Aquaculture Magazine October-November 2020 Vol. 46 No. 5 by Aquaculture Magazine

2 Â»

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â»

INDEX

Aquaculture Magazine Volume 46 Number 5 October- November 2020

EDITOR´S COMMENTS

INDUSTRY NEWS

12 ARTICLE

The potential of Seaweed farming in Brazil: Global supply of macro algae Kappaphycus alvarezii grows to attend the demand for Carrageenan in Brazil.

20 ARTICLE

Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture.

32 ARTICLE

Facts, truths, and myths about SPF shrimp in Aquaculture.

on the

cover Socio-economic impacts of Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on world shrimp aquaculture sector.

38 Volume 46 Number 5 October - November 2020

48 ARTICLE

Aeration of incubation units improves egg hatchability and larvae survival in Clarias gariepinus hatchery C.C.

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

Editorial Assistant Lucía Araiza editorial@dpinternationalinc.com

Editorial Design Francisco Cibrián

52 NEWS ARTICLE

Protecting the Natural Flavor of Catfish.

Designer Perla Neri design@design-publications.com

Sales & Marketing Coordinator Juan Carlos Elizalde crm@dpinternationalinc.com

NEWS ARTICLE

World’s Leading Aquatic Scientific SocietiesUrgently Call for Cuts to Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

60 LATIN AMERICA REPORT Recent News and Events.

Marketing & Corporate Sales Claudia Marín sse@dpinternationalinc.com

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

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

EVENTS 84 UPCOMING ADVERTISERS INDEX 2 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

COLUMNS

OUT AND ABOUT

Paradigms that the COVID-19 health contingency will shift in aquaculture business... and everyone’s lives. By: Salvador Meza *

AQUAFEED

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

TECHNICAL GURU

THE FISHMONGER

AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING

Air stones and diffusers, oh my!. By Amy Stone

How will China impact seafood into the future?

What do regulations cost Pacific Coast Shellfish Farms? By: Jonathan van Senten, Carole R. Engle, Bobbi Hudson, Fred S. Conte*

DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MARKETING BYTES

Six Mistakes to Avoid in Social Media Marketing. By: Sarah Cornelisse*

81 OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY Ineffectiveness of OIE oversight. By: Ph.D Stephen G. Newman*

What do we address first: urgent matters or important matters? By: Aquaculture Magazine Staff*

rgent or important? These terms might be understood as synonyms; often, the urgent is important and vice versa. However, in the face of an unprecedented situation of great complexity worldwide, where aquaculture and its productive and commercial chains are being affected and where, in addition, it is expected that in the next decade, aquaculture production increases to meet the high demand for healthy and quality animal proteins for the world population. The scenario, and its urgent and important tasks, can become overwhelming. We can then begin by defining the terms a little more according to the Eisenhower Matrix. An urgent task is the one that requires immediate attention, it must be done here and now, but this approach can lead to a reactive mode for resolving the matter, with a negative, defensive, hurried, and unfocused mentality. On the other hand, an important task is defined as something that contributes to a mission, values, or long-term objectives, it is usually performed in a more receptive mode, helping maintain a calm, rational and open approach to new opportunities. What is all this about? Our readers might be wondering. This new edition of our magazine October - November 46-5, includes information on both urgent and important issues for the aquaculture industry, in the shape 4 Âť

of research articles, analyses, perspectives, and opinions that are on the radar of global aquaculture at the present moment, but also gazing into the future of this sector. Therefore, we suggest our readers acquire analytic lenses while reading our contents to distinguish the themes between urgent, important, or what kind of matter each one represents for our sector?

We believe that this might help identify the main objectives for each key actor along the productive and commercial chains of aquaculture, to continue advancing towards the medium and long term goals and objectives; while still addressing the urgent matters derived from the COVID-19 effects on the markets and the daily operations of the aquaculture-related business.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â»

INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT

Commercial scale trials prove unique Omega-3 profile of Aquaterra® delivers improved aquaculture outcomes Nuseed has completed three commercial-scale fish trials with industry, confirming the efficacy of Aquaterra® Omega-3 canola oil as a partial replacement for fish oil in aquaculture feed. The trials, undertaken in Chile, indicate the inclusion of Aquaterra® in feed results in decreased fish mortality and reduced Fish In Fish Out (FIFO) and Foraged Fish Dependency Ratios (FFDRo). The expression of EPA+DHA in the fillet and sensory analysis are equivalent in Aquaterra® and fish oil diets, signifying Aquaterra® meets consumer taste and nutrition expectations. Aquaterra® is the world’s first landbased source of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, produced by Nuseed to deliver the nutritional benefits of microalgae via its proprietary Omega-3 Canola. Nuseed partnered with lead-

ing salmon producers and feed suppliers to conduct commercial-scale feeding trials in the largest study of its type with a new feed ingredient. The trials were conducted over an 18-month period with 3 million fish across three sites. Safety, performance, and quality parameters were measured in Aquaterra® and control diet groups, and confirmed results of independent trials conducted by the Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (NOFIMA). Aquaculture is rapidly expanding as an efficient protein source desired

by consumers. However, aquaculture depends on wild fish ingredients to feed farmed fish, and these resources are insufficient to meet the needs of industry growth. Aquaterra® ensures the sustainable growth of aquaculture by supplying a renewable and scalable source of omega-3 nutrients while reducing pressure on ocean environments. Aquaterra® is commercially available and positioned to quickly scale production. Technical support is offered to feed producers and fish farmers to facilitate implementation.

Virbac partners with Ictyogroup to bring new aquaculture solutions Virbac has recently announced the completion of the acquisition of the tilapia vaccines range of Ictyogroup. Therefore Virbac will now be distributing and marketing both registered and autogenous tilapia vaccines globally. Beyond the acquisition, the two companies have entered into a close partnership whereby Ictyogroup will continue to develop new vaccines and formulations for tilapia for Virbac’s Aqua Division and aquatic animal health business. The deal also includes the transfer from Ictyogroup to Virbac of several managers specialized in technical and marketing support and vaccine R&D in tilapia. Cedric Komar, CEO of Ictyogroup: “Partnering with Virbac in the tilapia vaccine segment will clearly benefit the tilapia industry by matching Ictyogroup’s vaccine R&D excellence with Virbac’s worldwide marketing 6 »

capabilities and customer dedication. Clearly, this deal brings the most complete and innovative tilapia vaccines to help the tilapia industry in Africa, Asia, and Latin America”. Pierre Henning, director of Virbac Aqua division: “This deal will assemble the best of two companies committed to the development of active solutions to meet the increasing demand for aquaculture. Tilapia

is the aquaculture segment enjoying the fastest growth and will be one of the solutions to help feed fastdeveloping populations in the medium and long term. Thanks to this portfolio acquisition and continued partnership, Virbac, which is already a significant actor in the salmon and shrimp segments, will expand and complement its aquaculture operations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America”. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â»

INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT

Nocera, Inc. launches its next-generation Recirculating Aquaculture Systems in Taiwan Nocera, Inc. recently announced the introduction of its next-generation of commercially operational Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) designed to improve productivity and sustainability in commercial aquaculture. The next-generation tank design features an improved oxygenation system, which allows approximately 50% more fish to be raised in the tanks, and makes the transport of fish more convenient. Nocera manufactures RAS for saltwater and freshwater species including Tilapia, Perch, Bass, Crayfish, Crab, and Abalone. Nocera currently has its aquaculture equipment in Xing Yi, China, and plans to install its next-generation tanks in Taiwan. For more information, please visit www.nocera.company

New marine heat wave early warning system for the Australian aquaculture industry Australia’s $3 billion fisheries and aquaculture industries will receive up to six months’ warning of damaging marine heat waves under a national forecasting system developed by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology. When the sea surface temperature sits in the temperature upper band of historical averages for at least five days marine heat waves can stress fish, damaging the output of fish farms by reducing yield, quality and spreading disease. They are also a chief cause of coral bleaching, which is a major threat to coral ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. While heat wave forecasting is already in place for the Great Barrier Reef, the new Australia-wide system will help environment managers anticipate and plan for damaging events in other sensitive areas and guide site selection for future marine protected areas. 8 »

With advance warning, aquaculture managers can harvest ahead of a temperature spike, relocate their operations or deploy short-term solutions such as water-cooling systems or shading for fish pens. The modelling for the system, which is powered by the Commonwealth’s $77 million Cray XC40 super-computer, can also show which

locations are most at risk of heat waves and help pinpoint the most advantageous farm sites. Australia’s marine industries, including aquaculture, tourism and marine engineering and boat building, contribute more than $50 billion a year to the economy and the government is forecasting this to grow to $100 billion by 2025. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Signify and ScaleAQ partner up in sustainable fish farming The companies Signify and ScaleAQ join forces in a global strategic partnership for sustainable Aquaculture solutions, to optimize feed conversion in the most efficient way and contribute to the food challenges the world is facing. Together the two companies will improve fish welfare, production, and yield for fish farmers by providing an optimal light spectrum, light distribution, and control system so farmers can customize the light recipes to their specific needs. Optimal lighting improves fish welfare and results in a better feed conversion ratio and lower maturation rate. It also protects fish from sea lice infestation. Signify offers Philips Aquaculture LED lighting products that ScaleAQ will resell with an initial focus on marinebased/sea cage products. Leverag-

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

ing 125 years of Signifyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lighting experience in innovation, technology, and equipment, the partnership provides customer-tailored sustainable

solutions to the Aquaculture industry with a focus on quality, efficiency, service and being future proof.

Âť

INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT

New report highlights importance of skilled workforce to future of aquaculture sector in Scotland. The aquaculture industry contributes to the long-term viability of many communities, according to a new report. Commissioned by Marine Scotland, the report found the sector provides year-round, well-paid jobs and supports economic growth in rural, coastal and island areas. It said UK aquaculture – the majority of which is located in Scotland – also supports a wider and more geographically dispersed supply chain including processing, distribution, feed supply and export. Rural Economy Secretary Fergus Ewing said: “This report highlights once again just how significant aquaculture is to Scotland’s rural economy and the viability of our island and coastal communities. The Supporting the Economic, Social and Environmental Sustain-

ability of the UK’s Marine Sectors report – by economic and social research group Ekosgen – also highlights key challenges. These include employers recruiting and retaining the skills they need in areas such as engineering, science, fish husbandry, fish health, feeding and biology.

The Ekosgen report found part of the challenge in attracting employees was linked to limited infrastructure and lack of access to local services and amenities. Employers in Ullapool and on the Isle of Rum have tackled this by developing their own housing in partnership with local communities.

Aker BioMarine launches Antarctic Provider Aker BioMarine recently celebrated the launch of its new, state-of-theart support vessel at the ceremony at CIMC Raffles’ Yantai yard, as the vessel is ready for commissioning and final outfitting, just in time for the 2021 krill harvesting season. Antarctic Provider was built by China’s CIMC Raffles Offshore Ltd. The 168-meter vessel is powered by the award-winning Wärtsilä 31 engine, which is designed for best-inclass fuel efficiency. In addition, the vessel is enhanced with Dynamic Positioning (DP) capabilities, which prevents the need for anchoring during transshipment. The vessel will replace Aker BioMarine’s existing support vessel, La Manche. The support vessel will transport krill products and crew to Aker BioMarine’s logistics hub in Montevideo, Uruguay, with limited interruption to the company’s harvesting operations. 10 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Feed4Future carbon neutral offering now available for Skretting customers

With food production accounting for around a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint reduction is one of the most effective ways that supply chains can address the climate change challenge. Recognizing the considerable opportunity to minimize the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by the aquaculture feed production process and the fish farming sector, Skretting Italy has launched the new carbonneutral feed concept Feed4Future. This first-to-market offering pairs Skretting’s extensive knowledge of the nutritional requirements of aquaculture species with sustainable, lower impact feed ingredients responsibly sourced from carefully selected suppliers. In utilizing Skretting’s groundbreaking MicroBalance technology and incorporating innovative raw materials and high-quality by-products sourced from the food industry that don’t compete with human consumption, Feed4Future diets have a 10% lower carbon footprint than standard diets, with the remaining CO2 emissions compensated for by carbon credits*. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

For those producers looking to go a significant step further with fully carbon-neutral farms, Skretting has developed CarbonBalance, a new program supporting fish farmers and helping them achieve this ambition. Following an initial assessment of each farm site, Skretting calculates the carbon footprint, identifies measures to reduce it, and then works together with customers to achieve full neutrality. CarbonBalance also provides links to those third-party certification bodies that are already on board with the program, and will offer support in communicating these actions to the market. Amongst other things, it will explain what makes these fish carbon neutral and the contribution they are making to sustainable food production. Skretting Italy’s new carbon-neutral offering is a follow-up of its successful “Acqua in Bocca!” customer engagement project. Launched in 2017, this ongoing project is designed to help the country’s aquaculture value chain develop an effective value proposition based on sustainability that meets market expectations and requirements. » 11

ARTICLE

The potential of Seaweed farming in Brazil:

Global supply of macro algae Kappaphycus alvarezii grows to attend the demand for

Carrageenan in Brazil

Kappaphycus alvarezii, a species cultivated in at least 30 countries, is

the main raw material for obtaining kappa carrageenan, an odorless, tasteless powder widely used in the food and cosmetics industry. In 2017, Brazil imported about 2,500 tons of Carrageenan valued at USD 22 million. This article analyses the potential that the Brazilian coast has for developing a sustainable seaweed farming industry with very postivie socioeconomic impacts in the region.

By: Miguel Sepulveda, Marine Biologist *

ccording to FAO (Fish STAT 2012), in 2010, volumes of the order of 160,000 tons of Kappa‑ phycus alvarezii seaweed were produced, with the main producing countries being the Philippines (89,000 tons), Indonesia (61,000 tons), Malaysia (4,000 ton), Vietnam (2,200 tons), Tanzania (1,500 tons), Kiribati (1,100 tons), China (800 tons) and India (400 tons). In this context, Kappaphycus alvarezii, a species cultivated in at least 30 countries, is the main raw material for obtaining kappa carrageenan, an odorless, tasteless powder widely used in the food and cosmetics industry. In 2017, Brazil imported about 2,500 tons of Carrageenan valued at USD 22 million. Across the world, the main Carrageenan producing industries are: • FMC BioPolymer, Hercules and Cargill (USA); • Shemberg, Marcel (Philippines); • Degussa SKW (Germany); • CP Kelco (Denmark); • Gelymar and Danisco (Chile); • Rhodia Food (France) and Ceamsa (Spain). 12 »

Figure 1 Worldwide carrageenan production by company.

Seaweed farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii in Brazil A clone of the K. alvarezii macroalgae from Japan was brought in 1995 by USP researcher Edison José de Paula, who introduced it experimentally in Ubatuba Island, north coast of São Paulo. The introduction of a species from another country was a response to the lack of native algae that was economically viable for mariculture. Since then, this species has proved to be an excellent choice since it is easy-

to-use and reproduce; it has a high daily growth rate and an attractive market value. It also generates direct employment and increases family income and represents guaranteed sales in the national market, besides the potential of commercialization with other countries that import large volumes of this species. After a few years, in 1998, a second Venezuelan clone of K. alvarezii was introduced experimentally in Ilha Grande Bay, by the Marine Biologist OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Miguel Sepulveda in the south coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, with the objective of testing the viability of mariculture in commercial scale, using a particular prototype of “Culture Raft.” From then on, we saw the expansion of farming in Ilha Grande Bay, culminating in the emergence of the Sete Ondas Biomar Company, which, although now extinct, had an important role in leveraging the activity, maintaining for a few years production with 100 cultivation rafts in the region of Marambaia (RJ). The seaweed farming in Ilha Grande Bay was supported by the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA), by IBAMA, and by researchers from various institutions, who stimulated and collaborated with the activity regulation. In 2008, after several environmental studies of universities and institutes, Normative Instruction No. 185 Brazilian Institute of Environment (IBAMA), was published in the

Figure 2 Production of macro algae cultivated worldwide by species group. Source: FAO, 2012.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture Magazine

» 13

ARTICLE

Model of standard of Raft Cultivation used in Brazil.

Official Daily of the Union, authorizing and regulating the cultivation of the macroalgae K. alvarezii in the area between the Bay of Sepetiba (RJ) and Ilha Bela (SP). In the littoral of Santa Catarina, south of Brazil, the potential of this species’ mariculture has already been very promising, and this year is expected a release of IBAMA for the implantation of commercial farms. The studies carried out by researchers from UFSC and EPAGRI showed that the Santa Catarina coast has areas with the potential to produce about 730 tons of dry seaweed per year. In addition, there are technical indicators of productivity of the K. alvarezii cultivation in consortium with mollusks grown in this region, which further increases the success of the activity. On the north coast of the State of São Paulo, some producers are still struggling to expand their crops. Obstacles are due to the lack of an Environmental Management Plan within the APAMLN (Marine Environmental Protection Area of the North Coast), which has made it difficult to expand the cultivation of this species in the region. Nevertheless, researchers from the Fisheries Institute, together with a group called Mariculture GT, are engaged in regulating this activity with IBAMA. In 2013, a doctoral thesis conducted in Oceanography of the Fed14 »

eral University of Pernambuco aimed to evaluate the cultivation of Kappa‑ phycus introduced in early 2000 in the state of Paraíba and has been cultivated by fishermen in an artisanal scale, generating questions about the risk of environmental invasion to the local ecosystem. The results of the study, however, showed that, to date, there is no establishment of K. alvarezii in the north coast of Paraíba, and the invasion potential of the species considered very low for the region, although there is a recommendation for the continuity of environmental monitoring in the area under cultivation. The theme is controversial, but we must not forget the enormous potential for the cultivation of Kappaphycus on the northeast coast. It is also worth mentioning that after four decades of successful introductions with K. alva‑ rezii in several countries, few cases of effective establishment of introduced algae stem were proven.

