deposits in the sediment beneath the farm, and rigorous efforts to minimise disease and the use of harmful pesticides.

To improve outcomes for all and better manage the area’s resources and newfound commitment to sustainability, the farms joined forces to form the Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Co-operative, Shizugawa Branch.

Their efforts were recognised when the Shizugawa Branch of the Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Co-operative became the first oyster farm in Japan to achieve ASC certification in March 2016.

February 19 marked the launch of La Semaine de la Pêche Responsable, a week-long campaign to encourage French consumers to make an informed choice for certified responsibly farmed and sustainably caught seafood.

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) joined forces with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for the second year on the annual campaign that highlights how choosing ASC and MSC certified seafood helps protect our oceans and environment and supports the livelihoods of farmers, fishermen and their communities. La Semaine de la Pêche Responsable was prepared for another successful year as most national supermarket chains— and even some brands— joined the celebration across France through the creation of in-store marketing materials, making it easy for consumers to make the right choice during the campaign week and beyond.

French retailer Picard promoted ASC and MSC though the children’s drawing contest ‘Doudou des mers’ by inviting children to draw their favourite marine animal for a chance to win a stuffed animal version of their creation. More than 100,000 ‘Doudou des mers’ drawing contest cards were distributed in 1000 Picard’s shops across France. Carrefour once again promoted their certified fresh fish counters and extensive selection of certified products.

Lidl announced their commitment to further expand their assortment of certified seafood for 2018, continuing the expansion of their ASC range. “Thanks to the support and efforts of our partners, the ASC is having a real impact. The number of ASC-labelled products on the French market has increased by an impressive 65 per cent over the last year and, as more people understand the positives of seeking out the label, we hope to see further growth,” said Anne-Marie Kats, ASC’s Commercial Marketing Manager for Netherlands, Belgium and France.

For this year’s edition of La Semaine de la Pêche Responsable, the ASC and MSC joined forces with a third organisation, l’Institut océanographique Fondation Albert 1er, Prince de Monaco, extending the campaign’s reach to the Institute’s vast network of institutional partners in France. The three organisations have contributed to the development of an informative newspaper aimed to inspire students and aquarium visitors to learn about certification and the origin of the seafood they consume through articles, games and even horoscopes.

The message at the core of la Semaine de la Pêche Responsable is also amplified by social media through the online quiz “What fish are you?”, teasing consumers to find out what fish personality they have while promoting ASC and MSC certified seafood. You can take the quiz at https://quiz-poisson.msc.org

ASC Staff http://www.asc-aqua.org/

» 41

FISH HEALTH, ETC

Using Pseudo-Science and Disease to Fear-Monger Against Aquaculture:

A Veterinarian’s Perspective PART 1

“Along the way, something happened to the promise of aquaculture especially in the U.S. – which most of us didn’t anticipate. In hindsight, we should have seen this coming in concert with the success of aquaculture: that it wouldn’t always be welcomed as a supplementary seafood supply.

Hugh Mitchell, MSc, DVM

P

eter Drucker, the management expert, economist and Nobel laureate, is quoted as saying: “Aquaculture, not the internet, represents the most promising investment opportunity of the 21st Century.” However, for myself, and many of my colleagues and clients, the attractive business aspect of private aquaculture was not the primary impetus for getting involved.

Most of us entered this field with some sense of nobility. We were on the leading edge of the “blue wave” – helping to transform the aquatic ecosystems from a hunting and gathering mode to an agrarian one, much like our ancestors did on land, millennia ago. Aquaculture was the answer to conserving the aquatic ecosystems. As the famous explorer and ocean conservation popularizer had written: “Man has become by far the greatest predator of all time. As populations mount and land grown food supplies are unable to feed the growing numbers of hungry, man is turning more and more to the sea for his food. On land man has slowly learned to conserve the soil lest it stop producing crops.

42 »

For example, Atlantic salmon farming was pure competition to the centuryold monopoly of salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest of North America – something to be fought and not welcomed, as it had the potential to impact prices and status quo values.”

But on the ocean, man is a hunter only. He takes but returns little. If the bounty of the sea is not to be exhausted, man must learn to farm it as he farms the land, by sowing as well as reaping.” Jacques Cousteau, 1973.

And, “In his exploitation of the sea man is still a barbarian, a ruthless hunter slaughtering whole species of animals without heeding the consequences. With earth’s burgeoning human populations to feed we must turn to the sea with new understanding and new technology. We need to farm it as we farm the land. This is called mariculture. It has just begun. … with properly managing limited bodies of water. In such controlled volumes the ideal conditions can be maintained all year and by ensuring fertilization and protecting the larvae from predators, incredibly high yields can be obtained from a number of protein-rich populations. High efficiency sea farms totalling the size of Switzerland would produce more food than all fisheries combined.” Jacques Cousteau, 1973.

And, some years later, “In the past 10,000 years we have learned to irrigate, fertilize, and develop hardy breeds of grain and stock. An acre of land, scientifically

farmed, is far more useful in human terms than an agriculturally idle one. Yet thousands of years after we abandoned hunting on land as an efficient method of obtaining food, we continue to pursue the creatures of the sea with the attitudes of cavemen.

Ocean farming – mariculture – can protect the natural stock in the sea as well as vastly supplement our food supply.” Jacques Cousteau, 1979 We were excited to be a part of this transformative vision, convinced that we were helping to pioneer a righteous cause. We were buoyed up by continued findings of how environmentally benign our activities were, and how efficient our production was compared to traditional terrestrial animals. With fish being “coldblooded” and not having to support themselves against gravity, conversion of feed to flesh was markedly more efficient than any and all traditional farm animals. In the age of “carbon foot print” consciousness, fish outperformed other sources of meat production.

Along the way, however, something happened to the promise of

aquaculture – especially in the U.S. – which most of us didn’t anticipate. In hindsight, we should have seen this coming in concert with the success of aquaculture: that it wouldn’t always be welcomed as a supplementary seafood supply. For example, Atlantic salmon farming was pure competition to the century-old monopoly of salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest of North America – something to be fought and not welcomed, as it had the potential to impact prices and status quo values. Initially, the competition did drastically affect prices that fishermen received for their

Jacques Cousteau.

catch and it was viewed as threatening to a way of life. Feeling the sting in the late 1980’s, Alaska had made fish farming illegal in the State. With farmed salmon from the rapidly expanding industries of Norway and Chile flooding the market, from 1998 to 2002, the salmon fishing industry shrank from $400 million to $130 million. This caused severe hardships in fishing communities up and down the Coast, especially in Alaska, and $50 million in funding was garnered

by Governor Frank Murkowski on April 21, 2003, with headlines reporting: “Wild Alaska spends $50 million to beat farmed salmon.” These funds went to cover individual fishermen and their families, municipalities with drops in raw fish taxes, economic development projects, and a multi-year, intensive marketing program.

The marketing program was well thought out and strategized. In a letter of explanation Ray Riutta, the Executive Director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, explained this strategy of why they didn’t come right out and attack farmed salmon: “… direct attack ads by people with similar products generally do not work ... they are seen as self-serving and lack credibility with the general public … it is far more credible to leave the attack to third parties, such as environmental groups and newspaper columnists … we will emphasize the many good things (purity, health benefits, environmen-

tally friendly, sustainable runs, small family businesses) about our fish and leave it to others to emphasize the bad things about farmed fish.” In fact Vivian Krause, an ex-salmon farmer in British Columbia, through some investigative reporting, uncovered that from 2003 to 2013 over $250 million was donated to the anti-fish farming campaign (primarily on the West Coast of NA).

This came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Packard Foundation and PEW, and went to various NGO conservation groups, including: Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki Foundation, Living Oceans, Coast Center for Aquaculture Reform, Ecotrust Canada, Rainforest Conservation Foundation, etc.

Although one has to have sympathy for those in the Alaskan salmon fishing industry struggling to adjust to the new player, there is irony in the fact that most of it is only sustainable through sea ranching and farming the early life cycle – with technology developed and honed from the international Atlantic salmon farming sector. Some 90% of all wild salmon in Washington State and more than 45% of those in Alaska come from stock enhancement hatcheries. Furthermore, the potential impacts and resources required on the ecosystem of all the hatchery-reared Pacific salmon released to grow and compete » 43

FISH HEALTH, ETC

for resources in the wild, are certainly not made as prominent as alleged environmental impacts of net pen Atlantic salmon. In terms of wild salmon interactions, ranched Pacifics have genetics and disease susceptibilities similar to those of the truly wild salmon. Finally, the act of having to expend energy and resources, and the ecological costs of hunting and gathering, should be considered in any discussion on farmed salmon impacts, including the costs to the public of funding the government stock enhancement facilities. Costs and benefits to society, and the ecosystems, of wild salmon ranching and net pen egg-to-fork farming should be put alongside each other for any discussion to be fair.

But back to Cousteau. Many of us who initially got into marine biology and ecology because of the romance,

44 »

soon learned that science could be more slogging than “frolicking.” No one would accuse Cousteau of being a scientist, but he did popularize the oceans and raise awareness. However, studying the complex and noisy multivariate aquatic ecosystems is challenging and can be outright frustrating. Even within the general scientific community, the complexity of the world’s ecosystems arguably has made rigorous scientific investigations and conclusions regarding our planet’s ecological health equivocal. Hypotheses are extremely difficult to test, and the variable noise and multivariate and stochastic nature of the environment often make room for different interpretations amongst experts.

This fuzz is ripe for exploitation and fear-mongering by those with nefarious purposes, especially as the scientific literacy of our society seems

to be in decline. This certainly has been the case with the movement to de-market salmon farming. The junk science that has been performed and disseminated has been astounding.

Again, to review: true science formulates a hypothetical theory about something in nature and endeavors to test it, shoot it down, and invite others to do the same. Then and only then, is it considered valid (for now) – always with the specter that this model of reality may be eventually proven wrong. Pseudo-science has more of a barrister-type feel. A “Pseudo-scientist” (many activists) generates a hypothetical theory to suit their cause, often ignoring, suppressing and dismissing past or current research that doesn’t support their theories. They get protective of this theory and discourage others from trying to duplicate their “research,” often launching personal attacks on those that voice contradictory information.

There are many examples of the media and NGO’s successfully supporting and promulgating “junk science with an agenda” against North American salmon farming. Unfortunately, this has had a bit of a haloeffect on all of farmed fish – especially in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

In some circles aquaculture is getting the bizarre connotation of being a threat to conserving the aquatic ecosystems, instead of the solution. On the food wholesomeness side, farmed fish sometimes gets the position of a second-rate product to many.

flesh; excessive antibiotics and chemicals used; genetic pollution to wild stocks; escapees endangering wild stock habitat, etc., etc., etc. Most allegations were either untrue or portrayed inaccurately and/or sensationally, and never with any suggestion of a reasonable solution. This suggests that the agenda is not to “fix” or improve any perceived deficiency, but to end practices altogether for ulterior motives. Currently, a bill has passed both the Washington State House and Senate to end current net pen Atlantic salmon production in State waters. All these familiar allegations were repeated by opponents with little scientific rigor. When all were dismissed, and there appeared to be no rational reason for the prohibitive bill, the final ruling invoked a non-scientific rationale of operator negligence.

