|
Fisheries Technology Associates is a world leader in
aquaculture, fish farming, fish culture, and fisheries management consulting services. For
more than 26 years we have
delivered the quality of service and experience that our clients expect and
deserve. |
|
|
Articles and BlogsCopyright © 2008 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. July 08, Fish Farming News--Aquaculture caught in an energy/feed squeezeby
Bill Manci 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.
Copyright © 2008 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. January 08, Fish Farming News--U.S. on the cusp of major decisionby
Bill Manci 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. Only oil is larger and higher on the list. (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.
Copyright © 2007 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. November 07, Fish Farming News--Now is the time to grow your companyby
Bill Manci Just like many Americans, I am a stock-market watcher. My morning routine begins with a news program and then a dose of The Opening Bell on CNBC. It’s an opportunity to see where markets may be headed that day, or what drivers are in place to influence the day’s or week’s financial activities. Unless you are used to listening to financial programming, the language is a bit foreign. Indeed, they have a dialect that is all their own. Phrases such as “hedge fund,” “private equity,” and “venture capital” didn’t have a whole lot of meaning the first time I heard them. I certainly did not connect them in any way, shape, or form to our business—aquaculture. I have since changed my thinking. My world of aquaculture consulting is very unique. One day I’m up to my waist in fish as I help harvest a pond, and the next I’m crunching numbers or helping to solve a fish-health riddle on the phone. In recent years, I have also begun to receive more calls from investors. No offense, but these are people who are novices about fish, fish production, global aquaculture, or the position of aquaculture relative to other businesses. They do know, however, that aquaculture has achieved “critical mass.” In other words, aquaculture has grown up and now receives a lot of attention in the media and, more important, in financial markets. Investors, particularly those working for hedge funds, private equity firms, and venture capital firms, are always looking for an edge. They are not necessarily interested in the “soup de jour” or the same investment that interests everyone else. They specialize in businesses that fly under the radar, and that is the key to their success. They find success stories before everyone else does, and then maximize their return before the rest of the crowd. They have vision and see the possibilities. Vision is a rare commodity. Warren Buffett, the so-called Oracle of Omaha and second-richest man in the world, and those like him are visionaries. These people have an uncanny ability to view the world not as it is, but as it will be. They then figure out where to invest money as the world moves from here to there, and then act on their vision. This formula has worked for business people and entrepreneurs for thousands of years. Now it’s aquaculture’s turn to be part of the move from the present to the future. At no time since I began my career in aquaculture in 1976 have I seen a greater interest by investors in the world of aquaculture. The finite nature of fish supplies from the wild is now completely and utterly accepted, as is the inevitable demand for food by our ever-expanding world population. This equation isn’t rocket science, but more and more investors understand the direction of our world, and they are now willing to take the leap into the aquaculture pond. To put it bluntly, investment firms are flush with cash. They need a place to invest it and aquaculture is a rising star. Regardless of what happens on the geopolitical front, regardless of what happens to the price of oil, and regardless of where you live, people have to eat every day—a phenomenon economists call inelastic demand. A growing world population, coupled with rising worldwide affluence, spells an almost insatiable demand for the high-quality protein that is available through fish and seafood products. The goal of our industry should now be to take advantage of the attention we are receiving. Indeed, we see an ever-increasing number of publicly traded companies (those in which you or I can purchase partial ownership in stock). But more significantly, private equity firms and venture capitalists are funneling money into private aquaculture companies—those held strictly through private ownership. In most cases, these funds are used for expansion in ways that allow the company to become more efficient and to take advantage of economies of scale. For example, a fish producer may decide to expand production. In doing so, the producer may diversify to other species, thereby stabilizing their cash flow throughout the year or minimizing their risk in the marketplace. The possibilities and benefits afforded by capital expansion are endless. Aquaculture must grow, along with the rest of the world. Consumers depend on us to supply their needs. The time has come for us to engage the financial community in a meaningful way, and develop the kinds of partnerships and standards that will lead us into the future. If you own an aquaculture company and business model that is worthy of investment, consider your options. Now, more than ever, investors are ready to hear your story. If your aquaculture business needs an infusion of investment capital to grow, look to capital markets for a helping hand.
