Seek sustainable solutions.
A renewable, plant-based protein, Empyreal 75 is the sustainable choice in a changing world. This high-protein corn concentrate creates more space in the diet by reducing the need for other, more costly forms of protein, such as fish meal or other protein concentrates. Efficiency and performance, with an eye on the future—that’s the Empyreal 75 way. Empyreal75.com
By Treena Hein
VOLUME 16, ISSUE 2 | MARCH/APRIL 2025
Reader Service
Print and digital subscription inquiries or changes, please contact customer service
Angelita Potal
Tel: (416) 510-5113
Fax: (416) 510-6875
Email: apotal@annexbusinessmedia.com
Mail: 111 Gordon Baker Rd., Suite 400, Toronto, ON M2H 3R1
Editor Jean Ko Din jkodin@annexbusinessmedia.com
Associate Editor Seyitan Moritiwon smoritiwon@annexbusinessmedia.com
Contributors Alan Cook, Imani Black, Treena Hein, Peter Park, Ben Normand, Mari-Len De Guzman
Associate Publisher / Advertising Manager Jeremy Thain jthain@annexbusinessmedia.com +1-250-474-3982
Account Manager Morgen Balch mbalch@annexbusinessmedia.com +1-416-606-6964
Account Coordinator Catherine Giles cgiles@annexbusinessmedia.com
Media Designer Svetlana Avrutin savrutin@annexbusinessmedia.com
Audience Development Manager Urszula Grzyb ugrzyb@annexbusinessmedia.com 416-510-5180
Group Publisher Anne Beswick abeswick@annexbusinessmedia.com 416-410-5248
CEO Scott Jamieson sjamieson@annexbusinessmedia.com
PUBLISHED BY ANNEX BUSINESS MEDIA 105 Donly Drive South, Simcoe, ON N3Y 4N5
Aquaculture North America is published six times a year by Annex Business Media. The authority for statements and claims made in Aquaculture North America is the responsibility of the contributors. Reference to named products or technologies does not imply endorsement by the publisher.
Subscription rates (six issues) Canada: $37.74+Tax Within North America: $48.96 CAD Outside North America: $63.24 CAD
To subscribe visit our website at www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com
Printed in Canada ISSN 1922-4117 Publications Mail Agreement #PM40065710
RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO 111 Gordon Baker Rd., Suite 400, Toronto, ON M2H 3R1 Annex Privacy Officer
Privacy@annexbusinessmedia.com Tel: 800-668-2374
The contents of Aquaculture North America are copyright ©2025 by Annex Business Media and may not be reproduced in whole or part without written consent. Annex Business Media disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication.
Next Ad Deadline
The advertising deadline for the May/June issue is March 25. Don’t miss the opportunity to be part of this publication. For more information, or to reserve space in the next issue, call our advertising department at +1.250.474.3982 jthain@ annexbusinessmedia.com
Next Editorial Deadline
The editorial deadline for the May/June issue is March 28. Contact Jean Ko Din at jkodin@annexbusinessmedia.com for details. Material should be submitted electronically with prior arrangement with the editor.
BY JEAN KO DIN
Threats and hypotheticals
Talk of U.S. tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China came to a height at the time of production for this issue. Within the week of the Feb. 2 deadline, however, a pause was resolved and a new deadline has been set for March. A decision may already be made about the tariffs by the time this issue leaves our hands and arrives at your doorstep, so it's been tricky for me to wrap my head around what thoughts I could share with you about this topic.
Even in the months leading up to February, I hesitated to pursue coverage related to tariffs and its potential impacts on the aquaculture industry. Although I stay glued to my TV and my phone to pick up on any new developments, it all just felt like a series of threats and hypotheticals. But as the deadline came and went, it started to feel weird that we still haven't talked about it in Aquaculture North America.
If you don't already subscribe to our e-newsletter and visit our website regularly, now is the time to do so. Editorial coverage that requires more timely action will go straight to our digital channels where we can reach our community more immediately.
