Fishfarming, Aquaculture Consulting, Aquaculture Articles, Aquaculture Consultants, Fisheries News

High-Performance Aquaculture, Fish Farming, and Fisheries Services
Offering Sustainability, Profitability, and Excellence...since 1982

Be sure to visit our Start Here, Background, and Services pages.

Articles/Blogs

Fisheries Technology Associates is a world leader in aquaculture, fish farming, fish culture, and fisheries management consulting services. For more than 28 years we have delivered the quality of service and experience that our clients expect and deserve.
Articles/Blogs

Articles and Blogs

April '10, Fish Farming News--Fish oil replacement: palm oil may not be the answer

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

Some soul-searching may be required as we look for new and better ways to replace fish oil in fish feeds. Recent research from Malaysia makes me a bit nervous, and more than a bit concerned about our priorities.

I read an article that suggests using palm oil as a substitute for fish oil in fish diets. The rationale for this change is four-pronged.

First, fish oil supplies are finite and increasingly expensive as overall demand grows. We must therefore find substitutes and alternatives that are more sustainable and economically viable.

Second, palm oil supply is relatively abundant, and its production is supported by a vast and growing infrastructure. More palm oil is produced in the world than soybean oil!

Third, palm oil is much more chemically stable over time than fish oil. At 30 weeks, frozen tilapia fillets were dramatically less rancid and—not surprisingly—tasted better than fillets from fish oil-fed tilapia.

Finally, palm oil appears to work well technically as a replacement for fish oil. The Malaysian research suggests that palm-based feeds produce tilapia just as quickly and efficiently.

The pluses here are very attractive, particularly for fillets that are frozen for up to 30 weeks. As frozen fish fillets age, fats within the fillets oxidize and become rancid—a serious problem in taste and nutrition. As much as 96 percent of this oxidation can be eliminated by using palm oil as a replacement.

All of this would be great, expect for one “small” point. Unlike fish oil, palm oil is a very poor source of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids and an abundant source of artery-clogging saturated fatty acids. To be specific, tilapia fed a palm oil diet contain less than a third of the omega-3s as compared to fish oil-fed tilapia, and significantly higher levels of saturated fats.

Here is my concern. We are already beaten up-side the head repeatedly by our detractors who claim that aquacultured fish are less nutritious than wild-caught alternatives (never mind their environmental arguments!). Do we really want to add fuel to that fire by degrading the nutritional quality of our fish by replacing fish oil with palm oil?

NO! Our critics will have a field day! I can see it now. They write, “Not only have these conscienceless aquaculturists reduced the omega-3 content, but they have dramatically increased the saturated fat content too!”

There is a socio-economic consideration here as well. I am convinced that fish producers whose sole purpose is to produce the least expensive and most freezer-stable fish fillets possible will adopt this new nutritional approach. When this happens, their products will be cheap to buy and therefore most attractive to those people in the lowest economic strata of our society. Do you see where I’m heading with this?

We will be accused of profiteering, and exploiting the most economically disadvantaged of our society through products that are not only less nutritious, but actually degrade their health. Do we want the nutritional equivalent of a McDonald’s label? I don’t think so.

At the same time, those consumers who can afford higher quality will continue to buy fresh fish fillets only. In all likelihood, the producers of these never-frozen fillets will avoid the palm oil diets (unless they want to practice business suicide) and produce nutritionally superior fillets by using healthier fish oil alternatives.

Let’s not give aquaculture naysayers more fodder for their cannons! Let’s not be accused of socio-economic injustice. Instead, let’s focus on fish oil alternatives that avoid these pitfalls. We already know that fish oil alternatives based on marine algae and select terrestrial plants will provide many of the technical and economic benefits without the downside. They are on the market today and available to feed manufacturers.

In the meantime, I challenge the research community to develop better shelf-life solutions. Unless there is a magic remedy for high levels of saturated fats and low omega-3s in palm oil, we must avoid the temptation and its use. Clearly, this is a case where the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

January '10, Fish Farming News--Small-scale aquaculture begins to grow “green shoots”

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

By its very nature and almost by definition, aquaculture has always been about innovation. It’s been around far less time than terrestrial agriculture so there are more things to try and new ways to approach recently spawned ideas.

In the not-too-distant past, small-scale or backyard aquaculture seemed to be ahead of its time. It was talked and written about a lot, but many people (certainly not all) dismissed it as impractical or “on the fringe.”

With the advent of the Green Revolution, small-scale aquaculture is rapidly gaining in popularity. For many, it’s becoming less acceptable to buy food from, and patronize, producers halfway around the world. The so-called carbon footprint to transport those goods—the amount of energy required and carbon dioxide emitted in the process—is unacceptably high.

Additionally, we are becoming increasingly skeptical that conventional farms can provide us with healthy and high-quality produce.