During the hearings for this and similar bills introduced around the same time, some of the most egregious junk science with an agenda brought up involves accusations of the danger of farmed salmon diseases to the wild salmon. This will be discussed with examples in Part 2.

(Editor’s note: Stay tuned for Part 2 – Using Diseases to Fear-monger Against Salmon Farming.)

Pseudo-science attacks on Farmed Salmon Wholesomeness One of the most outlandish pieces of bad science to come out which was clearly aimed at denigrating the wholesomeness of farmed salmon precipitated headlines such as: “Study in Science shows PCB levels in farmed salmon 10X higher than wild salmon” (Hites, et. 2004). The bias exhibited by this paper was so astounding that this writer has used it to illustrate to students how peer-reviewed does not mean “gospel” and how pseudo-science masquerading as science can be flagrantly misused. In short, the PCB values in the paper for the farmed salmon sampled were not different and in accordance with historical levels of both farmed and wild salmon from previous research. All levels

were orders of magnitude under the level set by the FDA (not referenced in the Hites paper). This paper’s wild salmon levels were extraordinarily low because the authors biased the samples to include a disproportionate amount of returning pink and chum from Northern Alaska – lower in PCB’s because of their lower fat content and more planktivorous diet than wild Chinook and Coho. Other aspects of how the paper was written and presented showed a clear bias against farmed salmon. The media blitz accompanying this “Note” was also curious.

In short, Atlantic salmon farming has been hit on numerous facets: lack of regulations; excessive organic pollution; lack of wholesomeness; net drain on ocean’s fish protein; dyed

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 References: Cousteau, J. Y. 1979. The Ocean World. New York. H.N. Abrams.

Cousteau, J. Y. 1973. The Ocean World of Jacques Cousteau. V. 17 Riches of the Sea. The World Publishing Co. Hites, R.A. et al. 2004. Global Assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. 2004. Science 303:226.

» 45

aquafeed

Recent news from around the globe

by Aquafeed.com

By Suzi Dominy*

U.S. consumers are buying large volumes of organic fish from foreign

suppliers, certified by foreign certifiers but the U.S. government believes there is no demand.

46 »

The U.S. Organic Aquaculture Saga The battle to establish organic aquaculture standards in the U.S. continues. George Lockwood, a pioneer fish farmer, former president of the World Aquaculture Society, author and one of the drafters of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, is Chair of the Aquaculture Working Group (AWG) that advises the USDA on organic aquaculture standards. He wrote a public letter urging industry stakeholders to reach out to USDA Undersecretary, Greg Ibach in support of organic aquaculture.

In his letter, Lockwood detailed the saga from when the AWG was formed in 2005, through 2010, when the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommended standards for organic aquaculture to the USDA National Organic Program for inclusion in the USDA Final Rule for organic food production that was authorized by the Organic Food Production Act of 1990. The next step was for the USDA to advance the AWG/NOSB recommendations into Final Rulemaking as require under U.S. laws, for them to become effective. Six years later, in August 2016 with congressional and public urging, the USDA sent their proposed Final Rule to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to obtain their required consent to publish their proposal for a Final Rule for organic aquaculture for public comment.

“Usually it takes 90 days for OMB to conclude such reviews. However, in our case approval to publish was not granted until December 2017, sixteen months after submission.

However, in spite of approval from OMB, USDA chose to not publish their proposed Final Rule for organic aquaculture before the change in administration on January 20, 2017,” Lockwood explained.

“The reason our rule is on hold is that within the USDA there is an uninformed belief that there is no need for organic aquaculture products.

They believe that nobody wants or-

Organic aquaculture products are the only food group that do not have access to the USDA Organic label.

about the cost of producing short runs on dedicated production lines, inspections and all the red-tape that would be involved in producing organic feeds. But, like everything else, in the end the market will dictate the outcome. Read Aquafeed.com’s interview with George Lockwood in the next issue of the Aquafeed magazine, due out in April.

nutrient values being suggested for each species or class of species, before they are incorporated into a regulatory framework.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) wishes to engage with all stakeholders including: suppliers of feed ingredients; commercial feed manufacturers; feed importers, distributors and retailers; producers; industry associations; other government departments and international trading partners.

The input gathered through this process will be used by the CFIA to prepare a comprehensive regulatory proposal for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I. Details of the review of the proposal “Maximum nutrient values in fish feeds (freshwater and marine)”

Canada Reviewing Maximum Nutrient Values in Fish Feeds A review was conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to determine those nutrient levels in ganic aquaculture products: not con- fish feeds that may impact the health sumers, not producers, not retailers, and safety of the respective animals, not restaurant owners. We are told humans, and environment. Stake‘No one is interested, and no one holders are invited to comment on all proposals, including the maximum cares.’”

Lockwood points out that organic aquaculture products are the only food group that do not have access to the USDA Organic label. Yet the government recommends that Americans eat two portions of seafood per week. He goes on to make the case that substantial amounts of farmed seafood are imported in the US and sold under organic labels issued by the EU, Canada and other foreign private certifiers.

A good part of organic aquaculture certification rests on organic feed.

Since fishmeal and fish oil are important components of many formulations, the amount of feed that might qualify for an organic seal is limited.

Commonsense might tell us that there is nothing more “organic” than a wild caught fish, but of course common sense isn’t part of the equation.

American aquafeed manufacturers we talked to were concerned Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. (CC BY 2.0)

» 47

aquafeed

way for responsible supply, based on seeking improvements in management. A video giving an overview of the project by Leadbitter is now available on the IFFO website (http:// www.iffo.net/iffo-videos).

Photo Caleb Zahnd (CC BY 2.0)

can be found on the Canada Food Inspection Agency website.

GAA and IFFO’s South East Asia Fishmeal Project Completes Initial Data Collection A project to improve the understanding of those South East Asia fisheries supplying raw material for fishmeal production has completed the first six months of data gathering and has contacted government agencies and businesses.

Jointly funded by the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and IFFO, the Marine Ingredients Organization, project lead Duncan Leadbitter (Fish Matter Pty) has produced a series

Photo L Church (CC BY 2.0)

48 »

of draft internal reports for the two funding bodies with the aim to have a public report ready by the end of the year. This follows six months of data gathering, using both publicly available information and in-country sources, such as the Thai Fish Meal Association and a Vietnamese consulting company, Kim Delta.

As a major producer of fishmeal, fishing practices in South East Asia have been criticized in recent years for overfishing. This collaboration between IFFO and GAA will build more contacts in the region and provide a detailed overview of raw materials in Thailand and Vietnam to identify any issues and ensure a path-

U.S. Approves Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal in Feed for Salmonids For the first time an insect meal product has been approved in North America for the aquaculture industry. Enterra Feed Corporation has received new approvals to sell its insect-based feed ingredients in the United States, Canada and the European Union.

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) in the United States has agreed to Enterra’s request to include Black Soldier Fly Larvae Meal in feed for salmonids, which includes salmon, trout and arctic char, in their list of authorized feed ingredients. The supporting material and the change in the definition was reviewed and supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The company also received approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to sell Enterra Whole Dried Larvae in Canada as a feed ingredient for tilapia; the same product was previously approved in salmonid feed.

Enterra is also now registered in the EU Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES), which allows the company to export its insect feed ingredients to all member countries of the European Union. New EU regulations came into effect on July 1, 2017 to permit the use of insect ingredients in aquaculture feed.

Global Feed Tonnage Increases, Aquafeed Production up in 2017, Despite Drop in Chinese Output According to the 2018 Alltech Global Feed Survey aquaculture feeds showed a slight increase in 2017, particularly in the European and

Asia-Pacific regions. China reported a decline of 5 percent this year and in 2016, which could be linked to government controls on feeding practices and food safety, such as the administration of antibiotics. Brazil, Chile and Peru led the increase in production in Latin America, as did Iran in the Middle East. Carp leads the production of aquaculture feed, followed by shrimp/prawn and tilapia. Catfish, salmon and trout also ranked on the species feed indicator, though to lesser degrees.

The seventh edition of the annual survey covers 144 countries and more than 30,000 feed mills. Globally, animal feed tonnage has exceeded 1 billion metric tons for the second consecutive year, with a total of 1.07 billion metric tons produced in 2017.

The growth seen in 2017 was strong at 2.57 percent over last year and the animal feed industry, valued at $430 billion, has seen 13 percent growth over the past five years, equating to an average of 2.49 percent per annum. China and the U.S. remain the top two countries, producing onethird of all animal feed.

The top seven feed-producing countries in 2017, in order of production output importance, were China, the U.S., Brazil, Russia, Mexico, India and Spain. These countries contain approximately 54 percent of the world’s feed mills and account for 53 percent of total production. These countries can be viewed as an indicator of the trends in agriculture.

The Asia-Pacific region accounts for more than 35 percent of the world’s feed tonnage and 70 percent of global aquafeed production. China remained the top feed-producing country in the world with 186.86 million metric tons, a slight decline in overall feed production compared to last year. Increased production for Asia-Pacific came from India with 7 percent and Thailand with 8 percent growth. Vietnam grew 4 percent over the past year and is the second-highest producer of aqua and pig feed in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. remains the second-largest animal feed-producing country globally, behind China. Feed prices in North America are lower than when compared to other regions. Brazil remained the leader in feed production for the Latin America region and third overall globally. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina account for almost 75 percent of regional feed production.

Latin America as a region has had the third-highest growth rate over five years, seen primarily in aqua, horses and pets.

Tied with Asia-Pacific for the fastest-growing regions, Europe saw a 3 percent feed tonnage growth, resulting from increases in aqua, pig, and boiler production. The region was led by Russia with 37.6 million tons produced in 2017, moving up in the country rankings from number seven to number four.

Aquaculture feed production in Africa decreased in 2017. While

many African nations showed a small increase in aquaculture feed production, the region as a whole was down primarily because of lower reported feed production in Egypt, which has now been surpassed by Nigeria.

Novel Aquafeed Ingredient Containing Bio-astaxanthin KnipBio, Inc. announced that it has successfully developed a line of KnipBio Meal that contains bioastaxanthin, the carotenoid that gives salmon, rainbow trout, and shrimp significant health benefits as well as their characteristic pink color.

KnipBio’s product is created from a strain of the microorganism Methylobacterium extorquens that produces astaxanthin in commercially relevant quantities. This breakthrough provides the aquaculture industry a new source of biologically produced astaxanthin that is competitively priced with synthetic versions of the product derived from petrochemicals.