Online, we will talk to aquaculture economists about their niche perspective on how it will affect trade and supply chains within the industry. We will talk to industry associations in all three North American countries to discuss how this potential trade war could affect their work as liason between the industry and the policymakers. We will also talk to you, the farmers, operators, industry suppliers, and business owners.
Just like the theme of this issue, this industry needs to be empowered to tell its own story. For a long time, I think that this industry has allowed others to tell the story of fish farming and the important role it plays in providing sustainable food to the world. As a result, anti-aquaculture lobbying and sentiment has grown and now pose as real barriers for growth.
In many instances, it has created strict regulatory bureaucracy which become high barriers of entry for small businesses and entrepreneurs. It has blocked new projects which could stimulate rural coastal communities. It has caused potential investors to hesitate in supporting North American innovation. It has overshadowed decades solid research that have proven that sustainable farming practices can protect the oceans and the environment that we work in every day.
So, I think you all agree that it has been a long time coming. Storytelling now has to be a much more personal responsibility than ever before.
And as the media publication that is devoted to the stories about North American fish farming, we share a large portion of that responsibility. This publication specifically exists to serve the industry that it writes about by taking up the role of being a central information hub. Whether it be online or in print, we can be that central meeting place where ideas are exchanged and voices are united in support of progress.
And I may sound like a broken record, at this point, because all of my editorials so far have been dedicated to this message. But, our function can only be realised through full participation and partnership with you, our readers. We are merely the soap box on which you can stand up and state your case.
As editor, my role is then to help protect this platform by curating the voices that are provided this privilege. If I am not here research and vet and scruitinize who gets to be on our platform, this soap box suddenly becomes another empty, noisy town square where everyone is shouting and no one is listening. I'm sure you'll all agree that we already have had our fill of that in our society. So, let's all be united in our pursuit for constructive conversation where real work can truly take place.
We hope you stay engaged and share your thoughts with me and the team at jkodin@ annexbusinessmedia.com. | ANA
Aquaculture North America’s Editorial Advisory Board: Ian Roberts | Sandra Shumway | Jason Mann | Jeanne Mcknight | Mykolas Kamaitis | Jamie Baker
News
Mater-Bi polymer could reduce ocean plastic pollution, new study
UConn marine sciences researchers have found that a starch-based polymer could reduce marine pollution.
An Italian company, Novamont, produced Mater-Bi, a starch-based polymer that degraded by nearly 50 percent over nine months in a marine environment, much more than traditional plastics.
According to an article from UConn Today, Hannah Collins, a marine sciences PhD candidate, led the study. She said products like Mater-Bi could replace traditional plastics used in aquatic structures, such as kelp farm lines, to reduce the possibility of plastic pollution.
“We’ve seen the pictures of sea turtles with plastic around their heads,” she said. “We have a lot of evidence of the negative effects of plastic pollution.”
Collins’ research was conducted in a semi-controlled environment at the John S. Rankin Laboratory. The lab filters seawater from the surrounding area to keep out large organisms, allowing the researchers to test how much the product degraded in natural conditions without interference from the organisms.
They tested samples of a Mater-Bi compostable bag, a traditional plastic bag, and a known biodegradable plastic in the lab. Every other week, they checked and measured how much each sample degraded by mass or area. After nine months, they found that the Mater-Bi samples lost between 25 percent and 47 percent of their mass or area. They also found that the rate of degradation increased during warmer months.
“Microbial activity tends to increase in warmer conditions, which likely contributed to the faster degradation rates we observed,” Collins said.
Collins hopes these findings could lead to future uses of Mater-Bi in aquaculture, especially for products where temporary or
disposable materials are used, such as oyster grow-out bags or kelp farming lines.
Azure Seafood joins Global Seafood Alliance’s BAP certification program
The Global Seafood Alliance has announced that Azure Seafood, a seafood supplier in North America, has endorsed the Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) program.