Instead, carbon-conscious consumers want to rely more on locally grown food. In many ways, that’s a worthy goal. They also want to feel good about the food they eat and crave more of a connection and responsibility for its production and quality—hence, the backyard boom. The problem is that most of us live in cities.

Local politicians in many locales are getting a message from their constituents that what was once old is new again. More and more people want their food grown locally.

As an example, I live in a city—Fort Collins, Colorado—that allows the possession and maintenance of a maximum of six hens (no roosters—too much noise) within the city limits. This allows people to own laying hens for egg production. As the familiar saying goes, some restrictions apply.

Some cities are considering or have already granted similar leniency for small-scale aquaculture. A small, backyard greenhouse can be the perfect location for a recirculating aquaculture system and adjacent wastewater-supported plant production. While the feasibility of this concept is very much predicated on a careful case-by-case assessment, the overall practicality is still questionable, just as it was many decades ago.

By almost any measure, small production operations are less efficient than larger operations that can take advantage of economies of scale. The real cost of small-scale production is almost always much higher, particularly when labor costs are assessed and included in an objective way.

Here is a situation where, I believe, we can have our cake and eat it too.

I have become very much an advocate for aquaculture cooperatives. Just as other segments of agriculture have had success with cooperatives, we can have success here too—particularly as the concept might apply to small-scale aquaculture.

When small-scale producers band together to form a cooperative, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Here are a few of the advantages.

· Members can receive significant discounts on feed because it is purchased in quantities that would otherwise not be possible.

· The cooperative can supply fingerling fish to its members and supply them reliably and at stable and reasonable prices.

· The cooperative can act as a clearinghouse for market-size fish and negotiate optimum prices for its members.

· Members can focus on production and worry less about supplies of small fish and markets for large fish.

· The cooperative can be a source of technical expertise, advice, and other support at reduced cost or no cost.

· Members necessarily participate in the profits accumulated by the cooperative, which can be an important additional source of member income.

Please do understand that cooperatives are not a panacea. A cooperative is a business and must be run like one, and by people who have the discipline to make it succeed. Specific regulations apply to cooperatives so the relationship must not be entered into lightly. Experienced legal help is required to form a cooperative and manage it correctly.

Agricultural cooperatives have worked well for many decades. If small-scale aquaculture and local food production are your cup of tea, consider membership in a cooperative or forming a cooperative to minimize your technical risk and maximize your financial return.

August '09, Fish Farming News--Current trends point to the future of aquaculture

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

I recently had the privilege of speaking at a recirculating aquaculture system workshop in Bayfield, Wisconsin. I am originally from Wisconsin, so it was an opportunity to reconnect with some folks that I had not seen in a long time. But it was also a chance to present to a group my vision of trends for the future of aquaculture.

As we all know, the pace of aquaculture development around the world is quickening. While many people appreciate the benefits of aquaculture, there are also those who view it in quite a different light. As with most things in life, these differences are inevitable.

Aquaculture has not developed in a vacuum, and has been influenced by a number of issues and factors. Not the least of which are economic globalization, increasing world population, shifting demographics, and a myriad other factors and forces.

All of these factors combined have pointed aquaculture in a direction and given it a complexion that can be characterized by all of these terms. Make no mistake. Here are the “buzz words” that will rule your future:

Automation—Just as any other business, aquaculture is sensitive to costs, with labor costs at or near the top of the “hit parade.” Labor costs are driving the development of technologies to reduce human inputs.

Move offshore—Improvements in submerged open-water net pen systems will allow producers of marine fishes to avoid storms, shipping, coastal pollution, and NIMBY (Not in my backyard!).

RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture Systems)—These systems have been with us for awhile. But as water supplies and open land become more scarce and expensive, and as we seek more control over product quality and biosecurity to avoid disease transmission and terrorism, recirculating aquaculture systems will play a more significant role in aquaculture’s future.

Consolidation—In aquaculture, size matters. Consolidation (i.e., getting bigger) can stabilize cash flow, eliminate seasonal variation, access more diverse markets, vertically integrate profit centers, and allow owners to enjoy economies of scale that reduce costs and increase bottom-line profits.

Alternative protein sources for feeds—Fishmeal and fish oil are becoming obsolete and will be slowly phased out of fish feed. They will be replaced with lower-cost, sustainable, and organic ingredients such as algal-based proteins and oils, and other plant-based ingredients. This shift is occurring “as we speak.” Fishmeal and fish oil are too expensive, too volatile in price, too variable in terms of quality, and incapable of being labeled “organic” indefinitely. Fish feed proteins and oils will come from farms and quality controlled production facilities.

Artificial selection and GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms)—Future fish stocks will display faster growth, better feed conversion, disease resistance, and lower feed costs—all without drugs. The term “GMO” is problematic for some consumers, but genes for cold tolerance in salmon, growth genes in catfish and salmon, and disease resistance in hybrid striped bass and shrimp will help us produce more healthy fish for an expanding market.