The company has developed a proprietary biological pathway that allows its microbe to produce astaxanthin in concentrations that make it effective for salmon and other species at inclusion rates of 5% or less of a formulated feed.

KnipBio’s astaxanthin product will be the first new natural source in over a decade and is produced via a fermentation process using low-cost and readily available ethanol, methanol, and other waste feedstocks.

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

Photo Josh Larios (CC BY-SA 2.0)

» 49

Nutrition

Nutritional

needs of Tilapia Tilapia. One of the largest global aquaculture industries. Compared to other species, tilapia are tolerant of poor water quality, display a high degree of parental care of offspring, and are tolerant of crowding, mild tasting and relatively free of major disease issues. Many years ago, tilapia were described as the “chicken of the sea.� Most nutritionists would also describe By: Paul B. Brown*

tilapia as one of the easier species groups to feed.

T

here is a strong correlation between trophic level in their native state and this ease of feeding. More omnivorous species, such as the tilapias, tend to have lower nutritional requirements and higher tolerance for plant-based feed ingredients. This is certainly true for tilapia. Optimal dietary crude protein concentrations required for maximum growth are relatively low, 28-36% of the diet.

Similarly, optimal dietary fat (lipid) concentrations are relatively low and range from 3-8% of the diet. Compared to the more carnivorous, or piscivorous species (e.g., salmon, sea bream, bass or grouper), these macronutrient needs are significantly lower resulting in lower cost of feeds and lower cost of production.

Dietary crude protein to lipid ratios (P/L) for carnivorous fish tend to be in the range of 38/10 to 50/25.

The subcomponents of protein and lipid, essential amino acids and fatty acids, also facilitate formulation of low cost, high quality diets for tilapia.

The essential amino acid requirements are relatively low for the tilapias and the fatty acid requirements for many of the tilapias are both n-3s and n-6s. n-3 fatty acids are commonly supplied by marine-derived lipid sources such as fish oils, while n-6 fatty acids are the major family of fatty acids in plant-derived lipid sources. These 50 Âť

nutritional needs quickly suggest the tilapias can grow maximally when fed diets containing high concentrations of plant-based ingredients and that generalization has proven correct as diets for tilapia have evolved.

Early in development of diets specifically for tilapia, macronutrient needs appeared similar to those for channel catfish and catfish formulations were commonly used. As additional requirements were quantified and additional species or hybrids were considered, diets for tilapia gradually deviated from what might be considered a standard formulation for cat-

fish (32/4) to the concentrations we see today. Tolerance of plant- and animal by-product- meals was also established early in the development of diets for tilapia.

In the US, there has been a relatively common sequence of studies focused on major protein supplying ingredients, beginning with replacement of fish meal with soybean meal or other major commodities. We are now into the era of replacing soybean meals with alternative plant-based feed ingredients. Common combinations of major ingredients in diets for tilapia are one of the high-protein

plant-based ingredients combined with one of the commonly available animal by-product meals such as poultry by-product meal. The tilapias continue displaying a relatively high tolerance for ingredients, which provides feed mills with a wide array of ingredient combinations that can be incorporated and the possibility of least-cost dietary formulations.

Least cost strategies help maintain more consistent pricing for producers as commodity prices change on a daily basis and can vary significantly from one year to the next based on production in major farming areas of the world. Tilapias are also tolerant of varying lipid sources.

Evaluations of alternative lipid sources in diets for fish also follow a relatively common sequence. Fish oils are preferred because of their high concentrations of long chain n-3 fatty acids. Numerous studies have documented the ability of tilapias to tolerate and grow maximally when fed alternative lipid sources or combinations of fish oils with alternatives. Indeed, this combination of

lipid sources provides the required fatty acid requirements for this group of fishes; high concentrations of n-3 fatty acids from marine derived lipid sources and high concentrations of n-6 fatty acids from plant-based lipid sources. Muscle fatty acid profiles generally reflect those provided in the diet and the requirements for both n-3 and n-6s has resulted in criticism of tilapias as a food fish. The concentrations of n-3s are lower than more carnivorous species fed marine lipid sources and contain higher concentrations of n-6s. This criticism is largely unjust as the formulation strategy provides the best nutrient inputs for the animal.

An ongoing challenge of feeding tilapias is the diversity of species. There are hundreds of tilapias and numerous species in commercial aquaculture including hybrids and genetically selected species or hybrids.

Differences in macronutrient needs have been identified. Although these differences are relatively small, they pose challenges for feed mills. Can a feed mill produce a single diet for all tilapia species and hybrids or will the industry demand tailored formulations meeting the identified requirements of the targeted genetic group?

Feed mills prefer to have fewer for-

mulations that can be manufactured in bulk and provided to customers.

Thus far, it appears generalized formulations are the norm.

The tilapias are considered relatively easy to feed because of their more omnivorous feeding habits in the wild, which equates to lower requirements for macronutrients and a higher tolerance of alternative feed ingredients. The evolution of diets specifically for this group will continue as additional research is conducted and additional species/hybrids/genetically selected stocks enter production. However, this evolution is common in animal feeding. One only has to consider companion animal diets (dogs and cats) to see this evolution taking place.

Dr. Paul Brown is Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources of Purdue University. Brown has served as Associate Editor for the Progressive Fish-Culturist and the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, among many others. pb@purdue.edu

Âť 51

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

Adapting to a Constantly

Changing Business Climate

By Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC

In the 1970 book, “Future Shock,” Alvin Toffler stated: “To survive, to avert what we have termed future shock, the individual must become infinitely more adaptable and capable than ever before.”

T

he need to adapt to changing conditions is more true than ever, particularly with regard to the business climate faced by aquaculture businesses.

Changing Business Climate The term “business climate” is a broad term that refers to the combined effect on the ability to do business of factors that range from political changes to new social mores to

external economic shocks. Given the broad range of factors that affect a business, some set of these is likely to change in any given year. Such changes affect demand for products sold by an aquaculture farm.

For example, globalization and increased international trade have changed the competitiveness of many aquaculture farms. While the supply of seafood historically was based on the day’s catch from local fishermen, today’s seafood markets

Market-size U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 103 catfish are ready for harvest on May 1, 2012. This new variety grows faster than other tested catfish. USDA photo by Peggy Greb (CC BY 2.0).

52 »

consist of products that originate from around the world. Such increased international trade has created threats such as transmission of diseases and aquatic nuisance species, competition from lower-priced products, concerns over food safety, and political and economic conflicts.

However, international trade also creates opportunities for export and for increasing domestic sales as consumers become more wary of the safety of imported seafood.

Changing social mores and “social license” also offer threats and opportunities to aquaculture businesses. “Social license” refers generally to the degree of social acceptance of a business. For example, there is little tolerance in the U.S. for activities that degrade environmental quality. The expectation is that, as a society: 1) new species with potential to become invasive (i.e., aquatic nuisance species) or injurious should not be introduced; 2) animals raised on farms should be treated in a humane manner (i.e., animal welfare); and 3) that biodiversity be protected.

Other expectations include increasing welfare of employees, reducing income inequality, and improving tolerance of cultural diversity, but also of growing concerns over the safety, quality, and security of food supplies. As a result, new regulations continue to be developed that affect aquaculture, often in negative ways.

Yet, changing social mores also create opportunities. For example, the emerging demand for locally-grown food creates opportunities for U.S. aquaculture businesses that produce healthy and safe products in environmentally sustainable and socially responsible ways.

Assessing New Threats and Opportunities What is a business to do in the midst of constant changes in the business climate? It is clearly critical to keep informed of business news and events. The ready availability of

The emerging demand for locally-grown food creates opportunities for U.S. aquaculture businesses that produce healthy and safe products in environmentally sustainable and socially responsible ways.

electronic devices with access to internet news alerts is an advantage in today’s world.

In addition, it is more critical than ever to join and maintain membership in a variety of aquaculture associations. Most associations send newsletters and alerts, organize conferences, present the latest research, and inform members of changes in regulations and policies. Meetings also offer valuable opportunities to learn about market trends and industry changes through networking with other farmers. Membership in national associations (i.e., National Aquaculture Association), speciesspecific associations ( i.e., Catfish Farmers of America, U.S. Trout Farmers Association, Striped Bass

International trade also creates opportunities for export and for increasing domestic sales as consumers become more wary of the safety of imported seafood.

Growers Association), and regional (i.e., East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association) and state aquaculture associations is an opportunity to keep up with key changes in the business climate.

Previous columns have discussed assessment of threats and opportunities as a component of an annual business review and financial checkup. Based on such an annual assessment, short- and long-term goals should be revised at least annually, and management strategies developed to achieve those goals.

Effects of Lost Sales Due to Changing Business Conditions The changing business climate in the U.S. has resulted in the continued proliferation of regulations at the federal, state, and local levels that target aquaculture and other businesses. While the effects of such regulations have been discussed for many decades in the U.S., there is increasing evidence that the total set of regulations in the U.S. has resulted in compliance costs that impose substantial costs for many aquaculture farms.

One result of the complex and stringent regulatory environment in the U.S. has been restricted access to markets and the subsequent

loss of sales from aquaculture businesses. In many cases, the sales lost due to the regulatory environment are not captured by other farms because the regulations that restrict access to markets affect all farms equally. In some cases, sales have been lost due to direct bans of certain species, varieties, or strains. In other cases, the ban is related to a species such as a tadpole or crayfish that, while included inadvertently in a fish shipment, can result in legal action against the farm. Still other sales are lost due to fears related to minor paperwork violations that emanate from various regulatory agencies but that could constitute grounds for prosecution under the Lacey Act with severe fines and possible jail time. Given the complexity of the regulatory environment, and the delays commonly experienced in obtaining required permits/licenses from multiple agencies, some farms opt to cease sales to specific markets.

A farm that loses sales and cannot replace them will suffer negative economic effects in addition to that of the reduced revenue. Most aquaculture is capital intensive with high annual fixed costs that create economies of scale. To operate efficiently when economies of scale are present, a farm should seek to increase Âť 53

Aquaculture Economics, Management, and Marketing

Changes in the business climate create new business opportunities for those with the vision to see them.

Public fish market. Photo Qfamily (CC BY 2.0).

production and sales to spread annual fixed costs over greater volumes of production. Thus, restricted access to markets and the loss of sales due to the regulatory environment forces farms to operate at a less efficient scale of production that results in greater per-pound costs.

What Can Aquaculture Businesses Do to React to New Threats?

Clearly, aquaculture businesses need to examine how to adjust their business goals and management strategies to meet changes in the business climate. Annual review of the total business performance, as described in previous columns, is essential, with annual adjustment of short and long-term goals.

However, a changing business climate affects other aquaculture farms as well. There is strength in numbers, and aquaculture associations play important roles in framing and creating the social license needed to increase social acceptance of aquaculture.