Azure Seafood sources seafood for large retailers and other fresh and frozen seafood suppliers in North America.
“We believe in promoting responsible aquaculture practices that ensure the highest quality standards for the seafood industry,” a statement from the company reads. “Partnering with BAP reflects our commitment to environmental stewardship, ethical sourcing, and to delivering superior products to our valued clients.”
The Global Seafood Alliance is an international, nonprofit trade association that aims to advance responsible seafood practices through education, advocacy and third-party assurances. As part of the GSA, BAP ensures aquaculture is done responsibly through its third-party certification program.
“We are pleased to welcome Azure Seafood to our community of BAP endorsers. Their decision to
align with BAP underscores their commitment to providing their customers with products that are produced in a safe and responsible manner,” said Mike Berthet, U.K. market development manager, Global Seafood Alliance.
Briana Warner steps down as Atlantic Sea Farms CEO
Briana Warner has stepped down as CEO of Atlantic Sea Farms.
Warner, who has been the CEO of the seaweed farming company for the past six years, announced on Jan. 24 that she’s exploring other opportunities.
“We have spent the last five+ years building a company focused on mission, purpose, and proving that good food can do good, and I am incredibly proud of the movement we have sparked,” she said in a press release.
Atlantic Sea Farms works with fishing families to cultivate regenerative kelp on open ocean sea farms. With a team comprising chefs, seaweed scientists, sustainability savants, market drivers, food safety and production pros, community builders, and aquaculture experts, the company is working on building a food system that prioritizes farmers, the environment, and health of consumers.
Warner will continue in the role of an advisor and is handing over the baton to Mikel Durham.
Durham has leadership experience in both food and seafood companies and was brought onto the board of Atlantic Sea Farms as an advisor. She’s spent a couple of weeks getting to understand Atlantic Sea Farms and the seaweed industry.
“As CEO, I’m really excited to grow the demand for our regenerative seaweed, so that we can continue to work with fishing families to farm kelp, and bring more nutrient-dense products into new markets. More to come from me in the next weeks, but I’m looking forward to what’s ahead,” Durham said.
Briana Warner, former CEO of Atlantic Sea Farms, Caption 2: Mikel Durham, CEO of Atlantic Sea Farms
(PHOTO: ATLANTIC SEA FARMS)
Marine sciences PhD candidate Hannah Collins and Larissa Tabb ‘22 evaluate the lab tanks to check on degradation progress.
PHOTO: HANNAH COLLINS
Canada’s aquaculture alliance blames Trudeau government for industry decline
The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) has said that the Trudeau federal government has weakened the aquaculture sector.
In its analysis of the 2023 Statistics Canada aquaculture production and trade data, CAIA noted that the loss in overall production is because of non-science based and federal government actions to reduce salmon production in British Columbia.
These actions have also threatened workers at a time when the aquaculture industry needs to be strong for coastal communities across Canada as it faces threats from the states.
“Aquaculture production is fast expanding and now accounts for over 50 percent of global seafood production. It is a critical path to feeding a growing global population with healthy ocean-based protein. With the world’s greatest capacity for cold water aquaculture, Canada can either be at the front of world with innovation and opportunity or be on the wrong side of history,” said Timothy Kennedy, CAIA president & CEO.
Below are some key items CAIA highlighted from its 2023 Aquaculture Production Data analysis:
• Canadian farmed seafood production was 145,985 tonnes in 2023 which was the lowest level in a decade and 27 percent less than peak production levels in 2016 (200,804 tonnes).
• The total value of farmed seafood produced in Canada was $1.26 billion, and has fallen 25.3 percent in real terms since its peak value of $1.69 billion (constant 2023 dollars) in 2018.
• Exports of Canadian farmed seafood fell to $882.8 million in 2023, the lowest value in real terms since 2015, and has dropped 24.5 percent since the peak export value of $1.17 billion in 2019.