Third-party certification and BAP’s (Best Aquaculture Practices)—All future fish farms will be certified by an independent third party. The Aquaculture Certification Council and other similar organizations are leading the way. They will ensure that we minimize the use of drugs and chemicals, escape from our facilities, and will guarantee minimal environmental impacts. Your customers will insist on this “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”

HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point)—Traceability from feed to plate (not just processing) means there will be no guessing when someone gets sick from eating wild or aquacultured products. RFID tags in and on boxes and containers will quickly and surely point to culprits.

Immunostimulants and probiotics—Fish feeds already contain ingredients to maintain and improve the health of our fish. Beta-glucans, vitamins C and E, nucleotides, beneficial bacteria, and yeasts are just of few of the innovations we see today and will see in the future.

Low-pollution feeds—Feeds will contain just enough phosphorus to keep our fish healthy, or phosphorus will be “packaged” in more bio-available forms to enhance absorption and reduce impacts in fish farm outfalls.

Nutraceuticals and omega-3 fats—Foods that provide medical or health benefits, including treatment or prevention of disease, are termed nutraceuticals. Fish will be viewed less as food than a vehicle for the delivery of high-quality nutrients, such as heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, to our bodies. We are finally getting the message that fish are good for us. Between you and me, I plan to continue to view fish as a great way to enjoy a meal!

The future of aquaculture has yet to be written. But I have no doubt that it will look a lot as I described.

February '09, Fish Farming News--Aquaculture could play key role in new administration

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

One of my roles as a columnist is to stimulate thinking in as many readers as possible. I obviously want you to read my column (otherwise, I wouldn’t bother writing it). But I can only do this if I have your attention and display at least a modicum of impartiality.

There are several ways to gain your attention but taking sides politically is not one of them. In fact I have concluded over the years that the best way to lose a reader is to profess a political persuasion. One way or another, I am bound to alienate someone. So, I never discuss my political biases, and I certainly do not overtly express my preferences—Republican or Democrat.

So, with that in mind, I want to first tell you that I offer my comments below in the spirit of political neutrality. Some of you may view them as leaning one way or another, but that is not my intent. As an American I simply want what I feel is best for our country, regardless of the political party in power.

For those of you mentally clamoring “Come on, Manci, just tell us who you voted for!,” I will leave that reality to your imagination (and you probably will guess incorrectly).

With the election season and another year behind us, we begin 2009 afresh with a new president and new administration. While economic conditions in the U.S. are the worst we have experienced in many decades, they focused the electorate on change in a way that might not have otherwise been possible.

For better or worse, change is in the air, and I sense a real opportunity for us as a society to make some real international diplomatic hay. My feeling is that nations all over the world are willing to re-evaluate the U.S. in light of our new president. Quite simply, we have their ear, and they definitely are listening!

Undoubtedly, there will be many factors upon which we as Americans and the administration that leads us will be judged. Our stance on trade and business, energy use and alternative sources, global political and economic security, human rights and justice, and many other issues will all be fodder for discussion and the basis on which new international opinions will be formed.

When it comes to issues of security, military leaders know well that the hardest part of most battles is not the physical confrontation. It is, instead, winning the hearts and minds of your adversaries or those bystanders and other stakeholders who ultimately hold sway over the situation in the long term.

This explains why the U.S. military in Iraq is working hard to rebuild the devastated infrastructure within the country, including, as I recently read, providing expertise in aquaculture and other segments of the agricultural economy.

As the saying goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

Aquaculture can and must be one of the tools we use to gain and regain the trust and respect we need to be a leader in the world of nations.

To our credit, aquaculture has been a part of the Peace Corp almost from its inception during the Kennedy administration. Generations of people on both sides (the volunteers and the recipients in countless countries) have now participated in this effort and have benefited in untold ways.

As a result of these programs and efforts, Americans are viewed in a different and very positive light by people who might otherwise view us with distrust or even animosity.

There are few things more instinctive and basic than food. The Obama administration has before it an amazing opportunity for changing and reforming attitudes that they must not squander. What better way to implement that change in politically and economically unstable regions than through efforts to increase food security using aquaculture.

Giving away food is fine. But let’s “teach a man to fish.” Let’s use aquaculture technology transfer through both public-sector and private-sector channels, and reap the multitude of rewards that long-term food stability can offer.

I urge the new administration to take a close look at what aquaculture can do to alleviate political tensions around the world and contribute to the economic and food security of the recipients. Ultimately, our actions will contribute to our own security and stability here at home.

September '08, Fish Farming News--Aquaculture continues fight for place at the “conservation table”

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

I will make a wild guess and say that most readers of this publication consider themselves conservationists—or maybe are environmentally minded, owing to your chosen profession of aquaculture. I make this assumption because, as we all know, environmental conservation and aquaculture go hand in hand.