Associations can engage with regulatory agencies to attempt to ensure that regulations are reasonable and unlikely to create unintended negative consequences for aquaculture.

54 Âť

Aquaculture farms also need to be politically active. Many aquaculture farms are important businesses with owners who are respected citizens in their communities. It is important for aquaculture farm owners to get to know their elected officials and make certain that elected officials are well informed about the nature of their farm and the types of political actions that would be beneficial or harmful.

Changes in the business climate create new business opportunities for those with the vision to see them. Technology today provides ways to connect with end consumers with unprecedented ease, but it may require hiring a younger marketing associate to take full advantage of the opportunities. The local food movement, greater acceptance of aquaculture by environmental groups, the intrinsic health benefits of eating seafood, the flavor of fresh aquaculture products, and continued economic growth in the U.S. all offer opportunities for aquaculture farms.

The business climate will continue to change over time, and aquaculture farm businesses need to adjust and adapt to changing conditions.

However, every successful aquaculture farm, in my experience, is run by a resilient, resourceful, and dedicated individual who has survived many challenges in the past. The key is continued vigilance, networking with other farmers, annual adjustment of goals and strategies, and increased engagement with elected officials, customers, and the general public.

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

» 55

Salmonids

Contents of favorable and undesirables

in farmed salmon

By Asbjørn Bergheim*

“…all other fish are still lower in omega-3 fatty acids than farmed

salmon, including wild salmon.”

I

t is well-known that consumption of salmon provides many health benefits. Salmon is an excellent source of high-quality protein, rich in vitamins and minerals, but it is the high content of omega-3 fatty acids that usually receives the most attention among consumers. Farmed salmon now accounts for 75% of all the salmon we eat and the quality of farmed vs. wild-caught salmon is a subject of considerable debate. Overall, the quality of fish is closely connected to the fish’s diet.

High-quality fish meal and fish oil are both high priced —and limited— resources. Due to the growth of the aquaculture industry, access to meal and oil derived from wild-caught fish has become more difficult. Today, some 70% of the raw materials in salmon feed are obtained from plants (www. nofima.no). The salmon industry may ultimately become independent of fish meal from wild-caught fish. This continuing trend towards substitution of marine ingredients also affects the nutritional value and levels of chemical contaminants in farmed salmon.

Farmed salmon get their omega-3 fatty acids from smaller fish, e.g. anchovies, which have been ground up and added to their feed. The replacement of oily fish by vegetable oils, with a different fatty acid profile, reduces the levels of omega-3 oils in feed and fish. According to a recently performed study at Stirling University, the average content of omega-3 fatty acids in farmed salmon has halved in five years 56 »

(Prof. Douglas Tocher, project leader). In an interview (BBC News), Dr. Tocher indicated that “about 5 years ago, a portion of 130g Atlantic salmon was able to deliver the recommended weekly intake of beneficial omega-3.

Now, we would need to eat two such portions of farmed salmon.” Never-

theless, all other fish are still lower in omega-3 fatty acids than farmed salmon, including wild salmon.

Fillets of farmed salmon have about double the fat content compared to wild salmon and a higher fraction of saturated fat. In another Scottish study (2013) comparing salmon products in retail outlets, wild salmon were found to have the highest relative values of EPA and DHA (omega-3 fatty acids), but due to their higher lipid content, farmed salmon products were better able to deliver recommended dietary intake levels than wild salmon products.

The study concluded that the elevated omega-6 fatty acids in farmed products do not outweigh the nutritional benefits of the high omega-3 levels.

Levels of pesticides and other contaminants in aquafeed and farmed salmon have been a matter of concern for two decades. Not least, fish oil is

Photo Vera Yu and David Li (CC BY 2.0)

known to be a main source of several undesirable substances in fish feed and thus, a change in the feed ingredients will change the profile of these substances in the feed. A comprehensive study at NIFES (National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research, Norway) demonstrated that fish oil was the predominating contributor of the pesticide DDT in salmon feed (Monica Sanden, pers. comm.). This is due to long-lasting contamination of the marine environment. The increasing replacement of marine ingredients with plant ingredients has decreased the content of DDT and PCBs in feeds.

NIFES’ report of 2015 concluded that the regulatory threshold levels of

heavy metals and contaminates applicable in the European Union are rarely exceeded in complete feed and feed ingredients.

The generally decreased levels of contaminants in farmed salmon lead to increased safe consumption limits for humans (Ole Jacob Nøstbakken, pers. comm.). Based on numerous samples of salmon fillets for more than ten years, the TWIs (Tolerable Weekly Intake) limited by concentrations of methylmercury and dioxins have more than doubled (Figure 1). The sum of dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs is the group of contaminates that represents the limiting factor for safe consumption of Norwegian salmon.

Another hot topic of debate in terms of food safety involves undesirable content in farmed vs. wild salmon.

Concentrations of dioxins, PCBs, pesticides and mercury were found to be higher in wild than in farmed salmon in another NIFES study. Levels of cadmium and lead were low, and comparable both in wild and farmed salmon.

However, the concentrations in both groups of Atlantic salmon were well below EU’s maximum limits.

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

» 57

Shrimp

Diseases of Freshwater Prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii

Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man) - the giant freshwater prawn, is the largest and most popular palaemonid prawn cultured worldwide, although its natural habitats include tropical and subtropical rivers or estuaries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Hui Gong Jiang, PhD

G

lobal production of cultured M. rosenbergii reached 500,000 metric tons based on FAO reporting in 2015. As in many other aquaculture species, epizootics caused by infectious pathogens have been and continue to be the most significant threat to prawn production and they have set back the growth of the M. rosenbergii aquaculture industry.

So far, there have been several viral diseases that were originally found in M. rosenbergii. One of the most catastrophic prawn diseases is white tail disease (WTD) caused by M. rosenbergii nodavirus (MrNV) and extra small virus (XSV), the former of which is responsible for heavy mortality in the postlarvae of M. rosenbergii. The other aetiological agents include macrobrachium muscle virus (MMV) resulting in muscle necrosis, hepatopancreatic parvovirus (MrHPV) affecting the digestive tract, and recently M. rosenbergii Taihu virus (MrTV), as well as M. nipponense reovirus (MnRV).

There are also some pathogens that originated in other domesticated aquatic species, but can be transmitted to freshwater prawn and lead to disease outbreaks. These emerging prawn diseases consist of penaeid shrimp pathogens such as infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV), white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), shrimp hemocyte iridescent virus (SHIV), covert mortality no58 Âť

davirus (CMNV) and enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP). Moreover, Spiroplasma eriocheiris, the causative pathogen for trembling disease in Chinese mitten crabs was recently found in M. rosenbergii. Cherax quadricarinatus iridovirus (CQIV), a crayfish virus, was also added to the disease watch list for freshwater prawns. Some detailed information on prawn diseases is provided here.

White Tail Disease Since its first report three decades ago in the French West Indies, WTD has

been the most significant disease of M. rosenbergii by far because it could cause up to 100% mortality in a week or so during the larval, postlarval and early juvenile stages. WTD outbreaks have been reported from the major prawn producing countries, such as China, India, Thailand, Taiwan and Australia, among others.

As indicated in the name, the major gross sign of WTD presence is muscular opaqueness, usually starting in the central region of the abdominal muscles, and then gradually extending both anteriorly and posteriorly, rang-

ing from the striated muscles of the cephalothorax to those in the telson and uropods. Other clinical signs include abnormal behavior, lethargy and anorexia among the infected population, prior to the onset of heavy mortality. Young M. rosenbergii from larvae to early juveniles are highly susceptible to WTD, and mortality starts at 2 or 3 days after the appearance of the first gross signs and reaches a maximum in 5 or 6 days. Very few postlarvae with WTD could be expected to survive beyond 15 days in an outbreak, and the survivors remain as carriers of MrNV even after they grow to broodstock stage. As adults, they would not be affected by WTD, but WTD can be transmitted both horizontally and vertically.

The aetiological agents are two viruses, namely M. rosenbergii nodavirus (MrNV), as the primary pathogen, and extra small virus (associate) are responsible for causing WTD. Both MrNV and XSV are non-enveloped ssRNA icosahedral viruses. The size of MrNV is 26-27 nm in diameter, and XSV is 15 nm in diameter. The pathogenicity of purified MrNV and XSV showed that either MrNV alone or together with XSV caused 100% mortality in PLs at 7 to 10 days post injection (dpi), but XSV alone did not cause any

significant mortality in postlarvae. Although MrNV seems to play a key role in the disease and the role played by XSV in the disease remains unclear, it is interesting to note that both viruses were always detected in the prawns associated with WTD infection.

In addition to histological tools and protein based diagnostic methods, genome based diagnostic methods have been developed for the detection of MrNV and XSV. • Dot-blot hybridization • In situ hybridization • Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or real

time RT-PCR. Whole body of PLs and most tissues or organs of adult M. rosenbergii such as gill tissue, head muscles, stomach, intestine, heart, hemolymph, pleopods, ovaries and tail muscles are suitable for screening for the viruses by RT-PCR method.

Macrobrachium Muscle Lesion Originally discovered in Taiwan, outbreaks of this novel muscle lesion disease occurred within 10 days of postlarvae being transferred from indoor tanks to outdoor ponds between July and December. Prawns over 28 days old were the most affected. Moribund

» 59

Shrimp

prawns grossly exhibited opaque muscle in abdominal segments. Infected prawns often displayed progressively weakened swimming ability and showed an inclination to stay on vegetation or the pond bank. The mortalities of diseased prawns ranged from 50% to 70% within two weeks. The causative pathogen belongs to either the parvovirus or picornavirus group, and the virions are non-enveloped icosahedral particles with the size of 23nm in average. It is still unclear if vertical transmission is involved in the spread of this disease.

M. rosenbergii Hepatopancreatic Parvovirus Reported as an HPV-type disease of M. rosenbergii from Malaysia and Thailand, the virus specifically targets the digestive tract of the prawn and develops in the nuclei of hepatopancreatic epithelial cells. The infected nuclei contain small icosahedral particles, ranging from 25nm to 30nm in diameter. The prevalence and pathogenicity of MrHPV in wild and farmed populations of freshwater prawn remain unclear.

M. rosenbergii Taihu virus (Dicistrovirus) From a research paper published in 2016, a larval mortality syndrome of M. rosenbergii broke out in 2009 at a hatchery located in Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. Afterwards, similar diseases were found in other main breeding areas of M. rosenbergii, including Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Guangxi, and Guangdong Provinces in China.

This novel virus was named MrTV after the Taihu Lake where the infected larvae were used for the viral isolation.

MrTV, a picoranvirus-like RNA virus, is related to the family Dicistroviridae and can be classified in the genus Aparavirus according to the current classification criterion.