“In the last five years, the Trudeau government has listened
to extreme activists and, against their own internal peer-reviewed science advice, undertaken damaging actions that have weakened a sector that has major opportunity for Canada. It is time to begin on a new and innovative pathway toward food security, job creation and new economic and community opportunity through seafood farming,” Kennedy added.
U.S. Energy dept. commits $25M to seaweed biomass products
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced US$25 million to tap the seaweed sector for energy production.
The funding made through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is to develop a marine energy hydrocarbon through the deep-water cultivation of seaweed biomass for energy products.
According to a press release from the DOE, the program, Harnessing Autonomy for Energy Joint ventures Offshore (HAEJO) will diversify U.S. energy biomass production sources by partnering with researchers from South Korea.
“HAEJO’s offshore seaweed cultivation technologies could unlock new opportunities for the energy sector. They will both reduce the strain on land and freshwater resources and enable a new, domestic, megaton-scale supply source,” said Evelyn N. Wang, director, ARPA-E.
The HAEJO program will develop new sensors for autonomous systems and market-enabling technologies for deep-water seaweed cultivation. These technologies are intended to reduce the cost of seaweed cultivation and increase the scale of the domestic seaweed cultivation market.
“Leveraging work efforts in this field from around the world gives HAEJO technologies the potential to accelerate U.S. energy independence, and secure U.S. leadership in ocean industry and technology,” Wang added.
ANA_PRAqua_MARAPR25_SVA.indd
Washington ban could set a precedent, warns aquaculture advocates Aquaculture industry advocates are frustrated by a recent vote that would uphold a proposed ban of commercial net pen fish farming in Washington State.
On Jan. 7, the Washington State Board of Natural Resources voted 4-0 with two members abstaining to uphold a ban on all commercial aquaculture in state waters. Board chair, Hilary Franz, pushed the vote only days before her term as commissioner of the Washington State Public Lands on Jan. 15.
According to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), more than 80 percent of the public comments the agency received before the hearing also supported the ban. But the Northwest Aquaculture Association (NWAA) said the decision fails to account for the science that supports sustainable practices, the economic impact on rural communities, and the growing demand for local food security.
“Franz insisted on rushing the rule-making process so that the Board could vote on the proposed ban in its Jan. 7 meeting, largely to appease her supporters—which we view as short-sighted and politically motivated,” said Jeanne McKnight, NWAA executive director.
“In doing so, Franz deprived the board of the ability to thoughtfully deliberate and review the enormous body of peer-reviewed science in the record. Had they done so, they would not have voted for this unsupportable ban.”
In November 2022, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) first announced it would not be renewing two trout farming leases to Cooke’s Rich Passage and Hope Island sites in Puget Sound. The company was given 30 days to harvest its fish and remove all farm equipment.
Days later, on Nov. 18, 2022, Franz issued an executive order
banning all net pen finfish farming in Washington state-owned waters.
Cooke Aquaculture and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe filed separate lawsuits in response.
Cooke Aquaculture filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State of Washington in January 2023 to appeal the WDNR’s decision, seeking to reinstate the company’s leases in Puget Sound.
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, which works in partnership with aquaculture company Jamestown Seafood, filed its own lawsuit in March 2023, saying Franz’s “unilateral orders violates its sovereign rights.” The NWAA joined the lawsuit with the Jamestown tribe, alleging that the WDNR failed to consult with community stakeholders before imposing this legislation.
On October 2023, a Thurston County superior judge ruled the executive order had “no legal effect” and constitutes nothing more than an internal directive to begin the rule-making process. This ruling marked a temporary victory that supported continued aquaculture operations in the Puget Sound region.
In March 2024, Cooke Aquaculture announced that it will be filing a motion to dismiss its appeal.
“Despite the request being pending for almost a year, DNR refused to work with Cooke on the timeline to provide records and has never provided any substantive responses that would allow Cooke to explain to the Court the arbitrary basis for the lease denials,” the company statement said.