So, to me it seems perfectly reasonable for six Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited chapters to operate fish hatcheries and stock local waters for the benefit of their members. I admit I was unaware of this level of commitment to their membership, and applaud these efforts.

Then, imagine my surprise when I read that Ken Undercoffer, Pennsylvania’s Trout Unlimited council president, was cited as saying Trout Unlimited is “not in the hatchery trout business,” but “in the conservation business, and stocking fish is not conservation.”

I am sure that the current state of the fish hatchery world as proclaimed by Mr. Undercoffer comes as a huge shock to all of the federal and state agencies and private fish producers engaged in the stocking of public and private waters, particularly those facilities that raise and stock native fishes.

Let’s go right to the heart of this matter. The root of Mr. Undercoffer’s argument is genetic purity and the pursuit of “wild” fish. He wants fishermen to catch native fish in native waters and in native habitats under appropriate and sustainable amounts of fishing pressure, without any help from less-than-perfect fish hatcheries and hatchery-raised fish.

This aspiration and idealism is admirable—it truly is—but is also totally unrealistic. More to my point, Mr. Undercoffer’s statement completely trivializes the role of aquaculture in resource conservation. Whether he admits it or not, hatchery-raised fish relieve pressure on wild populations. Without hatcheries, wild fish populations would be in much worse shape than they are today. In fact, many wild populations might have been completely wiped out many decades ago. Hatcheries are an important and integral part of fish conservation.

In an ideal world of our own making, fishermen would enjoy the type of experience I described above. But reality is far from the ideal, and has been for well over 100 years. In many cases, native populations have been overwhelmed by more aggressive exotic species. I’m not saying it’s right, and we absolutely must become much less cavalier about stocking non-native species. I am in agreement with Mr. Undercoffer on this issue.

Compounding the problem, human activities have deteriorated or eliminated many native habitats, much to the chagrin of many people, including myself.

More and more people are avid fishermen. Wild fish are hopelessly outnumbered by enthusiastic sportsmen, and the only way to meet demand for a satisfying fishing experience is to supplement wild populations (albeit in non-critical habitat locations and away from truly wild fish) with hatchery-raised surrogates.

Undoubtedly, there are hazards in doing so. Hatchery managers are far from perfect in selecting species and broodstock and stocking offspring that represent the best in evolutionary progression and behavioral characteristics of their native and wild counterparts. This will change and improve over time as our understanding of fish genetics and hatchery management techniques improves.

With that in mind though, we must also realize that misconceptions about aquaculture abound. Fisheries research scientist Todd Pearsons in a recent essay in Fisheries magazine developed a list of misconceptions, realities, and uncertainties pertaining to interactions between hatchery-raised and wild fish. Pearsons put forth an interesting philosophy: “My goal is to provide evidence to question the veracity of a misconception so that the burden of proof for acceptance of a misconception is shifted to the proponent of the misconception.”

The misconception here is that hatcheries are totally without merit with respect to wild fish conservation and always detrimental to the effort. Evidence to the contrary abounds.

I challenge people such as Ken Undercoffer to examine their belief system with a more critical, objective, and pragmatic eye. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect and ideal world. Instead, we must rely on common sense and pragmatism as we navigate our less-than-perfect system.

In today’s world of competing interests and priorities, fisheries conservation and environmental stewardship must be less about pursuit of “the ideal.” Why? Because we cannot turn back the clock—back to a time when human impacts and human demands on resources were much less significant or nonexistent. We can, however, work to minimize the human footprint and ecological impacts. Aquaculture can and should be part of the fisheries conservation and environmental stewardship ethic.

I wholeheartedly support careful, thoughtful, and science-based fish population management, supplementation, enhancement, and habitat restoration as part of an overall strategy to maintain the wild habitats and populations we currently enjoy, and whenever possible restore at least a modicum of their previous glory.

With today’s and tomorrow’s hatchery-based technologies, we can achieve our goals in ways that preserve and remain faithful to the genetic and ecological heritage that we seek to protect.

July '08, Fish Farming News--Aquaculture caught in an energy/feed squeeze

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

In my last column, I talked about seminal moments—those events in history that are highly unusual and can dictate the direction of our future. As an industry—indeed as a society—we are faced with another of these moments in time.

Actually, I must correct myself. Rather than a moment, we are faced with a new era. The era of cheap fossil-fuel energy and commodities is now behind us, and we enter a new and challenging transitional phase in which we must shift to alternatives.

The cover of the June, 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine trumpeted the change—“The End of Cheap Oil”—and that was four years ago.

Our world has experienced an unprecedented period of growth over the past one to two decades. This growth has been characterized by growth in human population, growth in trade and free enterprise, growth in communications, and growth in standards of living.

While we in the U.S. have come to take this lifestyle for granted, other parts of the world with far greater numbers of people are experiencing this way of life for the first time.

Far be it from me to deny these upstarts the way of life I have enjoyed since birth. But I must conclude—based on the recent spasms in the energy and commodity markets—that the world simply is not equipped or capable of handling the status quo from 2.5 billion new consumers in China and India.