The viral particle is approximately 25–29 nm in diameter interspersed within the cytoplasm of connective cells. This disease mainly affects M. rosenbergii larvae, especially when they 60 »

reach zoeal stage V. Adult prawns remain as carriers of the causative agent, but show no clinical signs. Vertical transmission of MrTV was suspected, but not verified. The clinical signs in larvae include moulting obstacles, red shed shells, weakened response to stimuli, sinking to the bottom, and eating difficulties. In general, the mortality rate of this disease ranges from 80% to 90%, and the peak mortality rate occurs in the seven-day-old larvae, therefore this larval mortality syndrome disease was also known as the “disease of seven days.” Furthermore, experimental infection studies confirmed that MrTV was lethal to larvae of M. rosenbergii and that its mortality ranged from 53% to 82% within 20 days. Two mortality peaks of larvae (at 7 and 15 days) were detected after being immersed in MrTV solution. A preliminary survey suggested that M. rosenbergii collected from the wild were not carriers of MrTV. RT-PCR protocols are available for diagnostics.

M. nipponense Reovirus As reported in 2016, M. nipponense reovirus caused the disease outbreak in a M. nipponense farm in Hubei province during the summer of 2008, which

led to 15%-20% mortality among the prawn stocks, with nearly half of the stocks exhibiting gross signs such as red body disease and black gills. In some farms, mortality reached 5060%. MnRV has non-enveloped bilayered capsid and is icosahedral reovirus with the size of 60 nm in diameter, and specifically targets the epithelial cells of the hepatopancreas for infection. RT-PCR diagnostic tool is available for detecting MnRV. In our next discussion, we will consider prawn pathogens that originated in penaeid shrimp.

Hui Gong, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the College of Natural and Applied Sciences at the University of Guam. Her expertise in shrimp aquaculture has built on 17 years of experience in applied research in both academic and industrial backgrounds. hgong@uguam.uog.edu

» 61

THE Shellfish CORNER

Shellfish Aquaculture in the Commons

By Michael A. Rice*

The major common denominator of shellfish aquaculture in coastal or estuarine waters worldwide is that most culture operations are conducted in common or public trust waters, necessitating constant interaction in the political arena with other competing interests.

U

nlike many forms of finfish and crustacean aquaculture conducted in ponds or indoors on land that is privately owned, or is rented or leased from a landlord conferring private land and water usage rights, the vast majority of shellfish farmers are faced by the problem of conducting their aquaculture

operations in estuaries or coastal waters that are common property, technically owned and administered by some governmental agency. There are indeed some exceptions to this general rule. For example, in 1895, legislature in the State of Washington in the United States enacted the Bush and Callow Acts that allowed sale and private ownership of tide-

Figure 1. Picking oysters by hand from intertidal lands covered by the 1895 Callow Act at Willapa Bay, Washington, October 1969. Photo by Bob Williams, NOAA Fisheries Photo Collection.

62 Âť

lands. This provision for private ownership of intertidal lands for the purpose of shellfish culture is unique to Washington among all of the United States, and it is credited as being an important legal foundation of Washington’s successful shellfish industry.

In all other states in the United States, and indeed in many other parts of the world, intertidal lands, submerged lands and the water column above them are considered to be common property held in some fashion within the public trust.

Whether it is in the United States or elsewhere, it is useful for shellfish farmers to have at least an understanding of the legal underpinnings and the principles of the public trust doctrine as it may apply to their specific jurisdiction, because the very nature of operating a farm in public trust waters means that conflicts will inevitably arise with other user groups. And successful resolution of these user conflicts is frequently critical to whether or not shellfish farms are allowed to even exist.

In the United States, the principle of state sovereignty over public trust waters stems from a landmark court case of disputed ownership of 100 acres of oyster grounds in Raritan Bay within state waters of New Jersey in the Town of Perth Amboy. In 1835, an oyster farmer leasing 100 acres from William C.H. Waddell brought suit in federal court against Merritt Martin and others who had been granted exclusive rights to the same oyster grounds under a law passed by the State of New Jersey in 1824. At issue was the continued validity of royal grants made in 1674

by King Charles II of England to the Duke of York (later to become King James II), the proprietor of the Colony of East Jersey and the subsequent transfers of that royal grant title down to Waddell. The Federal Circuit Court of New Jersey first found in favor of Waddell, arguing that existing property rights cannot be violated by the state with-

out proper compensation. The case, however, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the decision of the lower court was overturned by a majority decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1842 that at its heart stated: For when the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government. A grant made by their authority must, therefore, manifestly be tried and determined by different principles from those which apply to grants of the British crown, when the title is held by a single individual, in trust for the whole nation.

In other words, the state, acting on behalf of its citizenry, has the exclusive right to manage their common waters in trust for the common good. Of course exactly what constitutes the common good is certainly the object of considerable political controversy and it does not exclude actions such as those by the State of Washington to grant private property rights to individuals as they had done with the Bush and Callow Acts, if they so deem it to be in the public interest.

Although the Martin v Lessee of Waddell decision set forth the principle of Public Trust Doctrine as it applies to management of common property marine resources in the U.S., each of the states and their respective legislatures developed a different system for management of public waters and public lands, particularly how aquaculture farms are to be established and managed.

For example, in my home state of Rhode Island, the granting of leases for aquaculture in coastal waters is handled at the statewide-level with the coastal resources management agency taking the lead on granting permits and leases and coordinating the multi-agency review attendant to the process. Massachusetts, an adjoining state, on the other hand has

Figure 2. Matunuck Oyster Farm 2017, South Kingstown Rhode Island. Photo by Michael A. Rice.

a long historical legal tradition of town by town ‘home rule,’ so decision making is done at the local level.

As a result there is a wide range of policies and attitudes toward aquaculture development in the various towns depending upon the nature of the local politics.

In Connecticut, another adjoining state, the situation is complicated in that both municipal and state agencies are involved in leasing decisions depending upon the location of the proposed aquaculture farm in their coastal waters. I am currently involved in a project with aquaculture extension professionals from the northeastern United States led by Matthew Parker of the University of Maryland to compile the laws, regulations and procedures from each of our respective states and identify which of these may be acting as unintentional or unreasonable hindrances to the development of aquaculture businesses.

One example of an unintentional hindrance to aquaculture business development rests in the very nature of aquaculture leases in public trust waters. Often, aquaculture leases are granted for a fixed period of time ranging from a few years to ten years or more with provisions for revoca-

tion of a lease by the state if there is no performance on the lease (i.e. there is no actual farming on the site) or there are legal violations and so forth. Even in the case of the 1895 Callow Act in Washington, there have been provisions to revoke private ownership privileges by the state if shellfish aquaculture was not occurring on the tidelands.

From the point of view of protecting the public trust, these provisions for periodic lease review and renewal, and revocation for cause, seem to be quite reasonable. However the unintended consequence of having too short of a lease renewal cycle or a perceived willingness of

The unintended consequence of having too short of a lease renewal cycle or a perceived willingness of the state to capriciously revoke leases for even minor infractions hampers aquaculturists in securing business loans or capital investments.

Âť 63

THE Shellfish CORNER

the state to capriciously revoke leases for even minor infractions hampers aquaculturists in securing business loans or capital investments.

The banking system as it is set up in most countries favors long-term business stability and assurances that loaned or invested funds will be paid back with a high degree of certainty.

Short-term business insecurity issues rarely arise in instances of privately owned land, because the land itself can be offered as collateral in support of project financing.

Outside of the U.S., variants of the public trust doctrine govern the establishment and maintenance of aquaculture as well but are founded upon differing legal foundations and definitions of the public trust. For example in the Philippines, aquaculture permitting and leasing is handled strictly at the level of local governments with little provision for involvement the national government other than the case of the very rare declaration of a national emergency. In many municipalities in the Philippines, lease fees for oyster farms using off-bottom methods of oyster culture are modest and help defray the costs of some of the aquaculture management program.

However these farms are capable of producing upwards of 2.5 kg of shucked oyster meats per square meter of farm area if they are managed properly. Other countries in

As a matter of practicality, the best systems for managing aquaculture lease policy in an equitable manner are on a local enough scale to facilitate stakeholder involvement, and to allow shellfish aquaculturists to organize into professional trade organizations so that the collective interest of the industry is heard in the process.

64 Âť

Figure 3. Oyster Farm at Carael, Dagupan City, Philippines, January 2018. Photo by Michael A. Rice.

the Southeast Asian region manage shellfish aquaculture operations on a local or regional basis as well.

The major common denominator of shellfish aquaculture in coastal or estuarine waters worldwide is that most culture operations are conducted in common or public trust waters, necessitating constant interaction in the political arena with other competing interests. As a matter of practicality, the best systems for managing aquaculture lease policy in an equitable manner are on a local enough scale to facilitate stakeholder involvement, and to allow shellfish aquaculturists to organize into professional trade organizations so that the collective interest of the industry is heard in the process.

Natural resource economist Susan S. Hanna from Oregon State University in 1990 pointed out that management of the public trust in coastal and ocean waters has much in common with the historical local management of common farmlands in 17th Century England prior to the enclosure movement that established the now predominant system of private ownership of terrestrial farmland in most English-speaking countries, and much of the rest of the world as well. On the topic of the annual process for allocating land from the 17th Century com-

mons to individual families, Hanna stated, “The smooth functioning of the English commons relied on the active participation of people with the greatest stake in its survival--the resource users.� Such advice could not be any more appropriate for the farmers of the 21st Century Commons as well.

Michael A. Rice, PhD, is a Professor of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at the University of Rhode Island. He has published extensively in the areas of physiological ecology of mollusks, shellfishery management, molluscan aquaculture, and aquaculture in international development.

He has served as Chairperson of his department at the University of Rhode Island, and as an elected member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. rice@uri.edu 1 The ownership of intertidal lands for shellfish aquaculture under the 1895 Bush & Callow Acts of Washington State was further clarified in 2002 and codified in Washington Laws as Section 79.135.010.

2 U.S. Supreme Court, Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842).

3 For more information see: Lowry, K., A. White, and C. Courtney. 2005. National and local agency roles in integrated coastal management in the Philippines.

Ocean and Coastal Management 48:314-335.

4 Hanna, S.S. (1990). The Eighteenth Century English Commons: A Model for Ocean Management.

Ocean and Shoreline Management 14:155-172

» 65

the fishmonger

RE: Mercury…

Part Two We used to look at managing fish resources by fish species, then it was realised that you cannot manage fish by fish - you need to manage the eco-system that the fish are engaged in - the same applies here with testing mercury in isolation.

A

s mentioned here in the last issue, new recommendations are being considered regarding mercury testing in seafood, with potentially enormous impacts on global trade. There are many things they are missing in the new mercury story that, in The Fishmonger’s opinion, need to be raised: 1. Aquaculture is the global lead supplier of fish/seafood now and one would hope that no aquaculture

Restaurant Les Feuillantines a Balma.

66 »

species would test positive for high mercury (woe betide any government that allowed that). Aquaculture species should be totally exempt from testing.