“A further hearing on this matter
is futile without Cooke having an opportunity to review DNR’s internal records and ensure the record before the Court is complete. Such a hearing would be a waste of judicial resources and everyone’s time, therefore, Cooke has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal.”
Now following this recent vote by the Washington State Board, NWAA President and Jamestown Seafood CEO Jim Parsons said the future of aquaculture industry in the region is once again at risk.
“At a time when tariffs threaten to raise the prices of imported seafood and the cost of groceries for average Americans remains very high, the Washington State Board of Natural Resources has voted to take away from our citizens an important and affordable source of protein that can be sustainably grown right here in our own waters,” Parsons said in a statement to Aquaculture North America.
“In addition to being a blatant disregard for the hundreds of pages of thoughtful testimony from aquaculture experts, civic leaders, respected fisheries scientists, veterinarians, Tribal leaders, and consumers, the Jan. 7 decision sets a dangerous precedent that should serve as a warning to anyone in the business of growing food in this state on leased land— be it producers of shellfish, apple, grapes, or beef—that the Department of Natural Resources could shutter any business or sector that the Commissioner of Public Lands doesn’t like.”
Drue Winters, campaign manager for Stronger America Through Seafood (SATS), said she
worries that this most recent vote in Washington could signal a potential spread of anti-aquaculture sentiment to other states.
Washington State joins Alaska, Oregon and California in banning open net-pen fish farming in state waters. British Columbia is also in the process of banning net-pen salmon farming in its coastal waters by 2029.
“What I am concerned about is the larger impacts of this decision, and the various groups who might not want aquaculture for their own protectionist reasons, perhaps, to spread this to other states, to spread the idea that aquaculture can’t be done well or isn’t being done well and shouldn’t be done in other states coastal waters, and that would be a really unfortunate outcome of this situation,” Winters told Aquaculture North America.
It flies in the face of the established science on the impacts of aquaculture, despite numerous scientific reports by NOAA and the support of the support of the scientific community. It really did not take into account the advances in science and technology over the last 30 years that have led to a science a sustainable and environmentally sound aquaculture industry.”
Winters added that the conversation revolving around this ban must emphasize the industry’s need to be more vocal and engage in the conversation.
“We have been working for many years to combat false, misleading misinformation that’s out there. Really, it’s vitally important that people who are supportive, either join organizations like SATS, or work in tandem with other aquaculture associations to make sure that their voice is heard,” said Winters.
“People who don’t want aquaculture are very, very vocal and are doing those things. And so people who are supportive certainly need to be doing more to combat that.”
–
Jean Ko Din
Cooke Aquaculture’s Pacific rainbow trout farm at Hope Island, Wash. PHOTO: COOKE USA
Conservation group sues Cooke Aquaculture for allegedly polluting Maine waters
A conservation group is suing a family business, Cooke Aquaculture USA, for allegedly polluting the ocean along the Maine coast.
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Maine against the company, saying that it has violated the Clean Water Act at 13 active sites in Maine, where Cooke grows millions of salmon in net pens.
The group alleges that waste from the salmon forms a thick layer of toxic sediment on the ocean floor. The salmon foster disease and harbour parasites, and they escape and interbreed with endangered wild salmon. It also alleged that Cooke discharges trash into Maine’s waters.
CLF says Cooke’s conduct harms its members.
“CLF members are concerned about the health of wild endangered Atlantic Salmon populations and want the species to recover so that they can enjoy observing them and, eventually, fishing for them,” the group submitted in the 44-page document.
Some members of the group include lobstermen who have traps near Cooke’s Cage Sites. They say the lobstermen’s traps have been covered in foul-smelling black sludge made up of waste from
Cooke’s discharges of fish feces, uneaten pellets, and uncollected dead fish parts.
In response to Cooke Aquaculture being notified of CLF’s intent to sue on Nov. 14, 2024, Cooke issued a statement vehemently denying the generalized allegations.