Production, profitability, and technical aspects The species K. alvarezii requires some favorable conditions for its cultivation, such as protected bays of strong waves and an average depth of 0.50 cm, hot water (above 20º C), good luminosity, and salinity above 20 ppm. Its cultivation does not require high technology and can be started with relatively low investment, which significantly facilitates the activity’s expansion. It is also worth mentioning that the producer, to begin his cultivation, acquires only some kilos of seedlings. After that, the propagation of the seedlings is only vegetative, and not necessary to buy new seedlings, only to maintain a stock for replanting. In Brazil, the seaweed farming method structure, better known as a “Raft Culture,” is composed of a set of PVC pipes with a diameter of 100 mm and 3 meters in length, sealed at their ends, functioning as floats connected through 8 mm polypropylene cables. The Raft has a dimension of 150m x 3m (450 m2) and is anchored at its ends using iron stakes buried in the

Therefore, the potential for the mariculture of Kappaphycus can

be the object of local development projects in several fishing communities on the South and Southeast coasts of Brazil.

bottom or concrete cement blocks. On average, one Raft can produce 7 tons of live algae every 50 days. Up to 8 tons in summer, depending on the place of cultivation and other factors such as algal density, water temperature, salinity, luminosity, and herbivory. These values are crude since, during the harvest, 20% of the algae must be separated for new replanting seedlings. The cost of each Raft of 450 m2 – is around USD 1.00.00. Per hectare, we can consider an average load capacity of 15 Rafts, since the good navigability conditions of boats and canoes in the cultivation area must be taken into account, as well as movements of ferries in the local stream regimes. The number of people operating in the farm should also be taken into account, and it is estimated that four people can operate on handling 1 hectare. Traditionally, the most widely used cultivation or propagation technique in the world for cultivating Kappa‑ phycus is to cut 100g algae branches and tie them in small cables known as “Tie-tie”, which are placed in lines with a spacing of 20cm apart, being soon after, fixed in stakes in the substrate, in a depth of a maximum of 1 meter. This method, known as “Stake Cultivating” or “Bottom Monolines, “ is limited to low depth regions, enabling the farmer to easily manage the crop. The technique can also be used OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 15

ARTICLE

“Tie-tie Method” used for algae cultivation.

Tubular method used for algae cultivation.

in Raft systems or long lines. Another cultivation technique known as “Tubular Net” was introduced in Brazil by businessman Mr. Alexandre Feder from AlgasBras Company (Brasil-RJ) in 2005, after a visit to some Farms in the Philippines where this method was used. Simple and easy to handle, it consists of placing the algae seedlings (100g) in a tubular net (net used for the cultivation of mussels) with 5 meters in length, with the aid of a PVC pipe of 75mm. Then the nets are stretched in the modules of the Cultivation Raft close to the surface. 16 »

Nowadays, it has been the most used method due to the speed for planting and the easiness of harvesting it allows. Currently, the Brazilian scenario of Kappaphycus cultivation in the only belt released by IBAMA (between the Bay of Sepetiba-RJ and Ilha Bela-SP) can still be considered incipient, even after eight years of its release. However, we can consider as quite promising the efforts made by some entrepreneurs for years. As a result, there are currently two commercial crops in Paraty - RJ and three in Ilha Grande - RJ. The production of these

projects is directed to the company Algasbras (www.algasbras.com.br), located in the municipality of Itaguaí – Rio de Janeiro, which has been playing an important role in the development of the activity in recent years. This company has its facilities dedicated to the processing of seaweeds to produce kappa carrageenan, a product traded on the national market. For this, the company buys all the region’s fresh produce, besides having its seedling in Itacuruça. According to the director of the company, Alexandre Feder, in 2017, about 500 fresh tons of seaweeds were bought and processed. The Algasbras company is responsible for logistical support to the factory. By 2019, the company intends to initially promote the cultivation of algae for ten families of artisanal fishermen in the Ilha Grande Bay region, with a forecast of reaching a production of 1,000 tons of fresh seaweeds to supply the factory every month. Another Brazilian company, Agar Gel (www.agargel.com), located in João Pessoa - PB, also processes K.alvarezii to obtain Carrageenan. This demand means another alternative for the production of the South and Southeast regions. Another perspective to be evaluated would be to export Brazilian production to nearby countries such as Chile and Argentina. These countries have processing factories such as Gelymar and Soriano S.A., which import more than 100 tonnes per month of dry Kappaphycus, at prices ranging from 2 to 4 dollars per kilo. Meanwhile, the minimum export volumes are still considered high for the local producers of Ilha Grande Bay, since the international factories buy at least one container of 10 to 20 dry tons. Although we are a little far from this reality in Brazil, we have the potential to produce and export at this rate in the near future, considering the expansion of the activity in other Brazilian coastal states. Therefore, the potential for the mariculture of Kappaphycus can be the object of local development projects in several fishing communities on the South and Southeast coasts. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Dried and packaged seaweed for export.

K. alvarezii cultivation in shrimp farms in Ecuador.

K. alvarezii cultivation in shrimp farms in Ecuador. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Seaweed Farming in other countries (South and Central America) In addition to the Asian countries already mentioned, K. alvarezii seaweed has also been grown in Panama, Ecuador, Santa Lucia, Belize, San Vicente, Trinidad Tobago, the Grenadines, and Mexico. However, production in these countries is still small, and the product is processed locally or exported. The governments of these countries have supported the activity with incentive programs for cultivation and technical training. In Ecuador, the seaweed Kappa‑ phycus was introduced in 2011 by the Brazilian company Seaweed Consulting (www.seaweedconsulting.com) to be experimentally farmed with Lito‑ penaeus vannamei shrimp farms. The results were very positive, showing a great potential of this species for the polyculture. Currently, two shrimp farms are producing Kappaphycus with the “Stake Farming” or “Monolines” system, and the Ecuatorian government is promoting its cultivation at sea through a local cooperative of artisanal fishermen (FENACOPEC). In Panama, the company “Gracilarias de Panamá S.A” produces and promotes the cultivation of Kappa‑ phycus for local fishermen, exporting all their production. In Panama, since 1990, the government has supported pilot farms in Colon and Bocas del Toro as an alternative to some local communities. As a result, the annual production of Kappaphycus in this region is increasing together with financial inflows and jobs. In addition to being an attractive business option, seaweed farming contributes to poverty reduction through the generation of jobs and income, propelling traditional communities’ establishment in their places of origin. Efforts have been directed at establishing clear rules in relation to environmental licensing and government areas. Several international institutions and experts have shared experiences in the past 30 years for a successful commercial seaweed cultivation program. From which it is important to » 17

ARTICLE

highlight the following aspects to take into account to develop a successful seaweed farming program in Brazil: 1. Government support, including the granting of licenses necessary for the development of the activity; 2. Existence of a safe and reliable market; 3. Availability of the economic resources needed for the operation of the program to reach commercial volumes; 4. Design management and competent execution of the project. This includes the linkage of technical and professional staff to field workers and the adequate identification of the barriers that impede the entry of farmers into commercial activity and the development of strategies to overcome them. 5. The appropriate selection of suitable places for the establishment of crops to guarantee the program’s success in the community and justify the investment of time, effort, and resources. 6. Clear and precise identification of the main constraints that have the individuals from the communities to join the project (investment capital for seedlings, training and technical assistance, business organization, basic services, etc.) 7. Enough seedlings available and adapted to local ecological and environmental conditions and the cultivation systems to be employed. Also, Kappaphycus algae must synthesize high-quality carrageenan of commercial interest. 8. Technical assistance and permanent business partnerships, from the installation of the crops to their commer18 »

cial phase, including the subsequent follow-up that guarantees the sustainable production of raw material, generating sufficient income to meet the farmers’ demands and socioeconomic needs. 9. Guarantee the marketing to producers with fair and competitive prices through long-term purchase and sale agreements. 10. Creation of a healthy and agreeable work environment with safety and hygiene conditions that allow the farmers and their families’ permanent motivation. 11. The incorporation of women and young people, offering tools for their

integration since they are generally the margin of productive activities in most of the country’s coastal communities. Thus, all these ingredients and the experiences that can be achieved in the near future through a community-based organization will serve as a fundamental basis for the sustainable development of Kappaphycus farming, causing a very positive socioeconomic impact in several regions of the Brazilian coast. Miguel Sepulveda, Marine Biologist * seaweedconsulting@gmail.com www.seaweedconsulting.com

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 19

ARTICLE

Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture

Michael J. MacLeod, Mohammad R. Hasan, David H. F. Robb & Mohammad Ma‑ mun‑Ur‑Rashid*

This study developed by a international group of academics and researchers based on the UK, Italy and Bangladesh quantifies the global GHG emissions from aquaculture (excluding the farming of aquatic plants), with a focus on using modern, commercial feed formulations for the main species groups and geographic regions. In order to enable the sustainable expansion of aquaculture, we need to understand aquaculture’s contribution to global GHG emissions and how they can be mitigated.

lobal aquaculture makes an important contribution to food security directly (by increasing food availability and accessibility) and indirectly (as a driver of economic development). In order to enable a sustainable expansion of aquaculture, we need to understand aquaculture’s contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how it can be mitigated. This study quantifies the global GHG emissions from aquaculture (excluding the farming of aquatic plants), with a focus on using modern, commercial feed formulations for the main species groups and geographic regions. Here we show that global aquaculture accounted for approximately 0.49% of anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2017, which is similar in magnitude to the emissions from sheep production. The

Aquaculture in Bangladesh. Photograph by Martin Van Brakel (2007).

20 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 21

ARTICLE Table 1 GHG emissions by culture group and region, 2017, calculated in this study.

modest emissions reflect the low emissions intensity of aquaculture, compared to terrestrial livestock (in particular cattle, sheep and goats), which is due largely to the absence of enteric CH4 in aquaculture, combined with the high fertility and low feed conversion ratios of finfish and shellfish. Animal aquaculture production has expanded since the 1980s (see Figure. 1) and it has been argued that the capacities for further expansion of marine aquaculture are theoretically huge. In light of this, FAO concluded that as the sector further expands, intensifies and diversifies, it should recognize the relevant environmental and social concerns (e.g. competition for land and water, impacts arising from feed production, water pollution, antimicrobial resistance) and make conscious efforts to address them in a transparent manner, backed with scientific evidence. One of the key environmental (and social) concerns is climate change, specifically the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that arise along food supply chains. To enable the sustainable expansion of aquaculture, we need to understand aquaculture’s contribution to global GHG emissions and how they can be mitigated. Here, we apply a method (see 22 »

Figure 4) for quantifying the GHG emissions arising from the culture of the main aquatic animals reared for human consumption, i.e.: bivalves, shrimps/prawns, and finfish (catfish, cyprinids, Indian major carps, salmonids, and tilapias). The method quantifies the main GHG emissions arising “cradle to farm-gate”, from the following activities: • the production of feed raw materials • processing and transport of feed materials • production of compound feed in feed mills and transport to the fish farm • rearing of fish in water

We quantify the total GHG emissions from global aquaculture and compare these emissions with other livestock sectors. We also calculate the emissions intensity (i.e. the kg of GHG emissions per unit of edible output) of aquaculture and explain the factors that influence it. Importantly, we have used recent commercial feed formulations for the main species groups and geographic regions, thereby providing a more up to date and detailed analysis than is generally provided in academic literature.

Results

Total emissions from global aquaculture We calculated the GHG emissions

Fig. 1 World production of capture fisheries, aquaculture and pig, chicken and cattle meat from 1961 to 2017. Source: FAO. FishStatJ, Vers. 3.01.0 (FAO, Rome, 2019) and FAOSTAT Production Data (2020).

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Fig. 2 Emissions intensity of the main aquaculture groups, 2017. Source calculated in this study. IMC Indian Major Carps, E. Eur, Eastern Europe, LAC Latin America and the Caribbean, N. Am. North America, NZ and Aus. New Zealand and Australia, SSA Sub-Saharan Africa, W. Eur. Western Europe, WANA West Asia and North Africa.

for the year 2017 for the nine major aquaculture culture groups. The total GHG emissions for this 93% were 245 MtCO2e (see Table 1). Assuming that the remaining 7% of production has the same emissions intensity (EI), the total emissions in 2017 for all shellfish and finfish aquaculture would be 263 MtCO2e. UNEP estimated total anthropogenic emissions to be 53.5GtCO2eq/year in 2017, so

the culture of aquatic animals represented approximately 0.49% of total anthropogenic emissions (i.e. 263Mt/53.5Gt). The geographical pattern of emissions closely mirrors production, i.e. most of the emissions arise in the regions with the greatest production: East Asia and South Asia. Emissions also correlate closely with production for most speciesgroups, e.g. cyprinids account for

Fig. 3 Total global emissions and emissions intensity of aquaculture (2010), terrestrial meat (2010) and marine fisheries (2011). Sources: Aquaculture—calculated in this study. Marine fisheries. Cattle, pig, chicken, buffalo, sheep and goat meat. Source: FAO. Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) 109 (FAO, Rome, 2017).

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

31% of emissions and 31% of production. However, there are exceptions to this: shrimp account for 21% of emissions but only 10% of production, while bivalves produce 7% of emissions but represent 21% of production. Production of crop feed materials (the green segments of Fig. 2) accounted for 39% of total aquaculture emissions. When the emissions arising from fishmeal production, feed blending and transport are added, feed production accounts for 57% of emissions. The bulk of the non-feed emissions arise from the nitrification and denitrification of nitrogenous compounds in the aquatic system (“aquatic N2O”) and energy use on the fish farm (primarily for pumping water, lighting and powering vehicles). In order to compare aquaculture emissions with those arising from meat production, the aquaculture emissions for 2010 were calculated and compared with the emissions calculated for livestock by FAO using GLEAM. The FAO data were used for comparison as they have the same scope and methods as the method used in this paper. 2010 was cho» 23

ARTICLE Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of the method used to quantify the total emissions and emissions intensity. SG species-group; FCR feed conversion ratio; EI emissions intensity.

Global aquaculture accounted

for approximately 0.49% of anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2017, which is similar in magnitude to the emissions from sheep production.

24 »

sen as it is the most recent year for which FAO have reported global livestock results. The results of the comparison are presented in Figure 3. This figure also includes the global emissions for capture fisheries though these are for 2011 rather than 2010. The global emissions from aquaculture are lower than livestock because (a) there is a greater amount of livestock production (in 2010 fish and shellfish accounted for 6% of global protein intake, compared to 18% of protein from meat) and (b) overall livestock has higher emissions intensity than aquaculture.

Emissions intensity of aquaculture The regional average EI of each species-group is shown in Fig. 2. For most of the finfish, the EI lies between 4 and 6 kgCO2e/ kg CW (carcass weight, i.e. per kg of edible flesh) at the farm gate. The exception is the category “marine fishes, general”, which has a significantly

higher EI, due to the assumption that the ration in East Asia (and New Zealand and Australia) is 100% lowvalue fish/trash fish (which has a higher EI than most crop feed materials) and the higher feed conversion ratio (FCR, i.e. the kg of feed input per unit of liveweight gain) of this species-group. Shrimps and prawns have high EI, due to the more significant amounts of energy used in these systems (primarily for water aeration and pumping). In contrast, bivalves have the lowest EI as they have no feed emissions, relying on natural food from their environment. Within the finfish, there are some differences in the sources of GHG emissions. Species predominantly reared in Asia (i.e. Indian major carps, freshwater catfishes and cyprinids) have higher rice methane emissions. In comparison, the carnivorous salmonids have more emissions associated with fishmeal and higher crop land use change (LUC) emissions (arising from soybean production), reflecting their higher protein rations.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

The results found that in the aquaculture sector emissions correlate closely with production for most species. But there are exceptions to this: shrimp account for 21% of emissions but only 10% of production, while bivalves produce 7% of emissions but represent 21% of production.

Comparing global averages, aquaculture has a much lower EI than ruminant meat and is similar to the main monogastric commodities (pig meat and broiler meat) (see Fig. 3). It should be noted that there can be significant variation in the EI of commodities, depending on factors such as genetics, feeding, and farm management (for a discussion of the factors influencing the EI of ruminants and monogastrics). Fish (both finfish and shellfish) have lower EI than ruminants for three main reasons: they do not produce CH4 via enteric fermentation, they have much higher fertility (so the “breeding overhead” is therefore much lower) and they have lower feed conversion ratios (which are a key determinant of fish EI, given the predominance of feed related emissions). Fish generally have lower FCRs than terrestrial mammals, due to the latter’s higher maintenance and respiratory costs. Being buoyant and streamlined, fish require less enAquaculture in Egypt. Photograph by: Jamie Oliver (2008). OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

» 25

ARTICLE

Marine Aquaculture. Photograph by NOAA’s National Ocean Service.

ergy for locomotion, they are coldblooded, and they excrete ammonia directly.

Discussion

Limitations of the analysis The emissions are calculated for aquaculture of aquatic animals only. Therefore, they do not include the emissions arising from the production of aquatic plants, which constitute a significant proportion of global aquaculture production. The importance of feed is evident in Fig. 2 for all fed species. However, feed composition is continuously changing as nutritional knowledge and its application develops in response to commercial demand. This study was based on regional assumptions of feed formulations and raw material origins for the key regions’ main species. Data for this was obtained from various sources (see “Methods” in the original version of this article) and updated in light of discussions with feed companies. 26 »

Northeast China Aquaculture. Photograph by: NASA Johnson. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Improved knowledge of feed formulation and raw material sourcing, combined with the overall feed efficiencies of conversion to edible seafood, will help provide a more accurate picture of the overall emissions. Ultimately this would have to be done with primary data from feed companies and farmers on a case by case level. The analyses do not include losses and emissions occurring postfarm. Depending on the specifics of the post-farm supply chain (e.g. mode of transport, distance transported, mode of processing, storage conditions), significant emissions can arise from energy use in transportation or from refrigerant leakage in cold chains. However, it should be noted that all GHG emissions are attributed to the aquaculture in this study, whereas, in practice, aquaculture produces processing by-products (such as trimmings) that are often

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture in Malawi. Photograph by: Worldfish.

Âť 27

ARTICLE

Oyster farm in Whangaroa, New Zealand. Photograph by: Tony Foster.

The bulk of the non-feed GHG

emissions of aquaculture arise from the nitrification and denitrification of nitrogenous compounds in the aquatic system (“aquatic N2O”) and energy use on the fish farm.

28 »

used in other sectors, and the associated emissions should be allocated to these sectors. The estimates of aquatic N2O should be treated with caution, as the rate at which N is converted to N2O in aquatic systems can vary greatly, depending on the environmental conditions. It has been noted that many parameters are influenced by nitrification and denitrification processes (e.g. dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and temperature). Finally, this study relies on data currently available in the literature. While the best available data has been used, we recommend that true empirical studies, involving primary

data gathering on key parameters, should be undertaken to validate the results.