Copyright © 2007 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. June 07, Fish Farming News--The “melamine incident” will be the first of many—maybe!by
Bill Manci When this whole melamine-in-pet-food thing happened, I shuddered. My first thought was, what happens when this stuff gets into fish feeds? I have been waiting for that shoe to drop. Unfortunately, it finally did. I hate it when I’m right. Maybe you are not up to date on this situation, so I will fill you in. Several months ago, dogs and cats started dying in large numbers. Veterinarians were scratching their heads initially, but they figured out that an ingredient in pet foods was tainted with a compound called melamine. This story is very sad because it all boils down to—not human error or a mistake—human greed. A common ingredient in all kinds of animal feeds is wheat gluten. This product is high in protein and therefore substantially increases the protein content of the final product. Because it’s high in protein, it can be expensive—particularly these days when the demand for high-quality feed ingredients such as grain glutens and fish meal is high. A Chinese company got the bright idea of substituting wheat flour for wheat gluten. Wheat flour is much less expensive than wheat gluten, but also much lower in protein. But, if you add a chemical compound called melamine to the wheat flour, an analysis of the flour will falsely indicate much higher protein content. Hence, you can pass off wheat flour as wheat gluten, charge a much higher price when you sell it, and make a handsome profit. One problem. Melamine is toxic to mammals, including dogs, cats, and people. When melamine-contaminated pet foods started making their way to the marketplace, the inevitable occurred. Pets began dying by the hundreds. The tide of deaths has been stemmed because of product recalls, but the damage has been done—too late for the pet owners who lost beloved members of their family. So, I was watching the news the other night, and guess what I heard? Melamine had been detected in feeds fed to some Canadian salmon. The same raw ingredient “pipeline” that stung the pet food industry has reached out and bitten us too. My heart goes out to pets and their owners affected by this terrible situation. That’s bad enough! But now, we’re talking about people as the final target. A person unfortunate enough to consume a salmon that has been fed a melamine-tainted diet would become very ill, and certainly could die. As of this writing, I have not heard about human deaths attributed to consumption of poisoned salmon. Based on news reports, it appears that the pet food situation alerted and sensitized salmon feed producers soon enough to avoid widespread contamination of feed. As limited as it was, we do not need this kind of publicity. We have enough to worry about without the threat of lousy feed in our store rooms and lousy salmon making their way to our tables. Profiteering is nothing new. It has gone on since the beginning of human enterprise. I have a feeling that the culprits in China will be dealt with rather severely by local officials—made an example of, if you will. Not because they threatened human lives (if I may be cynical for a moment), but because they were caught, caused embarrassment, and threatened a small cog in the economic gang-buster that is today’s China. I won’t lose sleep over their mistreatment. In today’s global economy, these unfortunate incidents will happen again. While I attribute this episode to fraud rather than terrorism, the result is the same. Now more than ever, the words “biosecurity” and “traceability” must be on the tips of our tongues. A weakness in our system has been exposed. The silver lining to this cloud is that more attention will be paid to the issue of raw ingredients, and the necessity for at least some more detailed testing prior to feed manufacture. When human foods do become the targets of terrorists, we likely won’t have pets as the “canaries in the coal mine.” Only our testing protocols and our ability to trace ingredients back to their sources will provide us with the tools to mitigate or stop an act of food-targeted terrorism. As links in the human food chain, aquaculturists must assume some reasonable level of responsibility for the food we produce. Recordkeeping is critical in this effort. In this computer and web-based age in which we live, there is no excuse for casual or “invisible” recordkeeping. Producers already involved in the HACCP seafood inspection process are keenly aware of chain-of-custody and traceability issues and responsibilities. To many, recordkeeping represents an unreasonable burden heaped on them by an overzealous bureaucracy. In my view, it’s a necessary part of an overall effort to secure our food supplies. By the way, strange as it may seem, your records may bring to light ways for you to be more efficient or save money. Geopolitical realities and tensions and world economic evolution demand our vigilance. We will be challenged by enemies or swindlers in other ways we have yet to imagine. Biosecurity involves an all-encompassing effort to ensure the physical, chemical, and biological well-being of our fish stocks. Pay attention, question the “out of place” or “strange,” and don’t hesitate to raise a red flag with a supplier or customer.