In fact, why isn’t there a big, bold statement about this? Why have we not differentiated Aquaculture from Wild Harvested in this area?

2. Selenium has never been considered in the equation relating to ocean fish and through Dr. Nick Ralston we have more than enough informa-

tion. He has said countless times that “Ocean fish consumption does not cause MeHg toxicity. It prevents it.”

Please see “Selenium in the Environment and Human Health. (2014) G.S. Banuelos, Z.Q. Lin, and W Yin, Eds; CRC Press.

ISBN: 978-1-138-00017-9 (Hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-203-77141-9 (Kindle)” and the chapter ‘Selenium status and intake influences mercury exposure risk’ by N.V.C. Ralston and L.J. Raymond.

The abstract states “Methylmercury (MeHg) is an irreversible inhibitor of selenium (Se)-dependent enzymes that are vital for foetal neurodevelopment. Since this appears to explain why risks of seafood MeHg exposures are inversely related to maternal Se intakes, it is essential to consider Se status when evaluating potential effects of MeHg exposures. Almost all varieties of ocean fish contain far more Se than MeHg, and studies indicate that maternal consumption of ocean fish prevents rather than contributes to causing MeHg toxicity. The only “seafoods” that consistently contain more MeHg than Se are pilot whales and certain types of shark.

Consumption of these seafoods has been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental effects, while ocean fish protects against the adverse effects reported in association with MeHg exposures. Therefore, a more highly developed approach to MeHg risk assessments is needed. This is especially true since maternal consumption of ocean fish has repeatedly been shown to confer substantial benefits to both mothers and their children.

The Se-Health Benefit Value (HBVSe) was developed to enable regulatory agencies and consumers to distinguish foods that are safe and beneficial from those that are associated with potentially adverse effects.”

The case appears to be compelling with such evidence (there is more too!). So why is no one activating this science you may ask?

3. The big issue with mercury and fish/seafood is freshwater fish yet we seem oblivious to this issue - this could be where regulators are missing a critical matter as per Dr. Ralston’s advice. No freshwater species is being questioned or mentioned or tested.

Is that good or bad? Has it been discussed at Codex? Surely it would be an important part of any review.

» 67

the fishmonger

Restaurante Lusitania fish dishes.

4. Govts like Australia (and others) play down issues with red meat and poultry (industry advocacy & politics) and continue to focus on fish as the ‘demon’ yet whilst Australia is the only country in the world to have a Fish Name Standard (AFNS AS5300 - see http://seafoodstandards.com. au/fish-names/Pages/default.aspx) which Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ) assisted in getting approved and yet refuse to make mandatory. It seems strange that FSANZ would even think of creating more issues relating to testing species of fish when anyone can call fish what they like and get away with it. Without the AFNS becoming mandatory then Australian Quarantine Inspection Services (AQIS) Imports do not check on fish name protocols so Australia which relies on 75% of its seafood requirements coming from imports has no adequate and rigorous border check to those that wish to cheat. Fish fraud is alive and well globally yet needlessly in Australia as there is a Standard already available

Photo Phuket@photographer.net (CC BY 2.0)

68 »

which FSANZ have left on the voluntary shelf for far too long.

There are many species of shark, so it is important to note that species like Gummy Shark (as per AFNS) and there will be others, have NO MERCURY issues whatsoever. Thus, to simply lump ‘shark’ as a tested species is amateurish.

5. Finally what is the mercury issue - how many people are dying from mercury poisoning from eating too much seafood? What damage has been created by making fish/seafood the ‘demon’ when there has likely been more damage done by people not eating fish/seafood.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2006, requested FAO and WHO to consider holding an FAO/ WHO Expert Consultation on the health risks associated with methylmercury and dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in fish and the health benefits of fish consumption, based on a recommendation from the 38th session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC).

To better address the request from Codex, FAO and WHO first held a small expert group meeting to get advice on these issues and the most appropriate way forward. This expert meeting noted that many national studies and assessments were available and that these could form the basis for further development of assessment models and for the evaluation. However, a quantitative risk-benefit approach may not be possible at the international level, so other options may need to be explored.

FAO and WHO held the Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption 25 to 29 January 2010 at FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. Seventeen experts in nutrition, toxicology, epidemiology, dietary exposure and risk-benefit assessments discussed the risks and the benefits of fish consumption.

The tasks of the experts were to assess the health benefits and risks associated with consumption of fish.

Based on existing evidence, the main objective was to give advice, targeted at vulnerable population subgroups, on a neutral basis, to assist countries and their institutions, policy makers, health authorities, fisheries bodies, public health advisors, etc., to balance the risks and the benefits of fish consumption.

The conclusions were documented in a paper and presented to Codex and made public (note no other such document exists relating to meat or poultry) and they are • Consumption of fish provides energy, protein, and a range of other important nutrients, including the longchain n-3 poly unsaturated fatty acids (LC n-3 PUFA).

• Eating fish is part of the cultural traditions of many peoples and in some populations, is a major source of food and essential nutrients.

• Among the general adult population, consumption of fish, particularly oily fish, lowers the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality. There is absence of probable or convincing evidence of CHD risks of MeHg. Po-

Snapper. Photo Ralph Daily (CC BY 2.0)

tential cancer risks of DLCs are well below established CHD benefits.

• When considering benefits of LC n-3 PUFA vs. risks of MeHg among women of childbearing age: maternal fish consumption lowers the risk of suboptimal neurodevelopment in their offspring compared to women not eating fish in most circumstances evaluated.

• At levels of maternal DLC intake (from fish and other dietary sources) that do not exceed the provisional tolerable monthly intake (PTMI) of 70 picograms/kg bodyweight/month established by JECFA, neurodevelopmental risk is negligible. At levels of maternal DLC intake (from fish and other dietary sources) that exceed the

Fish & Chips. Photo Craig Dennis (CC BY 2.0)

PTMI, neurodevelopmental risk may no longer be negligible.

• Among infants, young children, and adolescents, the available data are currently insufficient to derive a quantitative framework of health risks and benefits of eating fish. However, healthy dietary patterns that include fish and are established early in life influence dietary habits and health during adult life.

The recommendations, which seemingly no one acted upon seriously, state: To minimize risks in target populations, the Consultation recommended a series of steps that member states should take to better assess and manage the risks and benefits of fish con-

sumption and more effectively communicate with their citizens: • Acknowledge fish consumption as an important food source of energy, protein, and a range of essential nutrients and part of the cultural traditions of many peoples.

• Emphasize the benefits of fish consumption on reducing CHD mortality (and CHD mortality risks of not eating fish) for the general adult population.

• Emphasize the neurodevelopment benefits to offspring of fish consumption by women of childbearing age, particularly pregnant women and nursing mothers, and the neurodevelopment risks to offspring of such women not consuming fish • Develop, maintain, and improve existing databases on specific nutrients and contaminants, particularly MeHg and DLCs, in fish consumed in their region.

• Develop and evaluate risk management and communication strategies that both minimize risks and maximize benefits from eating fish.

The final comment goes to Visiting Professor Michael A. Crawford, PhD, FRSB, FRCPath, Order of the Rising Sun, 2015, Tokyo, Japan; Chevreul Medal, 2015, Paris, France and Alexander Leaf Distinguished Scientist Award for Lifetime Achievement. ISSFAL, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2016 who said “Even if there was valid evidence of neurotoxicity in pregnancy or childhood you could not scientifically create a table of minimum levels without account taken for the selenium in fish. As Ralston and Raymond have published, fish and sea foods are rich sources of selenium which takes out any Hg.” With a positive change in the way we look at mercury The Fishmonger will guarantee that sales of seafood would increase enormously in many countries and the health of those nations would improve, so it is time the ‘fog’ over this issue to be cleared once and for all.

Happy Fishmongering!

The Fishmonger

» 69

Perspective and Opinion

Photo Norsk Havbrukssenter (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Issues Public Statement Regarding PRV

in Atlantic Salmon

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a statement to the public on February 16, 2018 to respond to a news release by the Wild Fish Conservancy on the previous day claiming that escaped Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound were infected with the Piscine Orthoreovirus Virus (PRV), of Norwegian origin. The statement and review are presented here for consideration.

WDFW review of Wild Fish Conservancy’s Feb. 15 news release on presence of virus in escaped Atlantic salmon. February 16, 2018.

Summary of key points The following points are fully elaborated in the material below, prepared

by Dr. Kenneth Warheit, fish health and genetic specialist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: • The Wild Fish Conservancy’s news release confuses the virus (PRV) with the 70 »

disease (HSMI), misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate risks to native salmon, and fails to find a single study to support the claim that PRV from open-water pens will harm wild fish.

• The Conservancy asserts – without evidence – that HSMI will harm wild salmon. However, HSMI has never been detected in our native salmon or

any other fish except farmed Atlantic salmon.

• PRV occurs naturally and was first confirmed in the Salish Sea from fish samples taken in 1987.

The Conservancy provides no data or scientific research to support its claim that the PRV found in escaped fish originated in Norway.

» 71

Perspective and Opinion

• WDFW methodically and objectively investigates PRV and other fish health issues. We are increasing surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and in our hatcheries. At present, PRV is not recognized as a pathogen of concern by the World Organization for Animal Health.

Review of Wild Fish Conservancy news release The press release is dated February 15, 2015. The following are general comments about the document (bullets), followed by specific responses to statements made in the press release.

The numbered comments below correspond to annotations made in a copy of the press release included with this document (AQM Editor’s note: the annotated release is available from the WDWF; these comments are self-explanatory).

• Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) appears to be confused by the difference

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)

72 »

between the virus PRV (Piscine Orthoreovirus) and the associated disease HSMI. WFC exaggerates the risk associated with the presence of PRV, based on current scientific knowledge; and WFC fails to recognize that the presence of PRV does not equal the presence of disease, that most fish with PRV do not exhibit clinical or microscopic signs of disease, and that both farmed Atlantic salmon and freeswimming native Pacific salmon have PRV but only farmed Atlantic salmon get clinical signs of HSMI. • WFC repeatedly makes statements that appear to be based on science by citing published scientific papers in defense of their statements; but in many, perhaps most cases the published papers do not support their statements.

These published papers either do not address their statements, or provide information that is counter to their statements. Where the published pa-

pers are consistent with WFC’s statements, the statements generally overstate the conclusions in the published papers.

• Without evidence, WFC states that PRV itself originated in Norway, and they imply, also without evidence, that the strain of PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought to Washington from Norway.

• WFC misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate the risk that the August 2017 Cypress #2 accident will harm native salmon with a disease (HSMI) that has never been detected in our native Pacific salmon or any fish other than farmed Atlantic salmon.