Reducing emissions from aquaculture It has been argued that because the aquaculture sector is relatively young compared with terrestrial livestock sectors, it offers great scope for technical innovation to increase resource efficiency further. They go on to identify four broad technological approaches to reducing the environmental impact of aquaculture: (1) breeding and genetics, (2) disease control, (3) nutrition and feeding, and (4) low-impact production systems. Within each OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture in Cameroon. Photograph by: Worldfish.

of these approaches are many individual measures that could be used to reduce (or mitigate) GHG emissions. There are many ways of reducing emissions from crop production that could be employed to minimize aquaculture feed emissions. Other measures could target the efficiency of feeding. Aquaculture nutrition is arguably more complicated than terrestrial livestock production, in the sense that it has many more species being farmed. In theory, each species has different nutritional requirements, although the information to provide this accurately is often lacking. This drives relatively poor use of nutrients as the focus

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

is on providing certain raw materials that mimic what is consumed in the wildâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;for example feeding high inclusions of fishmeal to some carnivorous species, in particular marine fishes. The opportunity to optimize nutrition is probably greater in aquaculture than in terrestrial species, since much greater research effort has been focused on terrestrial species to date. Some mitigation measures may be quite expensive, while others are relatively cheap or may even reduce costs. To achieve the twin goals of reducing emissions while increasing the supply of affordable protein, we need to analyze the effects that introducing measures may have on-

farm profits and emissions. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help us to understand these effects.

Conclusions Aquaculture is a biologically efficient way of producing animal protein compared to terrestrial livestock (particularly ruminants) due largely to the high fertility and low feed conversion ratios of fish. The biological efficiency is reflected in the relatively low prices and emissions intensities of many aquaculture commodities. However, the moderate GHG emissions from aquaculture should not be grounds for complacency. Aquaculture production is increasing rapidly, and Âť 29

ARTICLE

Oyster farm in Utah Beach, Normandy, France.

The global emissions from

aquaculture are lower than livestock because (a) there is a greater amount of livestock production and (b) overall livestock has a higher emissions intensity than aquaculture.

30 Âť

emissions arising post-farm, which are not included in this study, could significantly increase the emissions intensity of some supply chains. Furthermore, aquaculture can have important non-GHG impacts on, for example, water quality and marine biodiversity. Therefore, it is important to continue to improve the efficiency of global aquaculture to offset increases in production so that it can continue to make an important contribution to food security. Fortunately, the relatively immature nature of the sector (compared to agriculture) means that there is great scope to improve resource efficiency through techni-

cal innovation, often in ways that reduce emissions while improving profitability. CEA can help identify the most cost-effective efficiency improvements, thereby supporting the sustainable development of aquaculture.

*This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. It was originally published on july 2020 through the Nature Scientific Reports Online Journal. The original version can be accessed at: https:// www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68231-8 Correspondence author: email: michael.macleod@sruc.ac.uk

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 31

ARTICLE

Facts, truths, and myths about

SPF shrimp in Aquaculture By: Victoria Alday-Sanz, James Brock, Timothy W. Flegel, Robins McIntosh, Melba G. Bondad-Reantaso, Marcela Salazar and Rohana Subasinghe *

This article, developed by a group of shrimp farming specialists, seeks to clarify the meanings of new terms that are frequently used within the international shrimp farming industry when talking about SPF shrimp (Free of Specific Pathogens) and their correlation with each other. The correct understanding of these terms can reduce the risk of disease outbreaks for global shrimp production and increase this important aquaculture sector’s benefits and profits.

32 »

he concept of specific pathogen-free (SPF) animal stocks, and the technology to create and manage them originated in the early 1940s and lies within the scope of laboratory animal medicine. Specifically, specific pathogen-free (SPF) chicken eggs were developed for vaccine production. After that, over the subsequent 30–40 years, SPF technology was adopted, developed, and applied to commercial poultry, and in the 1960s, extended to swine and other domestic animal production systems. It was also used in veterinary applications to produce and maintain standardized and genetically inbred animal stocks to serve as ‘white mice’ for medical and research. The United States Marine Shrimp Farming Program was formed in 1984, with the objective of increasing local production while decreasing the importation. After having its breeding program hit by a disease outbreak, the response of this initiative was towards designing, developing, and implementing an integrated SPF management program. The first commercial program for domestication and genetic improvement of penaeid shrimp was initiated using Pacific white leg shrimp (Penaeus van‑ namei) in 1989. The program adopted the breeding and selection concepts from the livestock and poultry industries to establish specific pathogen-free (SPF) stocks of shrimp that would provide high health and genetically improved postlarvae. The stocks were obtained by rigorous screening of captured wild shrimp for selection of individuals naturally free from pathogens that it would be possible to permanently exclude from the stock under strict quarantine conditions in a nucleus breeding center (NBC) housing many founder families. These stocks could then be subjected to a domestication and genetic improvement program. Better performing families from each generation could be used to produce OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 33

ARTICLE

postlarvae destined to become SPF broodstock in an adequately biosecure broodstock multiplication center (BMC). The broodstock would be supplied to commercial hatcheries where postlarvae would be produced for farmers to stock in ponds. In parallel, several programs were carried out. In Venezuela, a mass selection program began in 1990 to produce shrimp well-adapted to the local rearing conditions. In Colombia, producers selected TSV resistant shrimp in the early 1990s. These early efforts later developed into fully-fledged family selection breeding programs that resulted in some improved local industry populations. The programs in Latin America were based on the concept that the populations should be adapted to local conditions and should be resistant or tolerant to the major disease problems endemic in the region. Thus, a major dichotomy in breeding strategies emerged in the 1990s, with selection, maintenance, and multiplication of populations in essentially disease-free conditions under the SPF protocols of the USMSFP while other programs used populations selected in the presence of multiple disease pressures that are common in commercial production. A significant impetus for the eventual wide adoption of the SPF shrimp concept was the emergence and spread of white spot disease (WSD) of shrimp, caused by white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) in the mid-1990s. At that time, Penaeus mon‑ odon was the main cultivated shrimp species in Asia, and it was soon realized that the major source of WSSV in shrimp grow-out ponds was infected postlarvae derived from captured WSSV-carrying broodstock. The main reason behind the importation of P. vannamei to Asia was the perceived poor performance, slow growth rate, and disease susceptibility of P. chinensis and P. monodon. Because of the benefits of using domesticated and genetically improved SPF stocks of P. vannamei to produce healthy PLs for farmers to 34 »

use in stocking their ponds, the term SPF in Asia began to be related to stocks with higher disease resistance or tolerance. The opposite situation occurred in Latin America where SPF shrimp were stocked in ponds with no pathogen exclusion biosecurity, leading to mass mortalities and farmer’s perception that SPF status implied higher disease susceptibility. This perception was incorrect. SPF only indicates the sanitary status of a stock and does not indicate its susceptibility, resistance, or tolerance to infection and disease.

Major definitions Concerning pathogen status, the only technical terminology used for terrestrial animals is specific pathogen-

free (SPF) stocks. That definition can be applied to all animals. Shrimp interactions with viral pathogens are not fully understood. Unlike vertebrates, they do not produce antibodies, and it is well known that survivors from disease outbreaks with a normally lethal virus may remain infected at a low level for up to a lifetime, without showing any gross signs of disease. In this state, they maintain the potential to transmit the pathogen to their offspring and naïve shrimp. The phenomenon of tolerating infectious viral pathogens for long periods of time without disease signs has been called viral accommodation, but the mechanisms underlying it are still unclear. Shrimp stocks tolerant to TSV but uninfected with OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

The terms used when speaking about SPF shrimp stocks must be clearly defined and understood to avoid confusion that unscrupulous individuals might use to take advantage of shrimp farmers.

TSV have been developed using genetic selection. When these stocks are challenged with lethal isolates of TSV, they become infected but show no gross signs of disease. However, they carry the deadly virus and can transmit it to naïve, susceptible shrimp. Thus, shrimp stocks that tolerate and carry viral pathogens may lack gross signs of disease (including histological lesions) and may negatively affect molecular detection methods of low sensitivity, which constitutes a special danger that must be guarded against in the transboundary movement of shrimp stocks for aquaculture. It also has consequences for stocks labeled with the terms defined below. These terms must be clearly defined and understood to avoid confusion that unscrupulous individuals might use to take advantage of shrimp farmers.

Pathogen-free (PF) stocks (new term) These are stocks that are free from any known or unknown pathogen. Since the definition includes ‘unknown pathogens,’ it is evident that PF cannot refer to any actual animal stock, and that it must be reserved only for theoretical discussions. Specific pathogen-free (SPF) stocks (an existing, defined term) SPF animal stocks must come from a population that has tested negative OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

for specific pathogens for at least two consecutive years; it has been raised in highly biosecure facilities (to qualify as highly biosecure facilities, the risk of introduction of pathogens needs to be negligible) following stringent biosecurity management measures; and has been fed with biosecure feeds. SPF stocks are not necessarily free of all pathogens. A list of pathogens from which the animals are claimed to be free should always accompany them. Any shrimp stock claimed to be SPF should be free from Vibrio isolates that cause acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND), Hepa‑ tobacter penaei that causes necrotising hepatopancreatitis (NHP), infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV), infectious myonecrosis virus (IMNV), Taura syndrome virus (TSV), white spot

syndrome virus (WSSV) and yellow head virus (YHV - genotype 1). We currently accept that there are two ways to generate SPF shrimp stocks. One way is to find a geographical area where major shrimp pathogens are known to be absent or at low prevalence, to capture and screen wild shrimp from that area, and to select individuals that are shown to be naturally free of a specified list of pathogens for at least two consecutive years. A stock generated in this fashion could be called a ‘natural SPF stock.’ Another way to generate an SPF stock is to choose a shrimp farming area where major shrimp pathogens such as WSSV, TSV, and IHHNV are present and to use a process of continuous screening to select individuals that are shown to be free of a specified list of pathogens » 35

ARTICLE

terize and select for genetic attributes in the stock population that could lead to specific disease resistance and/or tolerance for one or more pathogens.

for a period of at least 2 consecutive years. A stock generated in this fashion could be called a ‘cleansed SPF stock.’ For geneticists, resistance is defined as the ability to limit the burden of a pathogen in an infected animal, while tolerance is defined as the ability to limit the severity of disease induced by a given pathogen burden. Both traits are quantitative. It has long been understood that the disease state arises from an interaction of host (genetics), pathogen, and environmental factors. So, from the sanitary point of view, resistance is the ability to be refractory to infection (qualitative trait), while tolerance is the ability to reduce the expression of disease (quantitative trait).

Specific pathogen tolerant (SPT) stocks (new term) These are stocks that are susceptible to infection by a specific pathogen but do not normally develop clear signs of disease as a result of such infection, i.e., they are tolerant to disease expression in a quantitative manner dependent on their genetics, on the pathogen strain, and on environmental conditions that influence the disease. Tolerance may be specific to a pathogen, to a strain of a pathogen, or to a group of pathogens.

Combined SPF and SPR or SPT stocks (new terms) While SPF refers to animal health status (backed up by a 2- year stock history at a certified rearing facility for the absence of specific pathoSpecific pathogen resistant (SPR) gens), it is possible and logical to stocks (new term) combine SPF health status with geThese are animal stocks that remain netic status SPF+SPR, SPF+SPT, refractory to infection without show- or SPF+SPT+SPR stocks. In other ing gross signs of infection and/or words, a stock characterized as SPF disease, even after challenge with a based on health status can be subjectlethal dose of one or more specific ed to a subsequent genetic selection pathogens. program designed to identify, charac36 »

Uncharacterized, selected survivor (USS) stocks (new term) These are animal stocks that have been produced by selecting survivors (based on size and gross health appearance) from several successive generations under non-biosecure farming conditions in a region where several known and unknown pathogens occur. Such stocks have previously been referred to as ‘all pathogen exposed’ (APE) stocks. However, ‘all’ pathogens do not occur in every geographical region, and those known and unknown in any particular region are not always present in every pond. We propose that the term ‘APE stock’ be regarded as unacceptable by the shrimp industry and replaced by ‘USS stock’ as defined herein. High health (HH) stocks (new term) It is a commercial term frequently used but not clearly defined. It often refers to descendants of an SPF stock. Since it does not specify the pathogens, genetic, epigenetic, or rearing conditions or status, the use of the term ‘HH stock’ should be avoided. Instead, one of the above terms describing health status and pathogen response should be used to characterize a stock. Validation and maintenance of SPF status The validation and maintenance of the SPF status for shrimp is a time consuming and expensive process. It requires that the facility, the biosecurity standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the shrimp within the facility conform to standards to ensure that the shrimp housed in the facility can be maintained as SPF. Stated differently, the validation is for the facility as well as for a specific lot of shrimps. The risk of exogenous OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

For geneticists, resistance is defined as the ability to limit the burden of a pathogen in an infected animal, while tolerance is defined as the ability to limit the severity of disease induced by a given pathogen burden.

pathogen contamination is reduced considerably for an SPF facility located inland, away from the coastal zone and utilizing recirculation technology with appropriate biosecurity practices.

Problems confirming SPF status Although internationally approved procedures are in place to detect most of the important pathogens of shrimp that should be included in an SPF program, the issue of en-

dogenous viral elements (EVEs) has become a scientific challenge for confirming and certifying the SPF status of a shrimp stock. Although many EVE originate from retroviuses, nonretroviral EVE was first reported in shrimp for two EVEs of IHHNV. However, at the time, the term EVE did not exist and was not coined until discovering previously unknown and unexpected, non-retroviral EVE in vertebrates. Subsequently, many more EVE for IHHNV were reported for P. monodon and P. vannamei, and many of them gave false-positive PCR test results for IHHNV, even though the shrimp were not infected with IHHNV. Such false-positive test results for an infectious virus could have international severe trade implications for shrimp breeders.

Importance and benefits of SPF shrimp Naturally derived SPF P. vannamei from Hawaii was first introduced (imported) to Thailand in 2002. Following this introduction, shrimp production was revolutionized in Asia, with P. vannamei almost completely replacing P. monodon. In 2003, a company

in Thailand started its SPF breeding program with high biosecurity protocols. This program contributed significantly to the industry’s exponential growth in Southeast Asia for nearly a decade, until a new disease, acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND), emerged in 2009.

Conclusions SPF refers to a shrimp stock’s health status, while SPR and SPT statuses refer to defined genetic characteristics of stocks in response to pathogens and disease. The objective is to avoid negative impacts on production, transmission among species, and trade barriers that might arise from pathogen detection in shrimp and shrimp products. The designation ‘USS stock’ alone does not indicate either the specific health status or specific genetic characteristics of a shrimp stock concerning pathogen and disease response. It is also possible to combine strategies such as SPF+SPR, SPF+SPT, or SPF+SPR+SPT to help shrimp farmers prevent disease outbreaks in grow-out ponds. The success of these approaches may depend on the biosecurity strategy defined for each facility. Farmers must also consider other aspects of stock performance, such as growth and survival, that may be related to stock health status and genetic status. We recommend that farmers cooperate with one another in the critical evaluation of stocks provided by commercial suppliers. Over time, this process should reveal the most reliable stock suppliers’ identity with respect to overall stock performance. * This is a synthesized version developed by Ph.D. Carlos Rangel Davalos, professor, and researcher at the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences of the Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, of the article: “Facts, truths, and myths about SPF shrimp in Aquaculture” written by Victoria Alday-Sanz, James Brock, Timothy W. Flegel, Robins McIntosh, Melba G. Bondad-Reantaso, Marcela Salazar, and Rohana Subasinghe. The article was originally published in volume 12 of the journal Reviews in Aquaculture (2020). The original version can be found through Wiley’s online library at the following link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ raq.12305

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

» 37

ARTICLE

Aerating shrimp pond in Vietnam. Photograph by Mark Prein. Source: WorldFish.

Socio-economic impacts of Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on world shrimp aquaculture sector

The COVID-19 pandemic is now spreading throughout the world affecting

the agricultural activities, including fish and shrimp aquaculture sectors. Most of the shrimp-producing countries, particularly in South-east Asia, have been affected due to the lockdown, quarantine roles, and regulations ordered by the nations to control the COVID-19 pandemic spreading around the globe. This review, developed by Iranian By: S. Kakoolaki, S. M. A. Ebne alTorab, A. Ghajari, A. A. Anvar4, A. Sepahdari, H. Ahari, H. Hoseinzadeh *

he global seafood market is very sensitive to stressful economic conditions so that the combination of decreased demand and the introduction of multiple tariffs had major 38 »

academics and researchers, aims to focus on Coronavirus’s influence on farmed shrimp production and its trade throughout the world. implications on international seafood trade before the end of 2019. The Global Shrimp Market is estimated to be worth approximately US$ 25 billion by 2026 (Cision, 2020). The world’s shrimp production in

2019 exceeded 4.5 million tons, from which the global fishing and shrimp production (8 million tons) indicates a relative increase in shrimp production compared to its catch throughout the world (GLOBEFISH, 2020b). OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Shrimp processing The global lockdown has greatly pushed the standard processing supply chain of shrimp exports. Doubtfulness in importing traders and issues associated with orders and export practices have complicated Indian exporters to maintain a wait-and-see policy. These effects have quickly spread from exporters to retailers, processing plants, and hatcheries. Because many links in the export value chain have been broken, farmers cannot harvest their yields; however, finding the domestic market is a very limited option in the “off mode” (Abhimanyu et al., 2020).

The COVID-19 Coronavirus has spread across the world and has become a major challenge for shrimp producers and exporters in producing countries, as falling prices will reduce banks’ willingness to lend to the sector (Matilde, 2020). The shrimp culture industry is one of the most important sectors among the seafood industries, and it is being affected by the Coronavirus crisis. This review aims to focus on Coronavirus’s influence on farmed shrimp production and its trade throughout the world.

Shrimp feed The shrimp feed industry is heavily dependent on-farm operations, so that the poor on-farm storage activity has led to a reduction or closure of feed mills that produce feed for farm shrimp. Locking has further affected the transportation of raw materials such as fish meal, soybean meal, and fish oil, resulting in obstacles for feed mills (Abhimanyu et al., 2020; Edward Gnana et al., 2020).