As we see petroleum and fuel prices spiral out of sight, we wonder what effects these prices will have on us—particularly as they relate to aquaculture. The costs of our feeds are tied to commodities such as fish meal, soybeans, corn, and other ingredients that are under increasing demand pressures. Costs for power, heat, and fuels for our vehicles and equipment threaten the way we do business.

Unlike terrestrial farmers who plant corn and soybeans and harvest them as crops, we do not necessarily see rising prices for our products—a potential offset to their rising fuel and transportation costs. Instead, we are in a real energy and feed squeeze. What options do we have? Can we simply raise prices and still maintain our customers?

As we enter this new era, we must realize that solutions will not come quickly, and certainly not painlessly. Unless you have already done so, aquaculturists must begin to engage in new ways of thinking about design, production, and management within aquaculture systems.

Unless you live and work your facility “off the grid” (the overwhelming majority of us do not), this will require a team effort including our energy and fuel suppliers, our feed and equipment suppliers, and the research community that supports the industry.

What must emerge over the next decades are alternative and innovative approaches to conventional ways of doing things—and I stress “the next decades.” This transition will not occur as quickly as we might like. In the meantime, how do we weather the storm?

In times like these, bigger always seems to cope better. For example, we see the airlines responding to rising fuel prices by consolidating. Small “mom and pop” fish production operations will have a hard time competing and surviving. As they always do, larger companies will take full advantage of so-called economies of scale—buying power and elimination of redundancy that comes only with size. If you are in a position to do so, get bigger.

Next, look for ways to reduce or eliminate your use of fossil fuels and grid power. Use wind, small-scale hydro, cogeneration (i.e., simultaneous production of power and heat), and solar technologies whenever possible. This will require an expenditure of capital, but your investments will pay for themselves over an ever-decreasing period of time as fossil fuel prices climb.

The problem of rising feed costs and the cost of ingredients is a tough nut to crack. Feed manufacturers must and will do their part to continue innovation and develop feeds over time that are more efficient and produce more bang for our buck.

For your part as a fish producer, I encourage you to begin to view fish wastes of all kinds in a different light. Fish processing offal, production solids (feces), and dissolved wastes (ammonia, nitrates, phosphates) are too often viewed negatively. Indeed, the term “wastes” has a negative connotation. Instead, I prefer to call them byproducts.

The byproducts of fish production are excellent plant fertilizers. You paid for the nutrients in the fish feed. It’s still “feed.” The fish have merely converted it to different forms.

Rather than releasing byproducts to the environment and potentially causing a pollution problem, why not sell them to a nearby farmer or use them to raise terrestrial or greenhouse crops? (…part of your plan to get bigger!) The vast majority of fish farms are located in rural, farming communities. Band together, help each other, and cooperate with your neighbors for your mutual benefit and financial gain.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. We are limited in solutions to these problems only by the limits of our imaginations. Collectively, fish farmers are a creative lot, and I have no doubt that we will emerge from this era stronger and healthier.

January '08, Fish Farming News--U.S. on the cusp of major decision

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

There are seminal moments in history that define the future for decades, or even lifetimes. We don’t necessarily see them as such when they unfold. Other times, we see them for what they really are. But in historical context, they all loom very large.

The attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized U.S. resolve and thrust us into World War II. Rosa Parks launched the civil rights movement with a simple act on a bus. The falling of the Berlin Wall signaled the end of Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and the end of the Cold War. And the World Trade Center attack launched a war on terrorism.

While these events are monumental in U.S. history, a decision no less earth-shattering to the U.S. aquaculture industry is upon us—passage or rejection of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act. This legislation would, for the first time, enable aquaculture in federal waters.

To some of you, this may sound like a wild exaggeration. How could this legislation be that important? Make no mistake. It is.

As we all know, the economy we live in is global. I conclude that the U.S. is poised to either stay in the aquaculture game—aided by this offshore legislation—or we are doomed to remain a first-rate consumer nation and a third-rate producer. It pains me to admit that about the industry in which I participate and love, but here are the facts.

(1) Our trade deficit in fisheries products is ridiculously massive, and not far behind oil.

(2) We have declared our dependence on oil a threat to our national security. Where is the same concern and urgency about fisheries products?

(3) We live in an affluent society—one that takes exception to fish production facilities within sight of our day-to-day surroundings (The NIMBY Syndrome—Not In My Backyard). The problem is particularly keen in coastal areas, which happen to be home to a large plurality of our citizens.

(4) Man-made pollution threatens the long-term viability of coastal and near-shore production facilities.

(5) Fresh water is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Opportunities for development of new fish production facilities utilizing conventional flow-through or so-called “single-pass” technologies are rapidly dwindling or simply not available.

(6) Water quality restrictions on discharge from land-based facilities render some production concepts unfeasible.