1.WDFW never claimed that PRV was not present in escaped Atlantic salmon. In fact, in the State’s report investigating the Cypress #2 accident, WDFW was the first to report the presence of PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. Ms. Amy Windrope’s

None of the escaped Atlantic salmon with PRV examined by WDFW had HSMI.

quote that appeared in WFC’s press release was accurate and subsequent statements at the press briefing specifically dealt with the presence of PRV and stated that WDFW found PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. None of the escaped Atlantic salmon with PRV examined by WDFW had HSMI.

2. PRV is a virus that is present in both captive Atlantic salmon and freeswimming native Pacific salmon. In most cases, fish with PRV are healthy, and show no signs of disease. The syndrome HSMI has been associated with PRV in Atlantic salmon aquaculture only. HSMI affects only a small

subset of captive Atlantic salmon with PRV and in most cases HSMI is not fatal. See attached White Paper.

3. WFC claims that PRV is “highly contagious and debilitating,” and cites the scientific publication Wessel et al. as the source for their statement. But, the results from Wessel et al. do not support WFC’s claim; however, Wessel et al. do state “PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon and thus present also in apparently healthy individ-

» 73

Perspective and Opinion

PRV is a virus that is present in both captive Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon. In most cases, fish with PRV are healthy, and show no signs of disease.

uals.” The published paper indicates that in the laboratory, PRV produced microscopic signs that are consistent with HSMI, but in this study none of the fish developed a debilitating disease, and none of the fish died as a result of infection.

4. Neither the Wessel et al. nor the DiCicco et al. papers state that there are “significant mortalities from HSMI,” as WFC claims. Wessel et al. state that “[h]istopathological lesions in the heart can be found in most fish in an affected sea cage while the cumulative mortality [in Norway] ranges from insignificant to 20%.” DiCicco et al. state “[t]he disease [HSMI] has been reported also in Scotland . . . and Chile.” The data presented by DiCicco et al. for the BC farm indicates that about 0.2% of the affected fish died from HSMI. 5. WFC states that the “spread of PRV from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon has been well documented,” and cites Garver et al. as that documentation. Garver et al. describes a laboratory study where through injections and forced cohabitation the investigators demonstrate that PRV can be highly infectious. Therefore, this research does not state that PRV spreads from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon. However, it is likely that wild salmon can be infected with PRV from farmed salmon, and likewise, farmed salmon can be infected by wild salmon. Furthermore, in addition to WFC’s misuse of the Garver et al.

74 »

Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha).

research, they omitted another finding of Garver et al.: even with the high infectivity of PRV, none of the test fish showed any clinical or microscopic signs of disease.

6. This paragraph is entirely speculative and not based on any “peer-reviewed science,” as claimed by WFC. WFC states that “the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles,” and cites another paper published by Wessel et

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

al. However, the cited paper does not support WFC’s statement: “[a]lthough the present study suggests salmon RBC [red blood cells] can tolerate high amounts of PRV, it is not known how it affects other important erythrocyte functions, such as oxygen transport.”

7. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope was based on clinical examination, by a licensed veterinarian, of escaped Atlantic salmon re-captured soon after the spill. The veterinarian

determined that these fish were indeed healthy, that is, free from disease. These fish were tested for regulated pathogens, not for PRV, which is not a regulated pathogen nor is it recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as a pathogen of concern. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope is accurate. WFC continues to inaccurately state the difference between a virus (PRV) and a disease (HSMI).

8. WFC is disingenuous when they label PRV as a “Norwegian virus” and WFC is implying that the PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought here from Norway.

PRV has been present in Salish Sea waters since at least 1987. There is a scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature as to the origin of the PRV (eastern Pacific v Atlantic). This debate centers on viral genetics since there is little direct epidemiological evidence as to the origin of PRV. An objective evaluation, based on current information and analyses, would indicate that the origin of PRV is not known. Nevertheless and more importantly, it is unknown as to where the escaped Atlantic salmon contracted PRV. It is conceivable that the fish contracted the virus in Cooke Aquaculture’s Rochester hatchery, which if true would suggest that all the Atlantic salmon in the net pens have PRV. This would be consistent with what is known about the prevalence of PRV in Atlantic salmon net pens in British Columbia, and not a surprising result here in Washington.

Alternatively, it is also conceivable that the fish entered the net pens free of PRV and contracted the virus from wild fish—a scenario that is also common in British Columbia.

9. WFC provided no data or citations that support their claim that the PRV present in the escaped fish are of Norwegian origin. See comment #8 above. In addition, although PRV genetic sequences from eastern Pacific closely resemble that from Norway, there are differences between these sets of sequences, and it would have been more informative if WFC provided information about the sequences, rather than speculating about the origin of the PRV found in the escaped Atlantic salmon.

10. Despite WFC’s claim that there is a “multitude of scientific studies,” they failed to cite a single scientific study “that demonstrate[s] PRV from open-water pens will likely spread to and harm wild fish.” WFC also failed to state that PRV is present in native Pacific salmonids from Alaska to at least Washington, and in all cases these native fish showed no clinical or microscopic signs of HSMI or any other disease related to being infected with PRV. WDFW is methodical and objective in our evaluation of PRV, and we plan to increase surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and within our hatcheries. WDFW has been truthful with WFC and with anyone who asks us about PRV. The Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee made up of virologists, pathologists, geneticists, and veterinarians have produced a White Paper on PRV and HSMI. WDFW’s current management associated with PRV is consistent with that White Paper. » 75

urner barry

Salmon

UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Paul B. Brown Jr.*

O

verall salmon imports through December were 6 percent higher on a year-to-date basis. Total imports on a month-tomonth basis were up 12.97 percent compared to the previous month.

The market was full steady to firm for Chilean fillets for most of the month of February. The market started to become more steady heading into March. The European market, Norway in particular, remained somewhat volatile. Pricing was very firm the last two weeks heading into March.

Imports of Fresh Whole Fish Atlantic Salmon YTD imports through December were up 8.7 percent from 2016, and there continued to be significant changes regarding the country breakdown. Canada ended the year down 8.2 percent YTD, while Norway and the U.K. were up 97.7 and 93.7 percent, respectively. Canada’s total market share is down to 60 percent from 2016’s 72 percent.

Looking at pricing, all sizes listed above are trending higher than their three-year averages.

ous month, and total YTD imports continued to contract; 1.3 percent down. Chile, the main driver in this category, did see an increase; imports ended the year up 2.4 percent YTD. Moreover, on a month-to-month basis, imports out of Chile increased 15.3 percent. Overall, when comparing December 2017 to December 2016 there was a 6.8 percent increase. Fresh fillet imports out of Norway saw a 12.3 percent increase in month-to-month imports; but they were experiencing a 9.1 percent decrease in YTD imports.

Pricing, Fresh Atlantic Fillets Salmon The Chilean fillet market has continued to see pricing trend higher throughout the entire month of February; both leading up to the beginning of the Lenten season and Valentine’s Day and now post-Ash Wednesday as well. Now heading into March, the market looks to be stabilizing. Currently the market is Imports of Fresh Atlantic Fillets steady to full steady. All sizes are Imports in December 2017 were trending at and above the three-year 14.8 percent higher than the previ- averages.

Frozen Atlantic Salmon Fillets & Portions, Imports and Price Imports of frozen Atlantic fillets on a YTD basis were 28.6 percent higher. Imports from Chile increased 7.3 percent from the previous month and were 23.1 percent above levels on a YTD basis. Imports from Norway increased 24 percent compared to the previous month, and were still 47.4 percent higher on a YTD basis.

We must mention that we assume this HS code includes frozen portions. As import volumes increase, we are now starting to see a reaction in frozen fillet and portions pricing.

InfoTrade, Chilean Exports of Salmonids and Atlantic Salmon to the U.S. (in MT) According to Chilean data, exports of Chilean salmon to the world increased by 2.1 percent through December 2017 compared to the same period the prior year. Shipments of fresh Atlantic fillets to the U.S. were 0.6 percent down on a YTD basis.

Wild Salmon, Imports, Alaska Landings The 2017 wild salmon season has seen historic volumes of sockeyes, and the coho market trended higher than last year throughout the season.

Supplies of wild fresh are now nil as the season has come to an end. *President of Urner Barry pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com

Photo Andrea Pkrzwinski (CC BY 2.0)

76 »

TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH

UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Paul B. Brown Jr.*

T

otal tilapia imports retreated 7.4 percent in 2017 compared to the previous year. All three categories retreated; fresh fillets 3.4 percent; frozen whole 12 percent; and frozen fillets 6.7 percent. Imports of pangasius ended the year 20 percent below the previous year. As such, prices have increased significantly.

However, imports of frozen channel catfish fillets increased nearly 15 percent in 2017 compared to 2016.

Imported Channel Catfish December imports of frozen channel catfish fillets increased from the previous month but continued to contract well below their Q4 historically seasonal high. As such, December imports compared to the same month in 2016 decreased 64 percent.

Yet, due to the counter-cyclical behavior of monthly imports through 2017, largely incentivized by the mandatory USDA inspections that

Giant pangasius Photo Raita Futo (CC BY 2.0)

Catfish fillets Photo Wheeler Cowperthwaite (CC BY 2.0)

started in September, imports surged prior to this inspection due date and caused total imports in 2017 to surpass those in 2016 by 14.5 percent.

Shipments in December entered the U.S. with a declared value of $2.62 per pound, registering a $0.17

increase from the previous month.

This is the lowest monthly replacement cost figure since February 2015, just prior to the sudden price increase experienced that year that lasted until mid-2017.

Imports of Frozen Pangasius (Swai) Fillets December imports decreased from the previous month with seasonal imports still considerably lower compared to 2016. Pangasius/Swai has probably been the species that everyone in the industry has been talking about, not only because this species, along with channel catfish, are the only species under USDA inspection, but also because prices have spiked to record levels nearing those seen for tilapia in 2014. But prices have not only spiked as a result of USDA inspections alone; demand from China has been strong, diverting raw materials to this counÂť 77

urner barry

compared to 2016. Imports from Colombia surged significantly and reached a monthly record of 1.3 million pounds, earning the number one ranked exporter to the U.S. for the second month in a row. Total shipments from Colombia ended 2017 16 percent above 2016. Shipments from Mexico also increased in December and helped yearly imports from this country surge over 50 percent compared to 2016.

Tilapia.

try and away from the U.S. market.

Imports in 2017 finished 20% below 2016, and as such, economic fundamentals would suggest that a y-o-y decrease in supply of this magnitude would cause an increase in price, all else equal.

European data available for November showed a slight increase from the previous month. The data shows that year-to-date, both the U.S. and European markets are significantly lower compared to last year.

According to data from the USDOC, replacement costs in December decreased slightly from the record-setting level reached the previous month. The import price per pound sat at $1.67 in December, but according to most in the industry, these costs will continue to show an upward trend in the following months. Current offerings from Vietnam to U.S. importers are limited and causing U.S. product holders to raise prices as supplies could potentially get tighter in the near future. The market holds a full steady to firm undertone.