Labor and other requirements Although some skilled workers were stationed in hatcheries and farms, technicians and farm owners traveled from nearby towns or cities. Many of them have been unable to visit farms regularly, and although the use of cell phones contributes to the operations of some of the farms, this process has been insufficient in many cases. Some governments allow shrimp feed to be transported by road during the lockdown, but some small farmers might not be able to meet their needs (Dao, 2020d).

Hatcheries COVID-19 related restrictions have almost shut down the global aviation system worldwide. This has a major impact on imports of more SPF shrimp broodstocks due to border closures or other domestic limitations. Not only hatcheries need SPF broodstocks, but they also need artemia, larval food, and many other items that can be used in hatcheries (Abhimanyu et al., 2020). The effect of lockdown can be increased through the shrimp-producer countries while their infrastructures, including processing centers, hatcheries, and farms, have a great distance from each other. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

» 39

ARTICLE

Shrimp must be fed in a timely manner for healthy and disease-free growth. Delay or inadequacy in feeding shrimp may also affect the average final weight and ultimately the total harvested biomass. Restrictions on-road handling prevents easy access to aquaculture inputs, especially for small farmers who need frequent transports and fewer farm inputs. The money circulation system is also under severe pressure because shrimp farming depends on the private money circulation system (CIBA, 2020). The rank of some criteria associated with the decline of shrimp production due to COVID-19 is shown in Figure 1. The data was collected from some evidence, region experiences, and farmer interviews (Abhimanyu et al., 2020; CIBA, 2020; FAO, 2020; GLOBEFISH, 2020b). The results showed (Fig. 1) that globally, shrimp farmers’ utmost worry was uncertainties of shrimp export, specifically from India and Ecuador, the two largest shrimp producers. This score was decreased for the second half of 2020. Due to the great quantity of SPF-broodstocks importation to each producingcountry, farmers’ worries were greater for the second half of 2020 than the first half. According to evidence (CIBA, 2020), the shortage of skilled workers and the lack of transportation associated with farms’ required items are the subsequent criteria.

Figure 1 Prognosis and challenges faced by shrimp farmers due to COVID 19 lockdown: results are presented as mean score through the first and second half of 2020.

cantly by increasing US demand so that India was able to become the main exporter of shrimp to the United States in 2019. Exports to that market grew by 14% in 2019 to about 282,584 MT compared to 247,783 MT in 2018. Indian shrimp export in 2019 was 159,785 MT to China; 73,702 MT to the European Union (EU); 39,688 MT to Japan; 31,727 MT to Vietnam; 24,645 MT to UAE and 56,762 MT to

other destinations (Edward Gnana et al., 2020). Prices of shrimp decreased by US$ 4.70 Kg-1 for 40 individuals as on March 2020 compared to US$ 5.00 Kg-1 showed 6.5% reduction for the same size at the end of February 2020 (Dao, 2020b). This value represented a declining trend in shrimp price in 2020. Due to restrictions, inadequate imports of SPF shrimp, broodstocks reduced production, and high de-

The socio-economy status in some regions India Data obtained from the Indian Ministry of Trade and Industry show that shrimp production increased by 31% year-on-year between 2018 (615,692 MT) and 2019 (804,000 MT) and that shrimp exports raised by 8%. These exports to different countries (667,140 MT) represent 83% of the total shrimp production in 2019. Exports in the second half of last year (2019) were pushed forward signifi40 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

mand for PLs, its price has increased by about 30% in the second quarter of 2020. A further increase is likely during the third quarter unless conditions change. April is the stocking season for Indian shrimp farms, while the COVID-19 lock has put the entire breeding process on hold. Although the government has allowed import aquaculture items, including PLs, most farmers have not started stocking due to many other restrictions that have affected regular farm work (Abhimanyu et al., 2020). Some exporters could not access a hygienic certificate for export due to the blockage of some laboratories. They could not certify their products for shipments to South Africa, Europe, and Australia. These problems have led to lower shrimp prices in India, which have reached the lowest level, like in the summer of 2018. As such, the minimum price was US$ 3.40, $3.00, $2.75 and $2.75 per kilogram for 40, 51, 60 and 70 pieces, respectively, compared to $3.55/ kg in May 2018. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

With these low prices, shrimp farming in India is not likely to maintain its profitability (INFOFISH, 2020). Also, if shrimp broodstocks imports will not meet demand, hatcheries may use domestic sources as non-SPF broodstocks to produce PLs to supply farmer demands, which affect the quality of the PLs. However, Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shrimp sector is gradually recovering from the COVID-19 epidemic, with more workers returning to the processing centers. The workforce in processing plants decreased by 40% compared to the pre-Coronavirus period, as many workers have not returned to work (CIBA, 2020; Dao, 2020d). Millions of workers in India have remained in big cities following the lockdown imposed since late March 2020. Many of them decided to go home and never go back to work, although restrictions on fisheries have been lifted since early April. Intra-provincial transportation of PLs, inputs, and products needed for

processing and finally, export facilities are of particular importance for the sustainability of shrimp farming in India. Shrimp farming is concentrated in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Odisha, while most hatcheries are available in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Processing centers are established in Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Abhimanyu et al., 2020). In India, the main stocking season for shrimp is March-April. Based on the opinions of Indian shrimp farmers expressed in April 2020 (CIBA, 2020), about 27% of farmers had prepared their ponds but did not stocked shrimp due to the difficulties in accessing healthy PLs and uncertainty about shrimp farming and trade in 2020. About 25% of farms were in the first phase with less than 30 days of culture (DOC), 34% in the second phase with 30 to 80 DOC and approximately 14% of farms had shrimp aged over 80 days. Thus, the days of rearing reflect the Âť 41

ARTICLE

pandemic financial impact on shrimp farming, where the first and second phase farms might not consider the investment to be profitable (CIBA, 2020). As such, due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the farming area slumped by 40% in the current season and increases the production cost by 15-20%, which reduces the profit of farmers by 40%. The results of this review indicated that COVID-19 adversely affected the shrimp aquaculture industry so that aquaculture area and shrimp production were respectively fell by 34% and 24% in the current year compared to 2019 (see Fig. 2), indicating shrimp farmers will encounter the constraints associated with the production, fish mill, raw items, and export. In addition, negative impacts on the employment, market price, and economic loss to shrimp hatcheries were the other effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the shrimp sector (CIBA, 2020). The prediction for the area of farms involved in the production by the end of 2020 is approximately 130,000 ha, that decreased by 13.6% while production slumped by 25% compared to 2019 (Fig. 2). 42 Âť

Figure 2 Approximate estimation of reduction in shrimp farming area and production in India in 2020, Source: (CIBA, 2020).

Unlike Ecuador, which exported about 41,000 MT of shrimp to China in April, India exported only 3,000 MT of shrimp to China in the first week of April (INFOFISH, 2020). India, extended limitations in April and May have resulted in severe interruptions in the shrimp supply chain (Dao, 2020f). In India, prices were up in week 33 of 2020 as processors showed an increased

demand for raw materials. This rise in processing plants might be associated with Ecuadorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent statement on the weakening of their shrimp output, simultaneously with steady demand from the US market (Seafood Trade Inteligence Portal, 2020). In terms of shrimp production, while the first major crop has not yet been harvested (foretasted in September), it is expected that OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Shrimp must be fed in a timely

manner for healthy and diseasefree growth. Delay or inadequacy in feeding shrimp may also affect the average final weight and ultimately the total harvested biomass.

Indian producers have had a significant reduction in total production this year. During the June and July 2020, Indian farmers have also been facing problems that have led to an outbreak of disease due to unfavorable weather conditions. In general, farmers may not be willing to fully harvest the next crop after September because of the low global demand prices. Indian producers face two major upcoming issues. One is the September harvest (which will be passed two months after its normal harvest), which will probably coincide with the Indonesian harvest. By increasing the number of raw materials, this can put more pressure on prices, specifically on the price of the US market. Remember that Indonesia is Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main competitor in the US market, a market that has not yet shown the recovery and readiness to re-absorb rawer materials. Secondly, in the United States, the Indian main market, low prices are likely to encourage US buyers to buy products, as shown by the increase in the value of products exported to the United States (Seafood Trade Intelligence Portal, 2020). OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Ecuador Ecuador was one of the first countries in the region that suffered from the COVID-19 Coronavirus (Lozano, 2020). Although shrimp sales to China sharply fell in early 2020, while a historic US$95 million sale of shrimp exports was recorded in April. In Ecuador, the total (whole economy) financial value of lost profits due to the COVID-19 pandemic as a whole was US$12 billion in the first quarter of 2020 (Lozano, 2020). The year 2019 was a top score year for the shrimp culture sector in Ecuador in terms of sales to China, reaching 348,000 MT, a trade worth US$1.9 billion compared to 2018 with 98,792MT (Lozano,

2020). Some temporary import banning occurred to Ecuadorian shrimp in China when COVID-19 was found on the samples of the outside shrimp packaging of some Ecuadorian exporters in the Chinese city, Chongqing (Harkell, 2020). At the time of this article publication, China has lifted the suspension, but it has affected the sales results to the Chinese market. The value of Ecuadorian shrimp sales to China fell from $271 million in November 2019 to $157 million in Decemb er. In January 2020, this figure reached $169 million and, in February $182 million, and it returned to the market with $ 160 million in March. Ecuadorians believe that the Âť 43

ARTICLE Figure 3 Approximate estimation of Ecuadorian shrimp quantity and its value exported to China in last 2019 and 2020, Source: (Lozano, 2020; Harkell, 2020b).

2020 shrimp production would drop by 10-15% compared to 2019 (Lozano, 2020), which could be due to the closure of the hotels and restaurants as main markets where the main parts of shrimp are being consumed. The shortage of workers, which resulted from the COVID-19 epidemic in Ecuador, particularly in the first quarter of 2020, could affect the shrimp processing.

44 Âť

According to the Ecuadorian Chamber of Aquaculture (ECA), total Ecuadorian shrimp exports in May increased by 25%, reaching 72,000 MT compared to April (58,000 MT), showing a 23% grew in value to US$ 392 million. In January 2020, total Ecuadorian shrimp export was low at 49,765 MT with a value of US$ 169 million while the exports of February and March

were 59,874 MT and 52,531 MT with the values of 182 and US$ 160 million (Harkell, 2020b). In the first eight months of 2020, most shrimp exports were transported to Asia, particularly China. In the first five months of 2020 (Fig. 3), Ecuador exported 185,000 MT of shrimp worth approximately US$ 1.0 billion to China, equal to 65.5% of total exports (287.000 MT valued at US$ 1.6 billion) and 65% of the value. (Lozano, 2020; Harkell, 2020b). A lot of shrimp farmers across the world accomplished emergency harvests in March and April, as the COVID-19 virus was spreading, and in turn, they did not re-stock shrimp at that time; this leaves a gap in the supply of large size of shrimp. As such, its prices are slightly rising again in most producing countries. However, due to the lower demand from the food supply chain, prices are still 15-20% below 2019 (Seafood Trade Inteligence Portal, 2020). As shrimp prices in Ecuador are falling, production is set to descent among the COVID-19 pandemic (Seaman, 2020).

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Figure 4 Approximate estimation of shrimp volume and its value $US Kg -1 imported to the USA in last 2019 and 2020, Source: NOAA, (Huffman, 2020b).

Based on the opinions of Indian shrimp farmers expressed in April 2020 (CIBA, 2020), about 27% of farmers had prepared their ponds but did not stocked shrimp due to the difficulties in accessing healthy PLs and uncertainty about shrimp farming and trade in 2020.

United States of America In the major shrimp-consumer countries, including the USA, an expected shift was observed in the consumption of all types of food, favoring retailers to control public health measures to reduce COVID-19 spread (Love et al., 2020). Compared to 2018, US shrimp imports increased somewhat (0.4%) to about 700,000 MT in 2019. Imports from India grew by 13.7%, from Vietnam by 3.5%, and from Ecuador. In December 2019, import orders in the US market increased following a fall in import prices; this increased the supply in January-February 2020, with a cumulative import of 117,000 MT, about 20% more than the same period in 2019, stabilized prices in the new year even lower than during previous months. As such, shrimp demand of USA market showed a remarkable decrease in 2020 than the previous month of 2019. Shrimp imported to USA was 67,000 MT in November 2019 against 38,000 MT in May 2020. This data indicated that COVID-19 pandemic affected the fish market in the USA due to lockdown assigned particularly for public places such as hotels and restaurants where are the main compartOCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Âť 45

ARTICLE

Exporting countries should

strengthen their view on domestic markets with the opportunity of domestic sales to reduce the serious impact of the COVID-19 on their international trade.

ments for shrimp consumption. As restaurants activities are performed with fresh seafood such as shrimp, lockdowns resulted in import reduction for live or fresh shrimp and this pressure moved to retailers (Love et al., 2020). As shown in Figure 4, shrimpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s price was gradually slumped from US$ 9.15 kg-1 in Nov. 2019 to US$ 8.38 kg-1 in May 2020, showing the great negative effect of COVID-19 on shrimp consumption in the USA.

China China plays a crucial role in shrimp trade and production throughout the world. Due to strong shrimp import, China has become a major hub for shrimp exporters worldwide. According to Chinese customs, shrimp imports in China in 2019 increased by 179% reached 722,000 MT compared to 2018. The main export regions of shrimp to the Chinese market in 2019 were Ecuador, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia. Based on the China Aquatic Products Processing and Marketing Alliance (CAPPMA) report, the value consumption for shrimp in China in 2019 was 2 kg per capita. 46 Âť

Inland shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Photograph by: Water Alternatives.

Declining demand in China traders is pushing shrimp farmers, especially in Asia, to contractile production. Unfortunately, the outbreak of Coronavirus occurred at the end of 2019, and the beginning of 2020 has faced the Chinese shrimp market to many economic constraints. Shrimp consumption by Chinese people is usually growing during the January new year celebrations, which have dropped sharply this year (GLOBEFISH, 2020a). The first signs of COVID-19 affecting shrimp markets appeared in the early months of 2020 when national limitations were established. At that time, the

restaurant and hotels have not sold any expected volumes (Love et al., 2020). Shrimp export to China was high in the last quarter of 2019 due to wellprovision for the New Year festival in January 2020; this caused shrimp imports to exceed 700,000 MT in 2019. COVID-19 came and affected China, resulting in the reduction or cancellation of public activities. This led to a dramatic drop in shrimp sales in public guest places such as hotels following the cancellation of many tours and airline tickets and domestic-movement limitations. This reduction in consumption has been causing OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

significant losses to Asian and South American producers. In early July 2020, some major buyers in China requested the Ecuadorian traders to reduce shrimp prices due to cease or remarkable reduction in shrimp consumption in public places (Huffman, 2020a). It seems that the global production of aquaculture will be lower than at the same time last year. Therefore, shrimp exporters look to the US and European markets, but they are not stable for similar reasons. Editor’s note: the full version of this review contains also a shrimp market analysis of other important regions such as: VietOCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

nam, Thailand, Indonesia, the European Union and Iran. We strongly advise our readers to access this information, link at the end of this article.

Perspective The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact, directly or indirectly, on global shrimp production in 2020. Domestic limitations and severe uncertainty in international trade, particularly in China and the USA, resulted in lower densities of shrimp stocked in the ponds of most producing countries, with a delay in May-June 2020. The situation is also difficult in the export processing sector.

On the other hand, the lockdown ordered in the countries where the crisis is going on results in insufficient PLs, delay in stocking and lack of transportation, and ultimately decreased annual production. In addition to shortages of raw materials in producing countries, prevention of contamination of products, social distancing regulations, and other control measures taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, the access to skilled workers will be reduced, and the processing and shipment of export orders likely won’t occur on time. The COVID-19 epidemic has had a strong impact on shrimp demand in international and domestic trade since the beginning of 2020. In the first quarter of 2020, most celebrations and public gatherings in shrimp-consuming countries were canceled. The impact of COVID-19 on catering places, especially restaurants and hotels, was much stronger with increasing general uncertainties due to public fears. This issue is likely to continue until the end of the year and even the first months of the New Year. Due to declining social activity, many jobs have become inactive or diminished, and countries’ incomes have heavily decreased. Therefore, due to declining GDP worldwide, shrimp demand will decrease in all countries up to the end of 2020. Exporting countries belonging to traditional western markets should do a serious study in Western markets and strengthen their view on domestic markets with the opportunity of domestic sales to reduce the serious impact of the COVID-19 on their international trade. *This is a summarized version developed by the editorial staff of Aquaculture Magazine, from the original article titled “Socio-economic impacts of Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on world shrimp aquaculture sector”, written by: S. Kakoolaki, S. M. A. Ebne al-Torab, A. Ghajari, A. A. Anvar4, A. Sepahdari, H. Ahari, H. Hoseinzadeh. The article was originally published in September 2020, through the Iranian Journal of Aquatic Animal Health on its volume 6 (1). Note: the references cited by the authors on this article are available under previous request to our editorial team. The full version of this publication can be accessed at: http://ijaah.ir/article-1-212-en.html

» 47

ARTICLE

Aeration of incubation units

improves egg hatchability and larvae survival in Clarias gariepinus hatchery This article developed by researchers of the University of Jos in Nigeria, investigates the relative importance of aeration in incubation units of eggs of C. gariepinus, as one of the criteria for meeting optimal By: Ajuzie C.C. and S.N. Danjuma *

he African catfish, Clarias gariepinus is a highly adaptable and hardy catfish species. They are found in both lentic and lotic freshwater ecosystems. They are known to tolerate a wide gradient of environmen-

48 Âť

hatchery conditions in African catfish hatcheries.

tal variables. For example, they can withstand water temperatures in the range of 8 to 35Â°C and tolerate 0 to 100% dissolved oxygen concentration (Bruton, 1988). They can also survive outside water for a considerable long time, especially under moist

conditions, by using their epibranchial structures to breathe. The epibranchial, or accessory respiratory organ, is composed of a paired pear-shaped air-chamber containing two arborescent structures. These arborescent or cauliflower-like structures located OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

on the second and forth branchial arches, are supported by cartilage and covered by highly vascularised tissue which can absorb oxygen from atmospheric air (Moussa, 1956). Nigeria is the leading country in Africa in the farming of African catfish (see Figure 1). All the qualities mentioned above make C. gariepinus a long recognized popular fish in the aquaculture sector (see Hecht et al., 1988). However, those could be attributes of the adults fish and may not apply to the young, including eggs and larvae. In aquaculture, it is often necessary to provide fish of specific sizes at certain times of the year for stocking ponds (Dwyer, 1987; Ajuzie and Appelbaum, 1996). However, the shortage of juvenile fish for regular pond stocking led to the development of artificial propagation and juvenile rearing techniques for most farmed fish (Britz and Hecht, 1988). Concerning C. gariepinus, the novel aquaculture techniques became imperative because the traditional method of collecting juveniles in the wild for culturing purposes proved highly unreliable for the fish farmer (see Britz and Hecht, 1988). Artificial breeding may either involve hypophysation of C. gariepinus (via the use of carp pituitary extracts) or injecting the fish with hormones to get milt and eggs readily (e.g. Ajuzie and Appelbaum, 1996). The breeder mixes the milt and eggs in a recipient for fertilization to occur. The fertilized eggs are then incubated under controlled conditions. But the creation of optimal artificial environments in C. gariepinus hatcheries (Hecht and Britz, 1988) is of significant importance for the survival of eggs and larvae. Hecht (1982) successfully reared larvae of C. gariepinus at high densities (250 to 300 larvae per liter) with mortality as low as 2.7%, using relatively high water exchange rates (200L per hour), in plastic bins maintained at 290L capacity. We investigated the relative importance of aeration in incubation units of eggs of C. gariepinus, as one OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Fig. 1 African Catfish Production in 2018. Source: Agri4africa.com website accessed on 06/08/20.

of the criteria for meeting optimal hatchery conditions in African catfish hatcheries.