(7) The points above combine to paint an aquaculture growth picture that is less than rosy if we continue to focus only on development of land-based facilities.

There are some reasons for optimism relative to land-based growth and expansion. Outdoor ponds will continue to provide a sound foundation for production here in the U.S. As water reuse systems continue to improve, they too will help us bridge gaps between production needs, water availability, and concern for our environment.

However, when you look at the big picture, real strides and a real move forward can come only if we move to offshore areas, and develop these resources thoughtfully and with long-term sustainability in mind.

Failure to pass this important legislation runs counter to our spirit as Americans. Opponents fear environmental disaster on the open ocean. But we are a can-do nation, and I say we can have our cake and eat it too—meaning we can develop aquaculture offshore to our own great economic and societal benefit, and we can do it responsibly and sustainably. This will require ingenuity and new inventions. But we are the “idea factory” of the world.

I challenge opponents of this legislation to develop better ideas. Nay-saying doesn’t cut it anymore. If you don’t like it, you must be prepared to propose an alternative solution—one that makes sense and rejects the status quo of accepting our fate as an importer. As a point of national security, we can no longer afford to rely so heavily on others for our nutritional needs. Get on board, put ideas on the table, or get out of the way.

Continue to contact your legislators in Washington and urge them to support this effort. It’s that important.

October '05--Worried about eating salmon? Think again.

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

With all the dire warnings about PCBs and other toxins in farmed and wild salmon, you’d think people would be dropping dead right and left. Instead, people are heeding the message that salmon tastes good and is good for you—especially your heart and the rest of your cardiovascular system.

Last year a researcher named Ron Hites and his colleagues published an article in the prestigious journal Science. His research was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts. This article created a media sensation, claiming that farmed-raised salmon contained higher levels of PCBs than their wild counterparts. Indeed, wild salmon are regularly cited as containing high levels of PCBs and other toxins as well.

While this entire furor makes for great headlines, the reality of the situation is quite different. Ron Hardy, a Professor at the University of Idaho, took a close look at the claims presented in the Hite study and drew some very different conclusions.

In a recent article of his own, Hardy noted the following: “My opinion of the study was similar to that of many of its critics. The consensus was that (there) were a number of points that seemed flawed…While there was little concern over the analytical accuracy of the contaminant values…a great deal of concern was expressed over the selection of samples…At the time the samples were purchased, there was no country-of-origin labeling requirement. Purchases were identified by origin based on what the buyer was told by the seller.”

Hardy went on to say, “A second, more serious concern was the relatively small sample of wild salmon and the species of wild salmon that constituted the sample.” In other words, all wild salmon are not created equal. They have different food preferences and, as a result, may expose themselves to varying levels of contamination, based on where they eat along the so-called food chain. Additionally, contamination in wild salmon can vary by region. Near-shore salmon, for example those found in Puget Sound, are more contaminated than those in the Pacific Ocean or Gulf of Alaska.

The final nail in the coffin of the Hites study comes when we examine our contaminant exposure not only from salmon, but from other food sources as well. Hardy notes, “For example, intake of beef in 2002 was 144 pounds per person in the U.S., compared to 15.6 pounds of fish and shellfish. Salmon intake in 2003 was 2.22 pounds per person…When total annual PCB intake is calculated based upon average consumption of various foods, the comparisons are stunning. Per capita PCB intake from beef is 2401 ppb, compared to 30 ppb for farmed salmon. Milk contributes 716 ppb per capita…if one uses Hite’s values for (farmed) Chilean salmon, for example, per capita PCB intake drops by 50% for farmed salmon. If Americans doubled their intake of farmed salmon, the contribution of consumption on total yearly PCB intake would still be 40-80 times less than the amount for beef.”

Hardy concludes, “No matter how the data are calculated and no matter who’s PCB values for salmon are used, the amount of PCBs contributed to the diet from farmed or most wild salmon is truly insignificant in the context of overall PCB intake of the average American.”

Where are the headlines about contaminated and deadly beef or milk? We don’t see them. Clearly, salmon (specifically farmed salmon) have been, quite unfairly, singled out by the Pew Charitable Trusts. This kind of biased and jaundiced approach to science serves no useful purpose, and only undermines public confidence in the scientific method of investigation.

The bottom line here is simple: the benefits of eating salmon, farmed or wild, and their beneficial omega-3 fats far outweigh the risks to your health if you don’t consume generous amounts on a regular basis. Those individuals with marginal health (i.e., diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.) actually stand to gain the most.

You may view Dr. Hardy’s complete article by navigating to: http://www.ftai.com/articles/Farmed%20Salmon%20Contam%20Hardy.pdf

September '05--Aquacultured versus wild fish in a healthy diet

by Bill Manci
Senior Biologist and Certified Fisheries Professional
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.