Copyright © 2007 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. January 07, Fish Farming News--Fish meal prices point to aquaculture’s futureby
Bill Manci During 2006, I paid careful attention to the prices for fish meal and fish oil. After starting the year below $750 per metric ton, prices climbed steadily. By June prices reached $1,300 per metric ton, with no end to the increases in sight. By July and early August, prices peaked at or above an unbelievable $1,450 per metric ton. Prices finally began to fall in September ($1,100 per metric ton). However, by this writing, prices have once again begun to rise because of a chronic lack of supply. For those unacquainted with the fish meal market, these price convulsions may seem bizarre, but they are not. Fish meal prices, of course, have everything to do with the price of fish feeds. Fish meal is the primary protein component of most fish feeds, and is virtually a required ingredient to satisfy the specific and very specialized protein and amino acid requirements of the fish and shellfish we raise. The petroleum analogy is a good one to use here. Fish feed is the “gasoline” that fuels our fish. Fish meal is the “crude oil” that makes the gasoline. Unless we reduce our dependence on fish meal in fish feeds, we as fish producers will be under the same price and supply pressures that exist at the gas pump. When supplies of fish meal fall (which are for all intents and purposes beyond our control), the price of fish feed necessarily will rise. What caused these recent enormous increases and fluctuations in fish meal price? A combination of rising demand and falling supplies were responsible—almost a “perfect storm” of failing supplies from places like Peru in the Pacific Basin and Spain and other nations in the Atlantic Basin, and a rising tide of demand from places like China. We are in the midst of an El Niño event in the Pacific. An El Niño occurs when the equatorial trade winds (normally east-to-west direction) fail and warm water piles up on the western coast of South America. Anchovies, one of the primary fish meal species, usually occupy this coastline near the surface, except during El Niño years. Anchovies avoid the warm, nutrient-poor water and are therefore unavailable for capture by fishermen. Simultaneously, supplies of other fish meal species such as capelin, sardine, menhaden, and herring have been weak. In addition, due to a booming world economy, the demand for fish meal by producers of other livestock such as poultry and swine has conspired to drive down supplies and subsequently drive up prices. If these trends continue, the aquaculture industry will (as we have in the past) be under enormous pressure to develop other sources of protein for fish feeds. We simply must diminish our dependence on fish meal as a protein source. Just as the fuel industry is addicted to crude oil (mostly from foreign sources), so too are we addicted to fish meal (mostly from foreign sources). Can we change this predicament? Are we destined to be at the mercy of an increasingly volatile climate and a trickle-down effect on fish meal species? Fish nutritionists and biochemists are working hard to bridge the gap between fish meal and the specific requirements of our stocks for proteins and their associated amino acids. Many argue it makes little sense to feed wild fish (as fish meal) to farmed fish, and indeed the sustainability of this approach is shaky at best, given the enormous demand we envision for farmed fish in our future. So, what are the alternatives? If we do not use fish as a protein source for feeds, we have only three options—proteins from other animals, proteins from plants, and synthetic proteins that we “build” in a production facility from more simple chemical compounds. For the foreseeable future, the latter option appears to be prohibitively expensive, and that is unlikely to change for some time. The first option gets some traction, and today we do in fact supplement fish meal with other animal by-product meals, and that will continue. But, the best option—the option that promises to truly support a substantial expansion in the production of fish and the associated demand for feeds—is proteins from plants. Soybean meal and other land-based plant meals and plant by-products are used extensively today with a continuing and steadily increasing degree of success. This option is not without its difficulties. Many plants are armed with elaborate biochemical defenses called anti-nutrients. When an animal eats the plant, these anti-nutrients can cause the animal to become sick or die. Obviously, this discourages future consumption of the plant. Some of the plants we use today in fish feeds contain anti-nutrients and other biochemical defense mechanisms. We can defeat these through processing, but other hurdles go to the core of these plants and the proteins within them. Not all proteins are created equal, and many plant proteins are not designed with appropriate proportions of amino acids to support our fish. We supplement with varieties of plant and animal proteins during feed formulation to make up for these deficiencies, and this fine-tuning process will improve over time. Additionally, water-based plants such as algae may provide a long-term solution to our fish oil-sourcing problem. Algae are used today for many applications (e.g., pharmaceuticals, commercial chemicals) and are used to a limited degree in select segments of aquaculture. Many species of algae are relatively easy to grow and grow quickly, and most important, certain marine algae are technically appropriate as alternatives to fish oil as a source of heart-healthy and nutritionally required fatty acids. Finally, as others have pointed out, higher average prices for fish meal and fish oil now enhance the economic feasibility of bringing new plant alternatives to the forefront of fish feed development. There is no doubt that aquaculture will continue to expand. It appears our increasingly volatile climate and the high fish meal prices that follow may drive and accelerate that expansion toward other sources of protein. Stay tuned.
Copyright © 2005 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. October 05--Worried about eating salmon? Think again.by
Bill Manci 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
Copyright © 2005 Fisheries Technology Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and distributing or reprinting for purposes of resale without expressed permission of the author is prohibited. September 05--Aquacultured versus wild fish in a healthy dietby
Bill Manci 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. 2. United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of world fisheries
and aquaculture. 2004. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. Bender M. Canned
tuna riskier than previously suspected. Mercury Policy Project. 2003. 14. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Fish and wildlife advisory news. 2003. 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. 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. 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. 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: |
Send mail to info@ftai.com with questions or comments about this web site. Contact us. Copyright © 1998-2008 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. |