Broodfish and Treatments Mature male and female Clarias gariepinus were bought from a small scale fish farmer in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. The fish were taken to the hatchery and kept for almost a day, without feeding, before they were injected with OvaprimÂŽ hormone for induced spawning. The hormone was administered intramuscularly on one of the sides of the dorsal fin. The injections were based on a dose of 0.5ml/kg. The fish were injected twice. The first injection, usually referred to as a loading dose, was 10 % of the total dose. The second injection (90 % of the total dose) was administered six hours later. Both the male and female fish had no injuries on their bodies and were in good shape. So, they were kept together in a plastic basin with minimal water, just enough to cover the head when submerged.

After about 12 hours, following the second dose of injections, eggs and milt were collected from the fish. Eggs were hand-stripped into a plastic bowl from the female fish by gently pressing the abdominal area, starting from the anterior end and towards the posteriorly-located vent. Testes from the sacrificed male fish were cut open with a clean blade, and the squeezed out milt was dropped on the eggs. Both the eggs and milt were gently mixed with a plastic spoon. The treated eggs were then evenly spread on a nylon net frame (20x20cm) with a mesh size of 0.5mm, and placed into incubation units, as described in Ajuzie and Applebaum (1996). There were a total of six incubation units. These units were assigned to three different treatments. Each treatment, thus, had a replicate. In the first treatment (Treatment 1), eggs were incubated in units that were connected to a water recirculatory system, and with aeration. In the second treatment (Treatment 2), eggs were incubated in units where the water was recirculatÂť 49

ARTICLE

ed, but with no aeration. In the third treatment (Treatment 3), the incubation units were neither served with recirculating water nor with aerators. In the water recirculatory systems, the water exchange rate was 100ml/ min. Room and water temperatures were determined using a mercury-inthermometer, and these ranged from 25 to 27.5°C for room temperature and 23.5 to 25°C for water temperature. The proportion of larvae that hatched from the incubated eggs was expressed as a visual percentage of the total area the eggs occupied on the screens (whereas areas, where hatched eggs had lodged, became vacant following the migration of the hatched larvae into the water column, unhatched eggs remained attached to the incubation screens).

Table 1 Mean hatching success (%) and larvae survival of C. gariepinus eggs under the different treatments.

Results Two days after hatching occurred, the tanks were monitored for larvae survival. Hatching of eggs and larvae survival were best in aerated incubation units where eggs started hatching after about 1.5 days. The percent hatching success of eggs in the three different experimental systems (treatments) can

be seen in Table 1. No eggs hatched in incubation units where there was no aeration, and where water was not recirculated. But, whereas tanks with aeration and water recirculation had a 40% hatching success, tanks where water was recirculated but with no aeration recorded a paltry 10% hatching success. Larvae survived, two days after hatching, only in tanks where the water was aerated. Some of the larvae were seen swimming freely in the water column. Others were at the bottom where they hung unto balls of debris containing dead eggs. All larvae in tanks without aeration died by the second day following hatching (Table 1).

Discussion and conclusions Temperatures recorded during this study are not optimal for African catfish hatchery operations. The optimum incubation temperature range for eggs and larvae of this fish, as determined by Ajuzie and Appelbaum (1996), is 30-31°C. The temperatures were low because the study was carried out in November, a month within the cold Harmattan season, which has a strong weather effect in Jos, Nigeria. As observed by Ajuzie and Appelbaum (1996), the temperature at which eggs are incubated is critical for egg survival. Relative decreases or increases in water temperature can significantly affect C. gariepinus egg survival/ development and larval growth. Therefore, under cold conditions, thermostatically-controlled immersion heater(s) should be used in catfish hatcheries to keep both eggs and hatched larvae optimally warm 50 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Relative decreases or increases

in water temperature can significantly affect C. gariepinus egg survival/development and larval growth.

(see Ajuzie and Appelbaum, 1993, 1996). Comparatively, more eggs hatched in the tanks where aerators were installed than in those without aerators. This shows that aeration is very necessary in catfish hatcheries. Aerators have the capacity to increase dissolved oxygen levels in hatchery tanks for optimal hatchery operations. Studies by Ajuzie and Appelbaum (1986) showed that by constant aeration, oxygen saturation levels are maintained above 80% in incubation units. Similarly, water recirculation has a positive effect on dissolved oxygen content in fish tanks. Water recirculation helps to moderately stir the water and cause water movement, which could cause some atmospheric oxygen to be dissolved in the incubation unit. This may have been why eggs hatched in incubation units where water was recirculated, but with no aeration. However, in these incubation units, the hatched larvae quickly consumed the available dissolved oxygen, causing their death. Further work is needed to ascertain these postulations. However, we strongly advise for the use of aerators in catfish hatcheries.

*Ajuzie C.C. and S.N. Danjuma. Aquaculture, Freshwater and Marine Ecology Research Lab. Fisheries and Aquaculture Unit. Department of Animal Production, University of Jos, Nigeria. Correspondence email: efulecy@yahoo.com Note: references made by the authors within the text are available under the previous request to our editorial team.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Âť 51

NEWS ARTICLE

Protecting the Natural Flavor of Catfish

Blue-green algae can cause off-flavors in farmed catfish, leading to

costly harvesting delays. How can these off-flavors be eliminated? Recently USDA and HeroX launched a challenge to protect the natural flavor of catfish. Winning Solutions will Share a $60,000 Prize Purse.

Harvesting blue catfish on the Potomac River. Photograph: Chesapeak Bay Program.

xposure to certain varieties of blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, can cause undesirable changes to the flavor of farmed catfish. This off-flavor delays the harvest for roughly 50% of catfish ponds each year in the United States. Annually, this delay alone can cost catfish farmers millions of dollars in lost revenue and expenses to maintain the fish until flavor quality returns. USDA-ARS scientists, as well as industry experts, have worked for decades to find new solutions for this 52 »

problem. While methods to combat off-flavor in catfish have been identified, they are only partial solutions, requiring repeated treatments to reduce off-flavor occurrence, and providing no guarantee of successfully eliminating off flavors. In the United States, nearly 400 million pounds of farm-raised Channel and Blue catfish are harvested annually, primarily in the Mississippi delta region. Prior to harvesting, sample fish are captured and tested to ensure high quality. One of the most important evaluations performed is taste.

Professional food tasters briefly cook the fish in a microwave and taste it, without seasoning or other preparations, in order to evaluate the innate flavor of the fish. Unfortunately, exposure to compounds from varieties of blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, can cause unpleasant tastes in catfish, described by taste testers as “earthy” or “muddy”. If a sample fish is found to have these off-flavors, there are several options. The pond can be left alone and fish retested after several months to see if flavor has improved, or the pond water must be treated to remove these algae before harvesting can proceed. Treatments can take weeks to months before they are fully effective at removing the off-flavor from the fish. Both approaches result in lengthy and costly harvest delays. Research has identified several effective methods for treating affected catfish ponds but these methods are generally not implemented until an off-flavor fish is found. One potential method is to relocate the entire school of catfish to a new pond with water uncontaminated by blue-green algae. The downside to this, apart from the additional cost to the farmer, is the additional stress placed on the fish stress which itself can impact the flavor and texture quality of the harvested fish. Another treatment method is the application of algicides like copper sulfate or diuron to the affected pond water. While effective, public perception of additional chemical usage can limit deployment, as can the potential for unintended consequences for the overall pond ecology. A Global Aquaculture Alliance article estimates that US catfish farmers lose as much as $47M a year due to off-flavors. Since additional costs caused by off-flavor can account for as much as 17% of total production costs, the development of new tools to help catfish farmers maintain the natural flavor of the catfish is critical.

Competition guidelines USDA-ARS, working in conjunction OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

USDA-ARS believes that exciting new technologies and innovations are possible and welcomes the global community to provide insight in all forms to this topic, regardless of approach.

Prizes ARS will award up to $60,000, to be split among the top-scoring and eligible submissions, with at least one prize winner in each category. Each prize awarded will be up to $30,000 and no less than $5,000. • Category 1: Pre-Harvest ManagePhotograph: Chesapeak Bay Program. ment Practices • Category 2: Pre-Harvest Treatment with the farmed catfish industry, has • Post-harvest treatment technologies: Technologies researched this topic extensively and new methods/technologies that would • Category 3: Post-Harvest Treatbelieves that input and insight from allow processors to remove off-flavors ment Technologies Furthermore, it is the intention the global innovation community can from catfish after harvesting positively impact this persistent probIdeally, proposed approaches will of ARS to facilitate the implemenlem. meet the following performance criteria: tation of new technologies in the USDA-ARS has identified three • Reduce or mask off-flavor com- field to the benefit of the industry. different points in the process where pounds to a level undetectable to pro- To that end, ARS will consider postchallenge discussions between ARS new methods or technologies could be fessional flavor testers (~100ng/kg) implemented to address off-flavors in • Cost the same or less than current scientists and winners, engaging with catfish: treatments (currently ~$177/acre-ft, winners in joint publication efforts • Pre-harvest management practices: which translates to ~$8000 per pond. or in collaborative work to further new methods/technologies that work The average catfish pond is a 10-acre develop proposed technologies. The USDA-ARS Office of Technology to prevent the development of off-fla- pond, 4 ft deep) Transfer will assist with cooperative vor causing blue-green algae in catfish • Maintain catfish well-being ponds • Be neutrally or positively viewed by research agreement options as warranted. • Pre-harvest treatment technologies: consumers new methods/technologies to remove • Environmentally safe for both pond Timeline off-flavor from catfish once it has and surrounding areas been detected in sampled fish prior to • Safe for operators and other person- Submission deadline December 15, 2020 @ 5pm ET harvest nel Judging December 15, 2020 - February 23, 2021 Winners Announced March 2, 2021 To qualify for an award, your proposal must, at a minimum: • Prevent, eliminate, or mask off-flavor in farmed catfish • Have supporting data, or a strong scientific rationale • Be safe for the fish, the environment, and users All rules for this contest, as well as participation eligibility criteria, and the platform for registration and submission of participations are available at the website: https:// Young blue catfish in a channel at Denison, Texas. Photograph: Vince Smith. www.herox.com/catfish OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

» 53

NEWS ARTICLE

Worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Leading Aquatic Scientific Societies Urgently Call for Cuts to Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Unless urgent action is taken to reduce emissions, scientists predict

catastrophic impacts to commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries and human health and global economies. This article summarizes key scientific findings highlighting the effect of climate changes on aquatic ecosystems. These findings provide evidence of what effects are currently happening and why world policymakers and all of humankind need to collaborate and launch concerted actions now to mitigate these impacts.

By: American Fisheries Society *

n an unprecedented statement released recently, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) joined forces with 110 aquatic scientific societies representing more than 80,000 scientists worldwide to sound a climate change alarm. The societies call for drastically curtailed global greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of human-made climate change to fish and aquatic ecosystems. Climate change is already altering marine and coastal ecosystems with significant implications for wild capture fisheries and marine economies. Projected increases in ocean temperature are expected to reduce the maximum catch potential in most areas in the U.S. Many harvested stocks will shift from one area to another, or even across international boundaries, with implications for seafood supply, ports, and associated businesses. Loss of habitat from sea-level rise will lead to declines in the vast majority of commercially and recreationally harvested marine finfish and shellfish that are dependent on estuaries 54 Âť

and coastal systems for some stage of their life cycle. Increased carbon dioxide absorption is changing ocean chemistry, rendering some waters too acidic for marine organisms with calcium shells, such as oysters and clams, and threatening the base of the marine food web. The impacts of climate change especially threaten freshwater fish. Forty percent of all in North America are today imperiled due to pollution, habitat loss, water withdrawals, and invasive species. Climate change, coupled with these existing stressors, will lead to significant declines in freshwater fish, with devastating consequences for the cultural, recreational, and economic value of freshwater systems. Across the globe, incomes, food security, and aquatic resource-dependent communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; livelihoods are already at risk. Climate change threatens food security by endangering fish, an essential protein source for many across the globe. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, fish accounts for 17% of animal protein consumed globally, fishing and aquaculture directly employ almost 60 million people, and global trade in fish products has reached US$152 billion per year, with 54% originating in developing countries. In addition to reductions in emissions, aggressive policies and programs are required to mitigate the effects of climate change to freshwater fish and to preserve habitat essential for resilience. If we are to avoid losing countless species that provide immeasurable benefits to society, we must also mitigate the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries and plan for adaptation required to ensure the long-term health of our freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems and the many economies that depend upon them. Intact, healthy habitats can help to provide resilience for fish and store carbon. Experts in environmental, social, and economic fields collectively point towards a severe envi-ronmental and humanitarian crisis, with repercusOCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture in Bangladesh Source Worldfish.

sions at a global level, unless worldwide concerted climate actions are implemented urgently. This recently published analysis summarizes key scientific findings highlighting the effect of climate changes on aquatic ecosystems. These findings provide evidence of what effects are currently happening and why world policymakers and all of humankind need to act jointly and launch concerted actions if they wish to mitigate these impacts.

The Challenge Thousands of peer-reviewed studies by scientists from authoritative institutions worldwide have documented evidence for climate effects on aquatic systems that are already occurring and are extensive. Many globally respected sources, including the American Geophysical Union, National Academies of Science from dozens of countries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment support findings that increased atmospheric concentrations OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels (i.e., emissions) and land use changes such as deforestation are driving current climate change. Many of these changes are and will be irreversible. They will continue to worsen if we persist on our current trajectory. Impacts already occurring range from increased frequency, intensification, and severity of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and storms; melting glaciers; destabilization of major ice sheets; shift ing ocean currents, rising sea level; ocean acidification and deoxygenation; shifts in species ranges, including expansion of alien-invasive species; aquatic plant and wildlife disease outbreaks; mass coral bleaching events; and more, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems, human societies, and local and global economies. These events are precursors of even more damages to fisheries, biodiversity, and human society at large. Delaying action to stop the underlying causes of climate change will increase the economic, environmental, and societal consequences.

Suppose humanity wishes to avoid calamitous consequences for our aquatic ecosystems and humans that depend on them. In that case, the time to curb greenhouse gas emissions, sequester greenhouse gasses, and adapt to an already changing climate is now. An intelligent, rapid movement toward such goals will provide significant benefits to aquatic ecosystems and the humans that de-

Global and national targets are necessary to protect and restore carbon-dense ecosystems, such as peat, seagrasses, and other wetlands to sequester carbon, prevent greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce climate change impacts.

Âť 55

NEWS ARTICLE

Aquaculture in Cambodia Source Worldfish.

pend on them. Fast global response and large-scale actions are possible if public and government commitment exists.

The Evidence: Effects on Marine Resources • Shifts in species composition, behavior, abundance, and biomass production are now occurring.

A rapid transition towards energy sources and other products and services that do not release greenhouse gases as well as research and policies that favor an efficient transition to a low carbon world is required to slow the degradation of aquatic systems.

56 »

• Lobster, cod, mackerel, coral reef fishes, and other species important to fisheries are either moving poleward to deeper waters or declining. • Coastal ecosystems are being transformed, degraded, or lost, either largely or in part due to climate change, including seagrass meadows, mangroves, coral reefs, and kelp forests. • Effects of altered species compositions are affecting entire ecosystems. • Carbon emissions cause global ocean acidification, which is affecting the survival of organisms, especially shellfish, and accelerating coral reef erosion. • Rising frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves has been documented and is projected to continue. • Reductions in global ocean dissolved oxygen concentrations have occurred over the past five decades. • Climate change is interacting with other stressors such as excess nutrient input, overharvesting, and novel species interactions to further suppress marine ecosystems. • Climate change is linked to emerging and re-emerging disease outbreaks in marine wildlife and plant species.

• Global production of marine animals continues to decrease, and shifts in species composition will increase unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. • Seabirds are recognized as indicators of long-term environmental change: nearly three out of four of the world’s seabirds have disappeared since 1950, and more than half the remaining species face substantial threats. In North America alone, twothirds (389/604) of bird species, including waterbirds, are moderately or highly vulnerable to climate change under a 3°C scenario.

The Evidence: Effects on Freshwater Resources • Freshwater ecosystems are among the most threatened on Earth. Freshwater ecosystems cover less than 1% of the planet’s surface but support one-third of vertebrate species and 10% of all species. • The capacity of all freshwater ecosystems to adapt is relatively low, given the nature of freshwater systems and the scale of climate change impacts. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture in Egypt Source Worldfish.