Aquaculture, the production and husbandry of aquatic plants and animals in controlled environments, also called fish farming, is coming of age. First applied by the Chinese over 2,000 years ago, aquaculture has enjoyed an enormous increase in its practice and acceptance. Since the 1960s when aquaculture was a cottage industry, this agricultural pursuit has grown worldwide from 10 million metric tons of production in 1984 to 38 million metric tons in 1998 (1). During the same time period because of overfishing, many wild fish populations crashed and have few, if any, prospects for full recovery (2). By the year 2030, aquaculture will account for more than 50% of all fisheries products consumed in the world (1).

By other agricultural standards such as terrestrial crop production or ranching, commercial aquaculture is still developing. The aquaculture industry has not fully achieved its stated goals to provide products that make the best use of available resources and are as wholesome and nutritionally appropriate for the consumer as possible, but has made great strides toward them (1).

As a consumer there are at least five nutritional issues that should be considered before choosing between farmed and wild fish: 1) omega-3 fatty acid content, 2) organic residues such as PCBs and others, 3) heavy metal contamination, 4) synthetic carotenoids, and 5) residual antibiotics. Clearly cost is an important factor for all consumers, and environmental considerations may come into play for others.

To date, virtually all studies of farmed versus wild species show a slight reduction in the ratio (which is different than amount per serving) of omega-3 fatty acids to other fatty acids present within fisheries products (3, 4). With that in mind, there is no doubt that farmed fisheries products of all kinds contain generous amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Indeed, for example, because farmed Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout contain a higher percentage of total fatty acids than their wild counterparts, the farmed varieties actually contain more grams of omega-3 fatty acids per serving (3, 4).

Today steps are being taken by shrimp feed and fish feed manufacturers to rectify any perceived or actual disparity between omega-3 levels in farm-raised and wild fish and shellfish. Recent research has shown that late-stage feeding with feeds containing high concentrations of omega-3 or linseed oil allows the receiving muscle tissues to quickly "catch up" (5, 6). The result is a farmed product that, overall, requires less omega-3 in its diet over its lifetime, and an omega-3 concentration in the tissue at harvest that is on par with or higher than wild product (6). This strategy will help to minimize the amount of expensive fish meals and fish oils used by the aquaculture industry, will still provide us with abundant amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in our diet, and spare valuable wild populations of fish and shellfish from unnecessary and destructive over-harvest. Many within the aquaculture industry understand and appreciate this issue, and are taking steps now to correct real and perceived disparities.

When sited properly on land or at sea, aquaculture operations provide the kind of relative isolation from contaminants that is often not possible in the wild. However, some salmon net-pen operations are exceptions, and may have experienced contamination from an unlikely source—fish feed. Supposedly, in Europe and to a lesser extent in the Americas, feed contaminated with PCBs and other organic compounds was fed to aquacultured salmon and produced unacceptable residues in fish (7)—an issue that has commanded attention. While some express concern, others view the data with skepticism or interpret them much differently (8, 9). In fact, one analysis reexamined the data and determined that the PCB threat is low, and the threat from beef is actually 40-80 times higher than salmon (9).

Heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium have been discovered in both aquacultured and wild salmon, with higher or lower concentrations found in aquacultured or wild fish by some researchers than others (10, 11, 12). As a result of the ecological process of bioaccumulation, other large “top-predator” fishes such as wild tuna also tend to harbor elevated levels of mercury (13, 14).

Some people wonder about the new labeling seen at fish counters proclaiming “Color Added,” the purpose of this labeling, and the potential effects on human health. While these labels seem to imply that colors or dyes are somehow injected or added directly to fish, this is not the case. Natural carotenoid pigments (astaxanthin and canthaxanthin; similar to vitamin A) are added to fish feeds which impart color to fish flesh. These pigments are extracted from algae, yeast, plants, crustaceans, or synthesized from beta-carotene precursors. Indeed, astaxanthin is the primary carotenoid pigment found in wild salmon. Contrary to some reports designed to cast aquacultured fish as unsafe and unhealthy, uncolored fish flesh is white, not gray, and these pigments are extremely safe at levels normally consumed by people (15).

Pollution or other environmental damage is an often-heard complaint about aquaculture (16)—in particular, ocean-based salmon production facilities that discharge metabolic wastes to the environment. These claims are controversial and disputed by others (17). Large salmon net pens systems are arrayed at the surface or anchored below the surface and confine stocks to a defined space. In the past, producers relied solely on currents and dilution to carry fish wastes from the vicinity. Today’s new net-pen technologies incorporate waste recovery, including land application and composting of dewatered, solid wastes. Turning liabilities into assets and “Best Environmental Practice” management strategy are the new philosophies. The same is true for land-based, freshwater operations, where wastewater from fish tanks is directed into plant-producing greenhouses—a process now dubbed aquaponics.