78 Âť

Imports of Frozen Tilapia Fillets Imports in December increased 22 percent from the previous month and 5 percent compared to the same month a year ago. Total imports for 2017 ended nearly 7 percent below imports in 2016, registering nearly a 22 million drop. This means that the 264 million pounds imported in 2017 recorded the lowest yearly figures since 2009, when imports added 253 million pounds. This is the third year in a row in which total tilapia Imports of Whole Fish Tilapia frozen fillet imports recorded a drop Imports of frozen whole fish in- from the previous year, registering a creased compared the previous drop of nearly 100 million pounds month and the same month a year since their peak in 2014. ago. Total imports ended 2017 14 percent below those in 2016. This Domestic Channel Catfish, Urner marks the lowest yearly imports Barry Prices since 2012.

Market undertone is steady, however there are a few factors that are causImports of Fresh Tilapia Fillets ing uncertainty in the market. 1.-The Imports in December decreased USDA decision on whether Vietslightly from the previous month. nam’s regulatory procedures are as Historical and seasonal data would strong as its US counterparts. Offihave suggested an increase in De- cials may have a decision by the end cember, however, imports in De- of March which will determine the cember 2017 recorded the lowest amount of imports competing with monthly figure since December the domestic market. 2.-The USDA 2004. This was largely led by a signif- announced earlier this month it plans icant decrease in imports from Hon- to purchase catfish products for duras, traditionally the largest sup- food nutrition assistance programs. plier of this commodity to the U.S. Under this program about 4 ½ milIn fact, shipments from this coun- lion pounds of catfish will be sold try recorded their lowest monthly this summer, taking product out of figure since September 2004. Ship- the normal channels. 3.-In the midst ments from Costa Rica recovered of the Lenten season, sellers are seeslightly in December and surpassed ing increases in sales. those from the same month a year *President of Urner Barry ago, bringing total imports into the pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com U.S. from this country almost on par

SHRIMP

UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Paul B. Brown Jr.*

U.S. Imports All Types, By Type December shrimp imports were 10.6% higher for the month leaving year end imports for 2017 10% higher than the prior year. Imports were led by India with 32% of the US market share. Indian imports were up 32% in December leaving year end imports up 39%. Indonesian imports were 17.8% higher for December and almost even for the year with 2016.

Thailand imports were down for both December and EOY. Ecuador imports were up in December and slightly lower for the year end. Vietnamese imports were lower while Chinese, Mexican, and Argentine imports were all higher as were Peru and Honduras.

U.S. Shrimp Imports by Country (All Types) The aggregated average import price of all shrimp for December was $4.54, an increase of 12¢ or 2.7% over 2016.

For the year the price was $4.46 versus $4.28 for 2016, a 4.2% increase.

Shell-on shrimp imports were up 2.2% for December with Indonesia and Mexico leading the percentage increase. EOY imports were up 3.1% with India 20.5% higher. For the year

31-40 count and larger shrimp all saw increases while smaller count shrimp saw decreases.

December peeled shrimp imports were up 25.4% with India, Indonesia, Ecuador and China leading the percentage increase among the major suppliers. Peeled imports finished 2017 15.7% higher.

Cooked imports were 6.7% higher for the month and 14.3% higher for the year. India saw a large increase in cooked imports up 72.1%. China also saw a large increase but Thailand Vietnam and Indonesia remain the main suppliers of cooked shrimp.

Breaded shrimp imports were down 13.5% for December but up 7.3% for the year with China leading the way.

The Asian white market; led by India, has been generally barely steady to weak. The heavy imports have led to an ample and what some characterize as a burdensome supply. By most reports cold storages are stocked with a lot of shrimp. Discounting has become and remains prevalent throughout the category as motivated sellers are reluctant to pass up a sale. *President of Urner Barry pbrownjr@urnerbarry.com

Photo Evan P. Cordes (CC BY 2.0)

Âť 79

Upcoming

aquaculture events

APRIL ASIA-PACIFIC AQUACULTURE 2018 Apr. 23 – Apr. 26 Taipei International Convention Centre. Taipei, Taiwan T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@was.com W: www.was.org SEAFOOD PROCESSING GLOBAL 2018 Apr. 24 – Apr. 26 Brussels Expo. Brussels, Belgium T: +1 207 842 5590 E: sales-global@seafoodexpo.com W: www.seafoodexpo.com/global/

MAY 10º INTERNATIONAL ABALONE SYMPOSIUM May. 8 – May. 12 Xiamen International Conference Center Hotel. Xiamen, China E: ias2018@chinastargroup.com W: www.ias2018.com OFFSHORE MARICULTURE CONFERENCE ASIA 2018 May. 15 – May. 17 Marina Mandarin. Singapore T: +44 1329 825335 E: conferences@offshoremariculture.com W: www.offshoremariculture.com/asia INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL MEDICINE (IAAAM) May. 19 – May. 23 Renaissance Long Beach. Long Beach, California, USA. E: sacha.stevenson@nmmpfoundation.org W: www.iaaam.org AQUACULTURE UK 2018 EXHIBITION May. 23 Macdonald Aviemore Resort. Aviemore, Scotland, UK T: +44 0 7880 230399 E: info@aquacultureuk.com W: www.aquacultureuk.com/exhibition/

11TH GLOBAL SUMMIT ON AQUACULTURE & FISHERIES May. 24 – May. 25 Hyatt Regency Osaka. Osaka, Japan W: www.aquaculture.global-summit.com AQUACULTURE CANADA May. 27 – May. 30 Hotel Le Concorde. Quebec, Canada E: jmburry@nl.rogers.com W: www.aquacultureassociation.ca

JUNE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FISH NUTRITION AND FEEDING (ISFNF) Jun. 3 – Jun. 7 Alfredo Kraus Auditorium. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain E: info@isfnf2018.com W: www.isfnf2018.com AQUA CONFERENCE Jun. 4 – Jun. 6 Copenhagen, Denmark T: +1 563 447 3392 E: contact@aquacultureconference.org W: www.aquacultureconference.org AQUAVISION 2018 Jun. 11 – Jun. 13 Stavanger, Norway W: www.aquavision.org/ JULY 22ND INTERNATIONAL SYMPHOSIUM ON FRESHWATER CRAYFISH Jul. 9 – Jul. 13 Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pittsburgh, USA W: www.freshwatercrayfish.org AUGUST CENTRAL AMERICAN AQUACULTURE SYMPOSIUM (SIMCAA) Aug. 21 – Aug. . 24 Choluteca, Honduras E: andah@andah.hn W: www.andah.hn

AQUA 2018 Aug. 25 – Aug. 29 Le Corum Congress Centre. Montpellier, France T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org SEPTEMBER 8th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH - ISAAH 2018 Sep. 2 – Sep. 6 Delta Prince Edward Hotel & Convention Center. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada W: www.isaah2018.com 13º FIACUI Sep. 26 – Sep. 28 Hotel Presidente Intercontinental. Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico W: www.fiacui.com OCTOBER AQUASUR 2018 Oct. 17 – Oct. 20 Puerto Montt, Chile E: aquasur@editec.cl W: www.aqua-sur.cl OCEAN MARICULTURE CONFERENCE 2018 Oct. 17 – Oct. 19 Corfu Imperial Hotel. Corfu, Grecia W: www.offshoremariculure.com/europe LACQUA 2018 Oct. 23 – Oct. 26 Ágora Bogotá Convention Center. Bogota, Colombia.

T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org NOVEMBER 1ST INTERNATIONAL SIMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE Nov. 8 – Nov. 9 Caracol Science Museum and Aquarium. Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico E: simposio.int.maricultura.fcm@uabc.edu.mx

advertisers antibiotics, probiotics and FEED additives Lallemand Animal Nutrition................................................57 Contact: Bernardo Ramírez DVM Basurto.

Tel: (+52) 833 155 8096 E-mail: bramirez@lallemand.com www.lallemand.com 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 Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Inc.......................................21 2395 Apopka Blvd. Apopka, Florida, Zip Code 32703, USA. Contact: Ricardo Arias T: (407) 8863939, (407) 8864884 E-mail: ricardo.arias@pentair.com www.pentairaes.com YSI.........................................................................................73 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 applications such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen, compressed dry air Adsorptech, Inc.................................................back cover 22 Stonebridge Rd. Hampton, NJ 08827 USA. T: +1 908 735 9528 E-mail: sales@www.adsorptech.com www.adsorptech.com events and exhibitions AQUASUR 2018......................................................................71 October 17 – 20, 2018. Puerto Montt, Chile.

E: aquasur@editec.cl W: www.aqua-sur.cl 1st INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE......................................................INSIDE COVER November 8 and 9, 2018. Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico.

Caracol Science Museum and Aquarium.

E: simposio.int.maricultura.fcm@uabc.edu.mx

80 »

Index

13th FIACUI...........................................................................1 September 26th - 28th, 2018. Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

Information on Booths Contact in Mexico: Christian Criollos E-mail: crm@dpinternationalinc.com www.fiacui.com www.panoramaacuicola.com LACQUA 2018.............................................Inside BACK cover Oct. 23- Oct. 26, 2018. Ágora Bogotá Convention Center.

Bogota, Colombia.

T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org OFFSHORE MARICULTURE CONFERENCE, ASIA 2018.................13 May 15 - 18, 2018. Marina Mandarin Singapore.

T: +44 1329 825335 E-mail: conferences@offshoremariculture.com www.offshoremariculture.com/asia XII SIMPOSIO CENTROAMERICANO DE ACUICULTURA..........67 August 21 -24, 2018. Choluteca Honduras.

E-mail: andah@andah.hn WAS AQUA 2018..........................................................................65 August 25-29, 2018. Montpellier, France.

P.O. Box 2302 Valley Center, CA 92082 USA T: +1 760 751-5005 F: +1 760 751-5003 E-mail: John Cooksey Trade Show: mario@marevent.com www.was.org / www.aquaeas.eu Information Services Aquaculture Magazine............................................31 & 61 Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 504 3642 Office in Mexico: +52(33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578 Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com Ad Sales. Chris Criollos, Sales Manager crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Office: +52 33 80007595 Cell: +521 33 14660392 Skype: christian.criollos

Aquafeed.com..........................................................................55 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com Urner Barry.............................................................................79 P.O. Box 389 Tom Ride. New Jersey, USA. Contact: Ángel Rubio.

T: 732-575-1982 E-mail: arubio@urnerbarry.com RAS SYSTEMS, DESIGN, EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GEMINI FIBERGLASS...................................................................15 3345 N. Cascade Ave. Colorado Springs, CO 80907. USA. Contact: Michael Paquette, President T: 858-602-9465 Email: michael@geminifiberglass.com / www. geminifiberglass.com tanks AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE REEF Industries.......................................................................11 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