• Climate change is altering abundance, predator-prey dynamics, expansion of invasive species, growth, recruitment of species, and novel species interactions, leading to declines in the number and diversity of freshwater aquatic organisms. • Increased frequency, intensity, and length of drought affect the amount and quality of freshwater available for both aquatic ecosystems and humans. • Climate change impacts on flow regimes, including both increased droughts and low-flow periods, and increased flooding impact native species with narrow ranges of flow requirements and allow expansion of alien-invasive species that affect recreational and commercial harvest of fishes and clog waterways. • Geographic ranges of many plants and animals have moved poleward and to higher altitudes, while alieninvasive species expand with the increasingly warm conditions. Unlike marine systems, pathways to other habitats are often blocked, leading to localized extinctions. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

• Temporal shifts in seasonal cues, such as spring runoff or monsoon seasons, affect fish’s spawning success, resulting in poor survival. • Higher incidence of wildfires is affecting aquatic systems by making watersheds more susceptible to flooding and by reducing water quality, especially with post-fire ash and sediment deposition. • Wetlands capacity for carbon storage and mitigation of climate change are being damaged by changes linked to climate shifts and other global change components, such as increased land development and fires. • Higher temperatures and precipitation runoff have increased harmful algae blooms, which can hurt fish, mammals, birds, and even humans. • Climate change may act synergistically with nutrients to magnify eutrophication and further degrade water quality and ecosystem services, including affecting drinking water. • Organisms dependent on snowmelt and glacial streams are declining or shifting their distribution.

• Release of heavy metals such as mercury, currently stored in glaciers and the permafrost, is projected to affect freshwater organisms further. • Climate change is linked to emerging and re-emerging disease outbreaks in freshwater wildlife and plant species. • These seemingly diverse and smallscale changes combine to create multiple, cumulatively stressful challenges to aquatic species.

The Evidence: Effects on World Society Dependent on Aquatic Resources • Clean and sufficient water is needed by all life forms. • Fisheries provide quality protein sources not easily replaced by terrestrial sources. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, fish accounts for 17% of animal protein consumed globally, fishing and aquaculture directly employ almost 60 million people, and global trade in fish products has reached US$152 billion per year, with 54% originating in developing countries. » 57

NEWS ARTICLE

Aquaculture in Malawi Source Worldfish.

• In the short term, new fisheries are appearing in some newly formed icefree areas; however, overall fisheries catch is projected to decline related to increasing declines in water quality and primary production as a result of climate change, with corresponding effects on food security. Ocean warming and changes in primary productivity are related to changes in many fish stocks. Fish population reestablishment has declined 3% per decade, and maximum catch potential declined 4.1% over the 20th century. Water temperature increases due to climate change are projected to exceed the tolerance limits of 10–60% of freshwater and marine species by 2100, depending on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed. • Climate change impacts on aquatic ecosystems affect incomes, food security, key cultural dimensions, and livelihoods of resource-dependent communities. • Species shifts affect traditional fisheries from the tropics to the polar regions through reduced access to fish stocks, fishing areas, and loss of local knowledge. • Climate change compounds the impact of other practices such as pollution, overfishing, and unsustainable coastal development. These combined 58 »

impacts are projected to drive many small-scale fisheries and economies out of existence. • Warming of waters affects seafood safety through elevated bioaccumulation of heavy metals and pollutants and an increased prevalence of waterborne pathogens affecting both human and animal health. • Tourism and tourist sites are being affected in many areas that are dependent on local ecosystems. Sustainable diving, snorkeling, angling, marine mammal and bird watching, and other recreational activities and businesses depend on the maintenance of healthy aquatic resources.

• Climate change degrades coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses, marshes, peatlands, and coral reefs that provide services to humans, such as protecting coasts from erosion, storms, and flooding, providing key wildlife habitat and sequestering carbon. • Climate change damages riparian ecosystems that provide services to humans, such as protecting streams from flooding, intercepting pollutants, reducing erosion, providing shade and wildlife habitat, sequestering carbon, and storing water during high-flow events. • Climate change contributes to harming wetlands, which provide many

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture in Thailand Source Worldfish.

Done intelligently, a movement

to curtail human-caused climate change can result in advanced, novel technologies; strong economies; healthier aquatic ecosystems; greater food security; and human well-being.

of the same services to humans, as stated above. Wetlands play a critical role in carbon storage and sequestration. In particular, peatlands, despite occupying on 3% of the land surface, store twice as much carbon as the world’s forests. • The level of impacts will be governed by the level of protective limits our nations place on future emissions combined with riparian and coastal zoning; and changes in fisheries management practices.

The Needed Responses We assert that rapid action is necessary to drastically curb release of greenhouse gas emissions and to OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the most calamitous consequences of humancaused climate change to marine and freshwater ecosystems on which all humankind depends. Global and national targets are necessary to protect and restore carbon-dense ecosystems, such as peat, seagrasses, and other wetlands to sequester carbon, prevent greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce climate change impacts. Governments, the public, industry, academia, and all other sectors of society must prioritize actions and act in a concerted way to halt humancaused climate change to prevent dire consequences. A rapid transition towards energy sources and other products and services that do not release greenhouse gases as well as research and policies that favor an efficient transition to a low carbon world is required to slow the degradation of aquatic systems, as above. All governments could accomplish such a transition by immediately acting on the advice of specialists in green energy technology, carbon sequestration, marketing, education, socioeconomic principles, and related disciplines. Robust adaptation measures; identification and easing of other environmental stressors that act syn-

ergistically with climate change; and additional resources for data collection, mapping, and research to better understand potential impacts and to arm natural resources agencies with the tools to mitigate these impacts are essential to better understand and plan for changes in aquatic ecosystems. Done intelligently, a movement to curtail human-caused climate change can result in advanced, novel technologies; strong economies; healthier aquatic ecosystems; greater food security; and human well-being. It is time to acknowledge the urgent need to act to address climate change. Delaying action to control greenhouse gas emissions is not an option if humankind wishes to conserve the world’s aquatic resources and environmental safety.

* This is a summarized version of the recently published document from the American Fisheries Society. References on all evidences found are included on the original article which is available for free at: https://doi.org/10.29 89/16085914.2020.1824388 Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals and numerous books and conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world.

» 59

LATIN AMERICA REPORT

Latin America Report: Recent News and Events INVE Aquaculture organizes a webinar series about PLs quality in Latin America INVE Aquaculture in collaboration with Panorama Acuícola Magazine presents a free webinar series on the upcoming weeks for the Latin-American audience interested in aquaculture PLs quality. The webinars will present a weekly conversation on Tuesday afternoons with an international expert whom will address their experience with PLs quality, the issues they have been facing in the last years and the solutions they have found alongside with their clients around the world. The topics to be covered on each session are organized as it follows: - 13th of October – Marcos Santos: “Introduction to PLs quality”. - 20th of October – Alfredo Medina: “PLs quality in China”. - 27th of October – Manuel Poulain “Risk management in aquaculture, Asian models”. - 3rd of November – Txomin Azpeitia: “Ekachai Thai model”. - 10th of November – Jaime Munoz “Shrimp aquaculture feeds in Mexico”. Sessions will be held via zoom in Spanish at 18:00 hours local time for Guayaquil, Ecuador. Registration is free and can be done at this link.

60 »

Skretting Ecuador launches its new product Nature Wellness Recently, Skretting Ecuador virtually launched its juvenile shrimp feed diet “Nature Wellness” which aims to be the best option for the nutrition of shrimp at initial stages of development. Through several unique properties this product promises to optimize production costs and maximize the farming operations. Among the main features of this new product Skretting Ecuador highlights: improved nutrition for juvenile shrimp, lower FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio), higher survival results, a smaller gap in between sizes of the farmed shrimp, higher attractability, optimal levels of micronutrients, functional ingredients included in the diet, among others. The launch of this product responds to Skretting’s global interest for developing a more sustainable aquaculture industry around the world. Further information can be found at: https://www.skretting.com/es-EC/ products/nature-wellness/1294649

Chile and Peru sign historical agreement to transfer aquaculture technologies The University of Antofagasta developed the innovative aquaculture technology “Aquanursery” which allows the development at the sea of the first stages of several commercial species that don’t yet have farming technologies in the aquaculture sector. This invention allows aquaculture producers securing the survival of the first stages of life of some organisms which are complicated to accomplish in set conditions. With the use of Aquanursery it is easier to obtain postlarvae, seed o juveniles which are then transferred to controlled environments for the farming activities. Lead researcher of this project, Ph.D. Fernando Valenzuela from the University Austral of Chile, mentioned to local media that a Peruvian company is interested in developing commercial farming of octopus, species for which both countries will now make the final test trials to validate the technology and its potential as tool for commercial aquaculture. Aquanursery was awarded in 2017 as the best technological proposal at the World Aquaculture event organized in South Africa, where this technology competed with over 700 other ideas from around the world.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 61

OUT AND ABOUT

Paradigms that the COVID-19

health contingency will shift in aquaculture business... and everyone’s lives By: Salvador Meza *

Have you considered why we are now working more and producing less? There is no provider, client, colleague, or friend today who isn’t making comments about how they are busier at work now than before the COVID-19 health crisis, despite working from home.

62 »

fter-hours meetings that extend beyond normal business hours. Video calls and sales follow-up with clients for whom a simple email used to be enough. Virtual planning and re-planning meetings to adjust the budget to the reality of COVID-19, every month, or even every week. These are examples of how people are working more while performing less, as shown by companies’ monthly income and growth results. This “extra” effort people are putting into work is mainly due to adjusting to a different operating structure than the one they had previously developed, which was probably not unlike their parents’. The shift toward information technology (IT) does not end at just downloading an app to communicate using computers or mobile phones. It involves changing our way of thinking and seeing human relationships as something that is becoming integrated into automated digital processes in which recognition, understanding, and even love are transmitted through a simple “Like” or a double tick that signals a message has been read. This adaptation process will require breaking long-standing paradigms that would certainly have taken years, or even a couple of generations to disappear if not for this health crisis, especially among the highest-level executives in companies and corporations, the oldest of whom have traditionally been less prone to adopt digital tools. For them, information technologies seemed to be only for computer experts, employees and collaborators of software development companies, or for “young people” who spend all their time on their mobile devices to the point of messaging online despite being physically just a few meters away from each other. Digital technologies have been available to everyone for a long time. But what this sanitary confinement has revealed to us is that fully emOCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

bracing these technologies brings the prospect of a life with greater expectations and benefits than we could have ever imagined. One example of this is the ability to work from home. From one day to the next, we discovered that we didn’t really “need” to go to the office every day, and even that not every employee needed to work at the office. This paradigm’s collapse has made life easier for millions of people around the world who used to waste “dead” hours in long, daily

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

commutes in heavily-congested cities. Instead of wasting two hours a day in their car or on the train, people now have regained that time to eat breakfast with their children, get some exercise, or sleep longer. And this is without considering the benefits of increased air quality in our cities, just from a single change in our way of thinking and seeing life. This change in paradigms means that we will have to adapt to a new way of working and a new way of life

in one or two years when this would have usually taken humanity one or two generations. It also means that we will have to pick up our pace because we have to learn many things in a very short time. We have to adapt to and embrace information technologies today. All the mental barriers we had, all those excuses against dedicating time to adopt digital tools, like, “That is not for me,” “I’m not interested in that,” “I don’t need that,” “We should continue doing things as before,” “I prefer things in print,” “I need to see people face to face”; they no longer make sense. That is why it seems we are now working more and producing less or—at best—the same. It’s because we are building the new labor and social world that will exist for the next 20 or 30 years. We are shaping the structures that will bring us cohesion and meaning in our “new” lives. Without planning for it or even realizing it, we are fully entering the Digital Transformation. Welcome! Salvador Meza is Editor & Publisher of Aquaculture Magazine, and of the Spanish language industry magazine Panorama Acuicola.

» 63

AQUAFEED

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

In this issue we’ll take a look at some of the interesting feed

developments we’ve reported on in Aquafeed.com and HATCHERYfm. com over the past few weeks.

Kampachi (Seriola rivoliana) inside an aquapod used for Ocean Era’s Velella projects. Photograph: Ocean Era.

he search for fish-free feed continues, encouraged by the F3 Challenge – a sales competition designed to accelerate the development and adoption of fishmeal and fish oil substitutes in feeds. In July, F3 doubled its prize to $70,000 per category for its current competition, the most challenging so far. The Carnivore Edition will award contestants that produce and sell the most fish-free feeds in each of three categories: salmonids, shrimp, and other carnivorous species, 64 »

without using wild-caught fish or any marine-animal ingredients. Meanwhile, news in from Kona, Hawaii is that researchers have made a breakthrough in the quest to develop a cost-effective “fish-free” feed for farm-raised Kampachi, or almaco jack, a carnivorous marine fish. “This is the first time – to our knowledge – that fishmeal and fish oil have been totally eliminated from the diet of a marine carnivorous fish, with no deleterious consequences,” said Neil Anthony Sims, CEO of the

Hawaii-based mariculture company, Ocean Era, where the trial was conducted. “Kampachi is a fast-growing, sashimi-grade fish, so this a significant breakthrough for the sustainability and scalability of marine fish farming.” During the three-month trial, 480 juvenile Kampachi (Seriola rivoliana) were fed one of four diets. Two of the diets contained no fishmeal and one of these also contained no fish oil. Fishmeal replacement relied primarily on poultry meal from up-cycled poultry trimmings. Fish oil replacement was achieved using Veramaris® natural marine algal oil. A fishmeal and fish oil diet was used as a control, together with an additional commercial control diet. Fish were stocked into 16 tanks for the comparative grow-out trial. The performance was evaluated in terms of growth, feed conversion ratio (FCR), fillet yield and survival. Fish that were fed the zero fishmeal/zero fish oil diet performed as well as the fish fed with the fishmeal and fish-oil diet. Fish fed the zero fishmeal/zero fish-oil diet also had a more desirable taste compared to the fish fed the commercially available control diet. “The results clearly show that algal oil can replace fish oil 100% without any reduction in the growth of this marine fish,” said Rick Barrows, a fish nutrition expert with Aquatic Feed Technologies and co-principal investigator of the study. The feed formulations used in this trial are available as open-source formulae through the F3 Feed Innovation Network (F3 FIN) for anyone working to replace wild-caught fish ingredients in animal feed. Yet another competition, “Protecting the Natural Flavor of Catfish” has been opened by HeroX. This crowdsourcing competition calls on the global community to offer costeffective and innovative methods that prevent blue-green pond algae from delaying catfish harvesting. This competition is launched on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and seeks to benefit catfish OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 65

AQUAFEED

farmers from across the nation. For the last 30 years, USDA-ARS research has shown that catfish exposure to certain varieties of blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, can cause a delay in the harvest for roughly 50% of catfish ponds each year. Annually, this delay can also cost catfish farmers $15 to $20 million in lost revenue and expenses to maintain the fish and its natural flavor. While numerous methods to combat this issue have been identified, they are only partial solutions that require repeated treatments. There is also no guarantee of successfully eliminating the blue-green algae’s effect on the fish. “The Agricultural Research Service is committed to finding solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day,” said ARS administrator, Chavonda Jacobs-Young. “We are excited to see the innovative strategies and suggested new technologies for the Catfish Challenge from the global community.” In the United States, nearly 400 million pounds of the farm-raised channel and blue catfish are harvested annually, primarily in the Mississippi Delta region. Unfortunately, exposure to compounds from varieties of blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, can cause an “earthy” or “muddy” taste in catfish. If a sample fish is found to have these off-flavors, catfish farmers may wait to harvest and retest the fish after several months to see if the

66 »

Ocean Era’s “fish-free” diet comprised of an algae oil rich in essential omega-3 fatty acids. Photograph: Ocean Era.

off-flavors have improved, or treat the pond water to remove the algae before harvesting can proceed. Both approaches result in lengthy harvest delays, anywhere from a few weeks to several months. These harvest delays cost the industry roughly $20 million annually. A total of up to $60,000 will be awarded to the challenge’s top nine respondents. Judges will evaluate submissions for the best overall approach submitted and award prizes to the top nine responses. One first place and up to two-second place winners will be recognized in each of the following three categories: Pre-harvest management practices, Pre-harvest treatment technologies and Post-harvest treatment technologies. The prize is open to anyone aged 18 or older participating as an individual or as a team. In-

dividual competitors and teams may originate from any country, as long as United States federal sanctions do not prohibit participation (some restrictions apply).To accept the challenge, visit https://www.herox.com/catfish.

Harnessing the power of algae Invasive algae are an increasing threat that can sometimes be strategically valorized by biotechnology, promoting economic development while contributing to ecologic remediation. Asparagopsis armata and Sargassum mu‑ ticum are two such species of seaweed that have been frequently reported as excellent bioactive compound producers, namely anti-bacterial and antioxidant. A team of researchers, together with Biomin, tested both algae extracts in whiteleg shrimp to assess Vibrio infections that have a severe economic impact in the Southeast Asia shrimp market. The seaweed extracts did not impact shrimp performance and showed no significant differences in weight gain, feed conversion rate or survival. Asparagopsis armata selected extract at 7.5 g per kg feed was able to decrease feed contamination by fungi along time and reduce shrimp mortality by up to 50% upon a challenge with V. parahaemolyticus. Despite lacking statistical significance, a difference in hepatopancreas condition after the challenge was identified in shrimp fed the supplemented feed. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Salmon rickettsial septicaemia (SRS) is the infectious disease caused by Pi‑ scirickettsia salmonis that produces the highest losses in the Chilean salmon industry. Initially isolated from Coho salmon in Chile, it has also been reported in Canada, Ireland, Norway and Scotland. Currently, vaccines and antibiotics are used to prevent and treat bacterial infections but new technologies are needed to confront the disease. There are a wide variety of techniques and polymers used for microencapsulation, but alginates might be particularly suitable to deliver antigens at mucosal surfaces in fish, showing their ability to protect antigens while passing through the digestive tract, and to diffuse through the gut mucus layer, thereby reaching the enterocyte surface. Chilean researchers, together with Cargill Innovation Center, evaluated the effect of alginate-encapsulated Piscirickettsia salmonis antigens (AEPSA) incorporated in the feed as an oral vaccine to induce the immune response in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Fish were distributed into three vaccination groups (injectable, oral high dose, oral low dose). Researchers found that P. salmo‑ nis antigens can be microencapsulated in alginate using the dispersion technique known as aerodynamically assisted jetting system, generating small microparticles that can be incorporated into fish feed pellets and produce an oral vaccine. Alginate microparticles containing the antigen were effectively incorporated in fish feed to produce the oral vaccine. The incorporation of AEPSA did not affect the palatability of the feed or fish’s appetite. Furthermore, researchers found that the oral vaccine did not have a negative effect on fish growth. “The oral vaccine (high and low dose) produced an acquired immune response (IgM) similar to the injectable vaccine, generating a statistically significant increase in the IgM levels OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

at 840-degree days for both experimental groups. These findings suggest that AEPSA incorporated in the feed can be an effective alternative to boost the immune response in Atlantic salmon,” researchers concluded.