Other issues include the use of antibiotics to preserve fish health. Unlike terrestrial cattle production, antibiotics are used only to treat disease outbreaks. Only approved antibiotics are used, and fish stocks are withdrawn from their treatment for specified periods of time before slaughter. Despite withdrawal, some antibiotics may persist in fish tissues (18), or may spill over to nearby environments during the treatment process (19). For these reasons aquaculturists are developing and currently using relatively benign substances that stimulate fish immune systems such as beta-glucans, stabilized forms of vitamin C, probiotic bacteria, and refined management strategies to reduce the use of antibiotics (20).

Aquaculture was born out of a desire to stem the tide of overfishing and gain more control over our collective health and nutritional future. Regardless of your choice to eat aquacultured fish or wild fish, your decision involves some associated risk and implications for our world and its environments, particularly with regard to salmon and other predatory species that are widely produced and consumed. If you are concerned about pesticides, heavy metals, or antibiotic residues in your diet, salmon (farmed or wild) may not be the choice for you. There are many alternatives (farmed or wild) that may suit you better. You may avoid large predatory fishes such as salmon and tuna, and opt for herbivorous species or those lower on the so-called ecological food chain such as shrimp, tilapia, and catfish, or top predators produced in land-based systems such as hybrid striped bass and rainbow trout.

By most accounts, fish are our best sources of the omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA that we require in our diets. Totally eliminating fish from your diet could lead to health consequences that far outweigh the alternatives.

References

1. Tidwell JH, Allan GL. Fish as food: aquaculture's contribution. Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and capture fisheries. EMBO Rep. 2001 Nov;2(11):958-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11713181

2. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. 2004.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm

3. Hardy RW. Farmed fish and omega-3 fatty acids. Aquaculture Magazine. 2003; 29(2):63-65.

4. Cahu C, Salen P, de Lorgeril M. Farmed and wild fish in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases: assessing possible differences in lipid nutritional values. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2004 Feb;14(1):34-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15053162

5. Bell JG, Henderson RJ, Tocher DR, Sargent JR. Replacement of dietary fish oil with increasing levels of linseed oil: modification of flesh fatty acid compositions in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using a fish oil finishing diet. Lipids. 2004 Mar;39(3):223-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15233400

6. Hardy RW. Conflict ahead; can we reduce fish oil use? Aquaculture Magazine. 2003; 29(6):44-48.

7. Hites RA, Foran JA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Knuth BA, Schwager SJ.Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):226-9.

8. BC Salmon Farmers Association. Medical, health and food safety experts advise reading past the headlines in the new news about farmed salmon. 2004.
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/media/01_09_04.htm

9. Hardy RW. Contaminants in salmon: a follow-up. Aquaculture Magazine. 2005; 31(2):43-45. http://www.ftai.com/articles/Farmed%20Salmon%20Contam%20Hardy.pdf

10. Easton MD, Luszniak D, Von der GE. Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere. 2002 Feb;46(7):1053-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11999769

11. Knowles TG, Farrington D, Kestin SC. Mercury in UK imported fish and shellfish and UK-farmed fish and their products. Food Addit Contam. 2003 Sep;20(9):813-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13129776

12. Foran JA, Hites RA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Mathews-Amos A, Schwager SJ. A survey of metals in tissues of farmed Atlantic and wild Pacific salmon. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2004 Sep;23(9):2108-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15378985

13. Bender M. Canned tuna riskier than previously suspected. Mercury Policy Project. 2003.
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/CanTheTunaReleaseFinal061903.pdf

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fish and wildlife advisory news. 2003.
http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsaugust03.htm

15. Hardy RW. “Color added” labeling and carotenoid pigments in salmon feed. Aquaculture Magazine. 2005; 31(1):25-30.

16. Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MC, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature. 2000 Jun 29;405(6790):1017-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10890435

17. Tidwell JH, Allan GL. Fish as food: aquaculture's contribution. Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and capture fisheries. EMBO Rep. 2001 Nov;2(11):958-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11713181

18. Lucchetti D, Fabrizi L, Guandalini E, Podesta E, Marvasi L, Zaghini A, Coni E. Long depletion time of enrofloxacin in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Oct;48(10):3912-7.
http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/48/10/3912?view=long&pmid=15388452

19. Rigos G, Nengas I, Alexis M, Troisi GM. Potential drug (oxytetracycline and oxolinic acid) pollution from Mediterranean sparid fish farms. Aquat Toxicol. 2004 Aug 25;69(3):281-8.

20. Gannam AL. Immunostimulants in fish diets. Journal of Applied Aquaculture. 1999; 9(4):53-89.

For more information, contact:
Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc.
Telephone: 970-225-0150
E-mail: info@ftai.com

• FTA Home • Back •

Send mail to info@ftai.com with questions or comments about this web site. Contact us. Copyright © 1998-2010 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Do not copy or reproduce without permission. Disclaimer: Inclusion of names of other companies or organizations or their services or products on this web site does not constitute endorsement of those companies or organizations or their services or products by Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. or its employees.