CPF brings Asian Technology Stateside Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL (CPF) is developing “Aquaculture 5.0” shrimp farm in the USA that can be cultured anywhere, any time of the year and that will use feeds made from ingredients which are all sustainable, being neither marine meals nor soybeans from sensitive areas. “It will be the most sustainable and reliable technology for culturing shrimp. Homegrown shrimp, our subsidiary in the USA, undertakes technologies that will culture shrimp anywhere in the world and in any season,” said Robins McIntosh, executive vice president at CPF. He added that the shrimp farms are normally located near coastal areas. However, Homegrown shrimp farm takes an unconventional approach by operating an aquaculture farm on an inland location. Totally independent of the ocean, it operates with artificial seawater that mixes local water with salt. This strategic decision helps to reduce the cost of shrimp and impact on sensitive coastal environments. Both the hatchery and farm are totally enclosed within a sealed temperature-controlled building allowing for shrimp culture at the optimum 30ºC year-round regardless of the outside temperature. The farm will be equipped with automation and mechanical processes to provide more efficient operation and reduce manpower. Moreover, the farm recycles all the water thereby economizing the salts for making artificial seawater and permitting licensing in even the most environmentally restrictive jurisdictions. All wastes from the farm will be captured and processed to an inert disposable product or possibly used as a byproduct for other applications.

Shrimp feeds eventually will be made from ingredients that are all sustainable, being neither marine meals nor soybeans from sensitive areas, McIntosh noted. It will be managed based on the “domesticated floc” technology used in the broodstock grow-out farms and will stock the fast-growing “CPF Turbo” post-larvae that has seen a successful result in CPF’s Asian operations. The fast-growing post larvae are critical in making this project economical. Homegrown shrimp plans to get four crop cycles annually, with a yield of 20-25 kilograms/m2 in 8000 m2 of tank area, which will yield 190 tons of fresh shrimp per year 40 count. “We are anticipating a minimum selling price of $15/kg or revenue of $2.85 million per year. Eventually, with the 20 hectares of land, we could have five farming units and the hatchery for a total production of 950 tons per year and revenues being $14.25 million per year,” McIntosh said.

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

» 67

TECHNICAL GURU

Air stones and diffusers, oh my! by Amy Stone*

Picking the correct diffuser for your application will save both time, money, and possibly unnecessary mortalities in your system.

ver the years, we have heard many names for devices that diffuse air, oxygen, ozone, etc. The truth is that regardless of the name we call it, they all function in a similar way. The gas enters the device and is dispersed over its surface area and into the water. Now that we have gotten through all the semantics, we can get into the mechanics and form, fit, and function of a variety of diffusers available. Picking the correct diffuser for your application will save both time, money, and possibly unnecessary mortalities in your system. Air diffusers, aka air stones, are used most with air in our industry but oxygen, ozone and even carbon dioxide are also options with certain styles of diffusers. Diffusers are usually described by their pore size. The pore size directly affects the size of the bubble and pressure required to pass the gas through the diffuser. The size of the bubble translates to the surface area. The smaller the bubble, the greater the surface area that is available for the gas to transfer to the water. 68 Âť

Types of Diffusers Air diffusers initially began as wooden blocks of limewood that was porous enough to allow air to flow through. They are still available for use in home aquariums but are not the most efficient and are very difficult to sanitize. Medium pore diffusers are often used with air blowers since they only require approximately 0.35 psi or 10â&#x20AC;? of equivalent water depth. Air blowers are high volume, lowpressure pumps, so they cannot be used with diffusers that require high pressures but are perfect for use with medium pore diffusers. The most common medium pore diffusers are made from silica glass that has been bonded at super high temperatures. Similar diffusers are made of alumina but are less common and, in our experience, are prone to breaking. Medium pore diffusers have an average bubble size of 1-3 mm. This larger bubble size is not ideal for long-term pure oxygen/ozone/CO2 applications since the surface is not maximized, and most of the gas is lost to the atmosphere. Since pressurizing ambient air is inexpensive, the larger

bubble is acceptable in that application. Fine pore or ultra-fine pore diffusers are used for oxygen, ozone and carbon monoxide. These diffusers can require 25 to 50 psi to function properly. These diffusers are available in an array of shapes and sizes, including those with a plastic base or aluminum base, barrel and flat, and even those that can be put together in a chain to create larger diffusers with smaller ceramic pieces. Fine pore diffusers have an average bubble size of .5-2 mm, and the ultra-fine pore diffusers average 100-500 micron. The smaller bubble size makes it ideal for diffusing pure oxygen, carbon dioxide, or ozone since those are either generated on-site or brought into the farm OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

The smaller the bubble, the more

expensive the diffuser so a comparison of capital expenses and operating expenses is key to understanding the real cost of introducing gases into your system.

in pressurized vessels. This style of diffuser requires approximately 0.53 psi or 15” of equivalent water depth. The fine pore diffusers are a lower pressure alternative to the ultra-fine pore diffusers. Ultra-fine pore diffusers are made of resin-bonded ceramic plates or tubes that provide even smaller bubble sizes. Since they require 25-50 psi to function properly, they are often used in hauling trucks and smaller systems. The gas supply is either in pressurized bottles or even liquid oxygen. They are maintenance intensive since the ceramic plates are easily fouled and not so easily cleaned. They are quite literally a lifesaver when needed. For larger systems and longerterm use, most facilities employ low OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

head oxygenation systems such as speece cones or LHO’s. Both systems are very efficient at dissolving gases into water and have minimal gas losses when appropriately sized. This equipment will be covered in a future article. Other types of diffusers include aeration tubing, drilled PVC pipe, and literally anything that air can flow through. The efficiencies of the diffusion system are directly related to the bubble size so when choosing your preferred option, that must be part of the equation. Of course, the smaller the bubble, the more expensive the diffuser so a comparison of capital expenses and operating expenses is key to understanding the real cost of introducing gases into your system.

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

» 69

THE FISHMONGER

How will China impact seafood into the future? By: The fishmonger *

No country will influence seafood into the future more than China, so when a well-researched paper is made available, we need to read, learn and start considering how it will impact our businesses and countries.

70 »

hen given the opportunity for expanding business, there would be few seafood producers globally who would not take notice, so let us take a look at the paper “China at a Crossroads: An Analysis of China’s Changing Seafood Production and Consumption” written by eleven researchers covering China, Sweden, USA, Australia, Malaysia, and Canada and representing many global organisations. The paper communicates some of China’s choices and the implications for the other countries and typically calls for finite research despite highlighting that there can be little doubt that China appears to be on a trajectory toward increased seafood sourcing outside its borders. These pathways have to be considered in the context of global seafood production trends, where many countries around the world need to consider their own food security strongly. Whilst some would be facing similar limits to domestic production as China, their current solution is increasing imports; this is only feasible if production surplus exists elsewhere and nations possess the purchasing power to acquire it. We know that the world may be approaching the constraints of a finite, global, wild seafood production capacity, and the only potential increases will come from aquaculture. On trade, the report states China is already the world’s largest seafood and fishmeal importer by volume. Any increase (and they predict 2030 projections) will have implications for seafood availability and markets in the rest of the world. Of course, imports do not tell the whole story. The research states, “China’s current role in the global seafood system is primarily as a value-adding hub, with a large portion of the seafood imported merely passing through the country via various value-adding processes.” This product is then regularly exported rather OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Currently, China’s fisheries imports are not contributing significantly to domestic consumption (except for the fishmeal used for domestic aquaculture production).

than consumed within China, making China a “seafood trade giant” and explains the value-based trade surplus recorded. In fact, the document indicates that currently, China’s fisheries imports are not contributing significantly to domestic consumption (except for the fishmeal used for domestic aquaculture production). The analysis undertaken by the researchers concurs with others predicting a likely increase in imports of the commodities that are currently primarily re-exported, such as salmon and whitefish. However, increasing Chinese demand will compete with other large consumers, such as the EU and the US. Current trade data prove this. This will likely ensure that China will pull more imports from Asia as price differences between the main buying markets (EU, the US, and China) are declining, and regulations relating to anti-dumping, labor standards, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated landings are less harshly applied in China than in other major importing nations. This move will impact on the availability of supplies for other countries. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Over the last few years of tariff exchanges and import bans between China and other nations (notably the US and Norway) have impaired trade and relationships, but these developments may increase the likelihood that trade flows are redirected to China, should its demand rise. Additionally, the current pandemic has an immense impact on seafood supply chains everywhere, dwindling demand and effects on production and supply chain logistics. Consumer food safety concerns have also come to the fore in the seafood trade again, an issue particularly raised in China with a number of food products reportedly found with C-19 (but seen as unlikely by science). The long-term effects of this turmoil on seafood trade patterns are uncertain but will affect both imports and exports. The second sourcing strategy is to harvest it in your own country. The report emphasises that while current targets suggest a decline in deepwater fisheries, this mode of securing raw material may once again come to play a vital role. There is some confusion over the exact number of China’s deepwater fishery vessels. China is already estimated to account

for the biggest share of the catch in the high seas. Like many nations, its fleet is heavily subsidized. Plans to modernize the fleet could improve profitability and reduce energy use and negative climate impact. Still, the increased efficiency could also create or enhance overcapacity and threaten already dwindling stocks in other nations’ EEZs and areas beyond, which are not currently safeguarded by adequate regulation and enforcement. An increased deepwater fisheries presence would align with Chinese ambitions of increasing sea power but could damage the efforts being made to appear as a responsible global actor worthy of international leadership. Fuel prices as a result of climate change policies could also impact all deepwater fishery expansion possibilities. Much to be discussed here, and strangely, the report does not touch on the potential of increased aquaculture production. From previous reports, we have learned that there are limitations in China, but we also know that huge RAS systems are being built, and the land opportunity has great potential. So far, it’s more theoretical than profit proven, but there is a large amount of fund» 71

THE FISHMONGER

ing going into this area, so likely just a question of scale and time. The third path to sourcing food supplies is by investing in production in other countries. The China Belt and Road Initiative provides the overarching framework for this possibility, and large foreign direct investments are already deployed to this end. Chartered access to fishing grounds is discussed as another pathway projected to become more common in the future, and recent corporate attempts at acquisitions signal Chinese efforts to take control of key fish meal supplies abroad. Some of these largescale overseas investments in seafood production could arguably offer employment and development opportunities in receiving nations, but the environmental and social impacts of Chinese business practices are poorly documented and remain a topic of intense debate. Many wild stocks in the high seas and EEZs of developing countries remain poorly understood and managed, and the environmental impacts associated with intensive aquaculture in China are likely to be replicated in settings lacking strong governance to ensure social and environmental sustainability. The researchers point out that production and sourcing decisions in the Chinese fisheries and aquaculture sector are naturally influenced by specific policies for the sector, but also by larger national policy goals. Until recently, Chinese national policy was focused on pursuing economic growth, food security, and social stability. Although broadly successful, this approach has come at the expense of severe domestic environmental degradation. The response by the central government has therefore been to shift toward slower-paced, but higher-quality economic growth, considering environmental sustainability. In 2007, the Communist Party of China (CPC) announced a policy of “building an ecological civilization”—a post-industrial civilization more in balance with the environment. The “eco-civilization” policy was later enshrined as one of 72 »

the five pillars of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” in the 2018 constitution. Policy in the China seafood sector, they say, has mirrored this national-level development, as evident through the “Marine Ecological Civilization Building Policy,” announced in 2015. Whilst the Chinese political discourse has experienced a significant “greening” recently, economic development and national rejuvenation remain important sources of legitimacy for the CPC, and were the two key goals president Xi Jinping laid out in his 2017 address to the

CPC National Congress. Thus, it is important to consider these priorities in any evaluation of future seafood production and consumption scenarios. Especially relevant for an understanding of China’s role in the future global seafood system is how the growth of China’s ocean economy is promoted to offset slowed economic growth on land and as a source of new resources. The central authority has long viewed economic development as a means to ensure social stability and to help achieve the goal of a “moderately prosperous society” OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

by 2020. This policy dates back to the “reform and opening up” period instituted by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, with high growth rates in production (including food) as central features. However, blue growth would also further China’s ambition to regain its position as an international leader. The “Belt and Road” Initiative is pursued, in part, with the ambition to build China into a “maritime power.” Investments are currently being made to advance scientific and technological capabilities to contribute to the “blue economy”—another pathway to enhance China’s global prestige, and thus national rejuvenation. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

What you get from this brief review of concurrent political narratives shaping Chinese policy development is an inherent tension between economic and sustainability goals. In the coastal domain, this tension is exemplified by the trade-off between expanding sectors of the ocean economy, such as seabed mining, and their negative effect on China’s fishing and aquaculture sector’s production capacity through degradation of fishing grounds, environmental quality, or competition for space. These are the issues facing many countries, but China’s decisions will impact other countries like no other.

Trade is important, but every country should take heed of the warnings – not only from this report but also from the implications of the current virus supply chain concerns. The Fishmonger suggests that all countries should be embracing blue economy strategies and putting a heavy emphasis on seafood harvest activities/actions to ensure food security and having the best nutrition for their community’s future. *Based on the analysis of the recent publication of “China at a Crossroads: An Analysis of China’s Changing Seafood Production and Consumption” Beatrice Crona et al.

» 73

AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING

What do regulations cost Pacific Coast Shellfish Farms?

By: Jonathan van Senten, VA Seafood AREC, Virginia Tech University; Carole R. Engle, Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC; Bobbi Hudson, Pacific Shellfish Institute; Fred S. Conte, University of California, Davis *

The latest study of the farm-level costs of regulations on U.S. aquaculture has focused on Pacific Coast shellfish farms. Previous studies have measured regulatory costs on baitfish/sportfish (van Senten et al. 2017) and trout and salmon farms (Engle et al. 2019) in the U.S. It is important to understand that the underlying rationale for these studies is not to seek to eliminate all laws and regulations but rather to better understand the on-farm economic effects of the regulatory compliance burden on farms as a basis for identifying more efficient regulatory mechanisms.

74 Âť

hellfish farming is a major segment of U.S. aquaculture that differs from the previously studied segments. It is subject to coastal and marine regulatory frameworks instead of the primary freshwater regulations examined in previous studies. A comprehensive survey of shellfish farms in California, Oregon, and Washington was conducted to collect detailed information on the direct cash costs associated with the various regulatory requirements, as well as the indirect costs of personnel time spent to obtain permits and licenses and of on-going monitoring and compliance activities. The economic effects of obtaining permits were also explored in the survey. The principal economic effects of regulations on Pacific Coast shellfish farms were: 1) increased farm costs and 2) decreased farm revenue in lost sales, and lost opportunities due to regulatory actions. When asked about major challenges to their shellfish farm, 51% of survey respondents reported that regulations were the most significant challenge, followed by 11% who reported that diseases were the greatest challenge, 10% seed availability, 8% labor, and 6% markets (see Figure 1). Total direct regulatory costs were estimated to be $15.6 million annually (see Figure 2), and annual losses due to regulatory action or trade barriers were $110 million. Opportunities lost due to regulatory actions that impeded expansion and/ or diversification were estimated to be $170 million a year. The average regulatory cost was found to be $240,621 per farm and $68,936 per hectare. Regulatory costs, both the direct costs and the two categories of lost sales revenue due to regulatory requirements, were variable across states in terms of per-farm, per-hectare, and the total statewide regulatory costs measured. The greatest regulatory costs were found to be those for environmental OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Results of this study indicate that regulatory delays have constrained the ability of the shellfish sector to respond to increased demand for shellfish.

management permits and regulatory filings, followed by those associated with aquaculture permits, food safety, legal and labor standards, and interstate transportation. Overall, the costs associated with obtaining necessary permits and licenses were 45% greater than the costs associated with monitoring and compliance. However, lost sales revenue from attempts to obtain permits and licens-

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

es were 47 times greater than sales lost due to monitoring and compliance. The value of reported lost opportunities was exclusively due to delays in obtaining permits and licenses. Of the various line-item cost categories associated with obtaining licenses and permits, legal fees constituted the most significant portion of regulatory costs, followed by the workforce, sunk costs, consultants,

permits and licenses, and expert witnesses. Of the total time spent on obtaining permits and licenses, the greatest percentage (45%) was used to prepare and handle required paperwork, followed by attendance at meetings, in public relations activities, compiling the relevant science for regulatory issues, and in testifying at hearings. Of the time spent on monitoring and compliance,

Âť 75

AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING

Despite the strong demand for U.S. farmed shellfish products, the regulatory environment has constrained Pacific Coast shellfish farms’ ability to meet their products’ market demand.

38% was for record-keeping, 35% for monitoring, 33% for sampling, 30% for reporting, and 19% on attendance at meetings. Overall, direct regulatory costs accounted for 29% of total annual farm costs for Pacific Coast shellfish farms. This study also found that the regulatory cost burden was disproportionately greater on smaller farms, with the regulatory cost on the smallest farm size eight times greater than that of the next smallest farm size. This finding of greater negative effects of regulations on smaller farm sizes is similar to previous findings which indicated

that regulatory cost compliance is a substantial barrier, and constraint, to small-scale aquaculture farms (van Senten et al. 2017, Engle et al. 2019). Results of this study indicate that regulatory delays have constrained the ability of the shellfish sector to respond to increased demand for shellfish. It is important to note that the problems lie not so much in the laws themselves, but in the complex nature of the rule development processes by multiple local, state, and federal agencies and the subsequent interpretation of those rules by inspectors, permit writers, and others.

Furthermore, the permit approval process’s sequential nature contributes to the length of permitting delays for shellfish farmers. Pacific Coast shellfish farms surveyed in this study were found to face substantial adverse economic effects from regulatory frameworks. Streamlining permitting processes to reduce the time required to obtain permits would reduce negative effects on farms. Despite the strong demand for U.S. farmed shellfish products, the regulatory environment has constrained Pacific Coast shellfish farms’ ability to meet their products’ market demand.

This article is a brief summary of a recently published scientific article: van Senten, J., C.R. Engle, B. Hudson, and F.S. Conte. 2020. Regulatory costs on Pacific coast shellfish farms. Aquaculture Economics & Management. The full version of the original article can be accessed through: doi.org/10.1080/1365730 5.2020.1781293/ References cited by the authors available under previous request to our editorial team.

76 »

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Â» 77

DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MARKETING BYTES

Six Mistakes to Avoid in Social Media Marketing By: Sarah Cornelisse*

Marketing your business and products through social media can be

powerful; social media allows you to connect with consumers where and when they want. And while social media is often touted as free, it is anything but. This article enlists errors that could prevent a good outcome with digital marketing efforts.

uccess with social media marketing requires planning, effort, execution, and assessment, all of which demands that you invest your time, which is definitely worth something. Ensure that you get the most from your effort by avoiding these errors.

Lack of Value Why should consumers follow your business on social media? Consumers are connected with family, friends, local organizations (such as their child’s school or their church), charitable organizations, and so forth. With the plethora of options that people have for pages to follow on social media; this is the question that you must answer through the content that you post and share. If social media marketing is new for you, first take the time to develop a strategy for how you will implement these platforms. Penn State Extension offers “A Guide to Developing a Social 78 »

Media Strategy for Ag Entrepreneurs” that you can use to guide you in this. While you will have your goals and objectives for your social media marketing efforts, consumers have their own motivations for following a business. In addition to learning about new products and services, company news, and discounts, consumers are also looking to be entertained, inspired, and to connect with others with similar interests. Figure out what your followers value and give it to them. For some, it could be videos demonstrating how to use a product while others may value a discussion on production or operating practices. Determining what your followers value will take time, but the return is incredibly valuable to you through increased customer loyalty and sales revenue.

Irregular Posting Consistent posting is crucial to generating a following, providing opportunity for engagement, and providing

the value that consumers desire. While the optimal frequency for posting varies across platforms and will also vary by individual business and industry type, aim to post once a day 3-5 days per week. You can increase your posting frequency if you’re using Twitter or the stories feature on Facebook and Instagram. To assist with consistent posting, you can utilize scheduling tools. Facebook and Twitter both have post scheduling features. There are also third-party social media management tools such as Hootsuite, Buffer, and MeetEdgar. One pitfall to scheduled posting is when a post’s tone doesn’t align with the current environment – picture such as a light-hearted post being shared shortly after a significant natural disaster has occurred. For this reason, even when scheduling posts, you should ensure that you have access to your profiles to prevent posts from being released in these types of situations. OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

With the plethora of options that people have for pages to follow on social media; this is the question that you must answer through the content that you post and share: why should consumers follow your business on social media?

Lack of Engagement Social media is intended to promote connections and engagement. Many consumers place great value on the ability that social media affords to engage with businesses that they purchase from. Some actions you can take to initiate engagement include asking questions, launching polls, or inviting followers to share with you. Initiating engagement is only half of the job, however. You must also be responsive when consumers initiate engagement with you. If you are direct marketing, responsiveness is crucial to the customer experience. According to research, businesses that do not engage with their customers online are more likely to lose OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

them to accessible online businesses. In addition, fairly quick responses are expected by consumers, with 80% expecting a response within 24 hours and 42% expecting a response within one hour.

Not Assessing Effectiveness All of the major social media platforms offer some degree of analytic information for business profiles. Upon reaching a minimum threshold number of followers, you can get basic post engagement data (number of likes, shares, comments) and follower information (gender, age, location). The focus of social media strategy success is initially often based upon this quantitative data. However, how valuable is having

5,000 followers if only a handful are engaging with you? Instead, you may find greater value through cultivating a smaller follower group that is highly engaged by providing feedback to posts or sharing your content with their networks. When assessing effectiveness, give more weight to qualitative aspects of engagement, such as comment context and sentiment. For example, are you posting content intended to be humorous, yet itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eliciting negative reactions? Or are you publishing content that resonates with your social community as shown through positive reactions and comments? Try to identify themes in the comments or replies and use this information to guide your future post activity. Âť 79

DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MARKETING BYTES

Many consumers place great value on the ability that social media affords to engage with businesses that they purchase from. Some actions you can take to initiate engagement include asking questions, launching polls, or inviting followers to share with you.

Not Evolving Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, or any of the other social media platforms, they all evolve. The Facebook of today is not the Facebook of 2008, and as a result, how you use each platform must evolve as well. If you have a presence on Facebook, have you tried using Facebook Live? Are you posting stories on Facebook and Instagram? Whatever social media platform(s) you use, it’s important to stay current on the available features offered and trends in how the platforms are being used. Inappropriate Content and/or Vulgarity Most consumers don’t expect to be on the receiving end of inappropriate content of vulgarity when interacting with businesses; even those who are comfortable with it in their personal lives. Simply put, don’t turn off consumers or business associated with colorful language or questionable content. 80 »

Bonus Mistake: Being Overly Political During election years, when political discussions and news are at the forefront of daily lives, it’s key to remember that emotions can run high. When it comes to politics or public issues, assess and approach each situation with your eyes wide open and understand that speaking or not speaking out can come with consequences that you have to be willing to accept. As an example, a farm initially avoided taking a public position regarding land development in their community since tensions between the two sides were high, but the farm ultimately decided to take the approach of explaining to their social media community how the development would impact their business. While not directly taking a position on the issue, sharing how the development would impact them allowed community members to factor this additional information into their personal decision-making process prior to the final decision being made.

Social media can be a key tool in your marketing toolbox when used to its full potential. Through planning and commitment, you can avoid these pitfalls while strengthening the ties with your social media community.

*Sarah Cornelisse is a Senior Extension Associate of agricultural entrepreneurship and business management at Penn State University in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education. Sarah has expertise in direct marketing, valueadded dairy entrepreneurship and marketing, the use of digital and social media for agricultural farm and food business marketing, and business and marketing planning and decision making. Originally from New York State, she has a B.A in mathematics from the State University of New York at Geneseo, and M.S. degrees in Agricultural Economics and Animal Science, both from Penn State University. Correspondence email: sar243@psu.edu

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Ineffectiveness of OIE oversight

There can be no sustainable aquaculture without pathogen control.

Members of the OIE are ethically obligated as a condition of their membership to submit relevant disease outbreak information in a timely and open manner. Still, shrimp pathogensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; movement across international borders has caused billions of dollars of losses to regional economies.

By: Ph.D Stephen G. Newman*

or three decades now I have been working with the international shrimp farming community. Prior to that I worked largely with farmed salmonids. My doctoral thesis identified the role of plasmid in the virulence of a vibrio species that affects many aquatic animals. All animals have problems with diseases. The absence of disease is not natural; in fact, disease is a natural process that is an element of the recycling that all life is a part of. The impact of the diseases affected aquaculture is not inconsequential. Controlling diseases through treatment of infected animals is much more challenging than prevention is in many instances. For most terrestrial agriculture vaccines are an important tool for this. Fish can be immunized and are routinely. Shrimp cannot be. Their immune systems have no memory function and they do not form antibodies. The most powerful tool available is to prohibit the movement of stocks carrying any pathogen into areas where these pathogens are not already endemic. Did you know that there is no AHPNS in Mexico? Or in India? And many other countries where it is endemic. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) was founded OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

as an independent inter-governmental international organization in 1924 well before the United Nations came into existence. Its role is simple, to ensure that global agriculture is protected against domestic and international transmission of infectious diseases with the potential for seri-

ous impacts. If it was effective, in theory, many diseases that have the potential to cause significant economic damage would be contained as soon as they were observed. This is a noble concept, but it turns out that it is largely impractical at least for shrimp farming.

Âť 81

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Focusing on farmed shrimp, typically when a disease is first discovered there are a series of steps that must be taken to establish that it is indeed due to a primary pathogen. The pathogen must be able to reproduce a specific disease when administered in pure culture. Typically, the portal of entry into the animals should be similar or identical to that of the pathogen in the environment. A pathogen that only kills when

Many companies believe that they only need to test broodstock/ nauplii/ PLs for the listed diseases and all too often sell animals as SPF when they could easily contain any number of other potentially serious pathogens.

82 Âť

injected would not be considered an obligate pathogen unless it was endemic. The pathogen must be isolated and then used to re-infect animals with the same end result. The DNA or RNA sequence must be determined so that a reliable and specific gene-based tool can be used to corroborate the presence of the pathogen when animals are tested. At the same time as much information as can be readily gleaned about where the pathogen is in the environment, what carriers there may be, how infectious it is, etcetera is critical to understanding what one is dealing with. Once the pathogen has been characterized there is a process that allows for to be eventually added to the list of pathogens that OIE states are of serious concern. Unfortunately, this process is, much as with many things of this nature, convoluted and quite slow. It can take years from the time that a pathogen is first reported until it is listed. This is a huge loophole that must be plugged. Members of the OIE are ethically obligated as a condition of

their membership to submit relevant disease outbreak information in a timely and open manner. There are nine listed diseases for crustaceans, eight of which are for fresh and saltwater shrimp. The OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code 2019 (http:// www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/aquatic-code/accessonline/) details what actions importing and exporting countries should take to comply. These are intended to prevent the movement of these pathogens into countries where they are not already present. The listed crustacean diseases include AHPNS, NHP, WSSV, TSV, YHV (I), IMNV, IHHNV and the nodavirus that causes white tail disease in M. rosenâ&#x20AC;&#x2018; bergii. The list does not (yet) include EHP, DIV1, any other YHV variant aside from Type I, LSNV, HPV, MBV, GAV or MOV and a myriad of other viral and bacterial pathogens that are known to cause serious losses in farmed shrimp. Many companies believe that they only need to test broodstock/ nauplii/ PLs for the listed diseases and all too often sell animals as SPF when they could OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

easily contain any number of other potentially serious pathogens. The movement of shrimp pathogens across international borders has caused billions of dollars of losses to regional economies. A notable example is of the White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV). Shrimp from Pakistan were rejected entry into the original country intending to import them and were subsequently reprocessed with the effluent from the plant entering untreated into the Gulf of Fonseca ecosystem. This ecosystem is central to the shrimp farming industries of Nicaragua and Honduras. The contamination of this ecosystem with the WSSV virus and the subsequent movement of infected animals spread the virus. The virus is now endemic in most areas in the Americas. As new diseases appear, an inevitable consequence of traditional farming practices, it is imperative that countries that are affected take responsibility and share this information with the international community. Waiting till the pathogen has spread accomplishes little in the long run. One of the recent additions to the Aquatic Health code is the etiologic agent of AHPNS, a strain of Vibrio parahaemolyticus that contains a plasmid borne toxin complex (Pir A and

As new diseases appear, an inevitable consequence of traditional farming practices, it is imperative that countries that are affected take responsibility and share this information with the international community.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Pir B) that is responsible for the observed pathology. This plasmid has spread to several other vibrio strains and there is a good chance that it can move into non-vibrios species as well. To this day, there are instances where OIE has not been notified of its presence. The government denies its presence while researchers document it and farmers suffer from it presence. This has resulted in wide ranging adverse impacts that would not have occurred had the disease been reported as OIE requires. Recognizing that this can be a double-edged sword, responsible governments look to their scientists and animal health professionals to develop sensible approaches to containment where required and eradication where possible in order to mitigate some of the risks. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Almost every major shrimp producing nation is not revealing the extent of specific pathogens as their ethical obligations to OIE require. Failure to comply with these ethical obligations could eventually force draconian approaches towards control of the movement of pathogens impacting the movement of farmed shrimp in the final market ready form as well as seed stocks and many of the important tools that are elements of production. When countries are dependent on exports, protectionist policies may override concerns about pathogen movement. To some extent this is understandable when the presence of notifiable pathogens might limit the movement of consumer ready product into markets where these pathogens have not (yet) been reported. It is unfortunate that this fear has resulted in examples where the presence of a notifiable pathogen is common knowledge but not officially recognized by the government competent authorities. The perceived need to protect a local industry at the expense of others who would be buying animals that are carrying OIE notifiable (and for

that matter any of the characterized pathogens) has caused untold amounts of suffering and economic damage. This persists. While aquaculture is being actively promoted, hiding the presence of OIE pathogens is little more than hypocrisy and these actions strongly suggests that the concerns about aquaculture and the economic damage from preventable disease are words. Their actions speak loudly. They do not care about the sustainability of aquaculture by their very actions. This is unfortunately compounded by any number of NGOs who tout themselves as being the standard bearers for sustainability. Most of them know what is going on and choose to look the other way. There can be no sustainable aquaculture without pathogen control. The OIE has no teeth. They need to be able to police this, levying large fines for non-compliance and ensuring that those who choose to risk the livelihoods of others face the consequences. Unfortunately there is no will to change this and those who have the greatest to lose are often those who refuse to acknowledge the presence of specific disease causing pathogens.

Stephen G. Newman has a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree from the University of Maryland in Conservation and Resource Management (ecology) and a Ph.D. from the University of Miami, in Marine Microbiology. He has over 40 years of experience working within a range of topics and approaches on aquaculture such as water quality, animal health, biosecurity with special focus on shrimp and salmonids. He founded Aquaintech in 1996 and continues to be CEO of this company to the present day. It is heavily focused on providing consulting services around the world on microbial technologies and biosecurity issues. sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com www.aqua-in-tech.com www.bioremediationaquaculture.com www.sustainablegreenaquaculture.com

Âť 83

Upcoming

aquaculture events

NOVEMBER 2020 AQUAEXPO GUAYAQUIL Nov. 24 – Nov. 26 Guayaquil, Ecuador T: (+593) 4 268 3017 - 268 2617 - 268 2635 E: cna@cna-ecuador.com W: https://www.cna-ecuador.com/aquaexpo/

APRIL 2021 AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2021 Apr. 12 – Apr. 15 Cork, Ireland T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

AUGUST 2021 WORLD SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 2021 Aug. 25 – Aug. 27 Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com

JANUARY 2021 6TH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ON SHRIMP FARMING 2021 (VIRTUAL EVENT) Jan. 26 – Jan. 29 T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com

15° FIACUI – INTERNATIONAL AQUACULTURE FORUM Apr. 21 – Apr. 22 Chiapas, Mexico T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com

SEPTEMBER 2021 WAS NORTH AMERICA & AQUACULTURE CANADA 2021 Sep. 26 – Sep. 29 St John’s Newfoundland, Canada T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

MARCH 2021 AQUASUR 2020 Mar. 03 – Mar. 05 Puerto Montt, Chile E: info@aqua-sur.cl W: www.aqua-sur.cl LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN AQUACULTURE 2021 Mar. 22 – Mar. 25 Guayaquil, Ecuador T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

MAY 2021 3rd. INTERNATIONAL MARICULTURE SYMPOSIUM May. 20 – May. 21 La Paz, Mexico T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com JUNE 2021 WORLD AQUACULTURE 2020 Jun. 14 – Jun. 18 Singapore, Singapore T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

NOVEMBER 2021 RASTECH 2021 Nov. 3 – Nov. 4 South Carolina, USA. T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.ras-tec.com WORLD AQUACULTURE 2021 Nov. 15 – Nov. 19 Merida, Mexico T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org

advertisers Index

AERATION EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, FILTERS AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, ETC AQUATIC EQUIPMENT AND DESIGN, INC.....................................27 522 S. HUNT CLUB BLVD, #416, APOPKA, FL 32703. USA. Contact: Amy Stone T: (407) 717-6174 E-mail: amy@aquaticed.com DELTA HYDRONICS LLC...............................................................13 T: 727 861 2421 www.deltahydro.com FRESH FLO....................................................................................7 3037 Weeden Creek Rd. Sheboygan, WI 53081, USA Contact: Barb Ziegelbauer T: 800 493 3040 E-mail: barb@freshflo.com www.freshflo.com ANTIBIOTICS, PROBIOTICS AND FEED ADDITIVES MEGASSUPPLY............................................................................33 USA, Europe, South America, Asia y Middle East. Tel.: +1 (786) 221 5660 Fax: +1 (786) 524 0208 www.megasupply.net EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS 6TH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ON SHRIMP FARMING 2021..................................................INSIDE COVER January 28 – 29, 2021. Cd. Obregón, Sonora, Mexico. T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2021 SAN ANTONIO..............................5 February 21 - 24, 2021.San Antonio Texas, USA. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2020.....................................................21 April, 12 - 15, 2021. Cork, Ireland. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 www.aquaeas.eu

84 »

AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2021.....................................................21 October, 4 - 7, 2021. Madeira, Portugal. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 www.aquaeas.eu AQUAEXPO GUAYAQUIL 2020..............................................19 November 24 - 26, 2020. Guayaquil, Ecuador. E-mail: aquaexpoec@cna-ecuador.com GUATEMALA AQUALCULTURE SYMPOSIUM 2021....................................................................31 Cooming Soon, 2021. Santo Domingo del Cerro, La Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala. E: simposiodeacuiculturagt@agexport.org.gt W: www.simposio.acuiculturaypescaenguatemala.com LAQUA 2020................................................................................15 March, 22 - 25, 2021. Guayaquil, Ecuador. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org WORLD AQUACULTURE 2021......................................................61 November, 15 - 19, 2021. Mérida, Mexico. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org INFORMATION SERVICES

PANORAMA ACUÍCOLA MAGAZINE Empresarios No. #135 Int. Piso 7 Oficina 723 Col. Puerta de Hierro, C.P.45116 Zapopan, Jal. México Office: +52 (33) 8000 0578 Contact 1: Subscriptions E-mail: suscripciones@panoramaacuicola.com Office: +52 (33) 8000 0629 y (33) 8000 0653 Contact 2: Juan Carlos Elizalde, Sales & Marketing Coordinator. crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392 Contact 3: Claudia Marín, Sales Support Expert E-mail: sse@dpinternationalinc.com www.panoramaacuicola.com

AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE...................77, INSIDE BACK COVER, BACK COVER 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 Sales & Marketing Coordinator. Juan Carlos Elizalde crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392 Sales Support Expert, Claudia Marín sse@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell:+521 333 968 8515 AQUAFEED.COM..........................................................................65 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com AQUA IN TECH, INC......................................................................11 6722 162nd Place SW, Lynnwood, WA, USA. Contact: Stephen Newman. T: (+1) 425 787 5218 E-mail: sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com TANKS AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE REEF INDUSTRIES....................................................................9 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

OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2020

Aquaculture Magazine October-November 2020 Vol. 46 No. 5

Articles inside

Socio-economic impacts of Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on world shrimp aquaculture sector