“Allegations that Cooke is violating the Clean Water Act and Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for net pen aquaculture are false, misleading
and lack any substantiating evidence,” the statement reads.
Cooke stated that its Maine Atlantic salmon farms are routinely audited and certified by third-party sustainability organizations. It added that it was one of the early adopters of the Global Seafood Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices third-party certification program. It reiterated that its core purpose is ‘To cultivate the ocean with care, nourish the world, provide for our families, and build stronger communities’.
CLF is asking the court to declare that the company has violated and is violating the Permit, the Clean Water Act, prohibiting it from continuing the practices that have led to the alleged violations.
The group is also asking the court to appoint a special master to oversee Cooke’s compliance with the Clean Water Act, its Permit, and any relief the court orders.
My mission as a young leader in aquaculture Generation Aqua
BY IMANI BLACK
Hi!My name is Imani Black, and if we haven’t met yet, here’s the quick intro: I’ve spent over a decade working in Maryland and Virginia’s oyster aquaculture industry, and I’m the founder and CEO of Minorities In Aquaculture (MIA), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
My mission? To be a next-generation leader in aquaculture – shaking things up, fostering inclusion, sparking innovation, and championing sustainability.
My journey began in 2016, working and managing hatcheries and farms in the Chesapeake Bay’s oyster aquaculture industry. Coming from a coastal community and a family legacy of Black watermen, it was natural to fall in love with aquaculture.
But by 2020, I couldn’t ignore the glaring lack of diversity in the industry or our workforce’s misalignment with growing seafood demand and goals for a U.S. based industry.
This realization led me to create MIA, a movement empowering women, women of color, and gender minorities through mentorship, education, and access. Representation and equity aren’t just ideals – they’re essential to aquaculture’s future. Over the past four years, it’s been the mission of MIA to build bridges to a thriving, inclusive industry and career pipeline that’s rooted in the diversity of the communities it serves, while cultivating our future innovations, changemakers, and thought leaders.
Bringing seafood back home
Seafood isn’t just what’s for dinner – it’s a story, a legacy, and the heartbeat of coastal communities everywhere. It’s the flavor of heritage, the connection to generations before us, and the undeniable mark of the hardworking hands that harvest it.
And yet, seafood doesn’t always get the spotlight it deserves. There’s been a general disconnect from our watery roots, leaving too much of the public missing the full picture of what aquaculture and seafood really mean. Somewhere along the way, younger generations have drifted away from the water – not just literally, but emotionally and culturally. So the question is: how do we reignite that
Imani Black is an aquaculture professional, aquaculture advocate, and industry trailblazer with a decade of experience in oyster farming and hatchery management across Maryland and Virginia. As the Founder of Minorities In Aquaculture and a graduate with a master’s degree in Ecological Anthropology from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, she is dedicated to fostering workforce inclusivity and equity through mentorship, education, and advocacy. (imanib@mianpo.org / www.mianpo.org / @imaniiiblackkk)
connection, rekindle the awe and appreciation for seafood’s rich heritage, and remind ourselves why it’s so much more than just food on a plate?
It’s my goal with this column to explore the gaps between tradition, innovation, workforce, and inclusion that weaves the complex web of the aquaculture industry. My mission is and always will be: to bring seafood back home – back to our tables, our communities, and our collective consciousness. Reconnecting with seafood means reconnecting with ourselves, our environment, and our shared history, and at times, it seems we lose sight of that.
Engaging the Millennials and Gen-Zers
Millennials and Gen-Zers are the sustainability-savvy, innovation-driven, socially conscious trailblazers we need in aquaculture. But let’s be real – their engagement won’t mirror that of past generations. Why? Because our planet, our needs, and society have evolved. The key to capturing their interest is
through education, exposure, and inspiration. We have to introduce them to aquaculture’s multifaceted world – from hatcheries to hightech underwater robotics. Spark their curiosity with creative social media campaigns, immersive workshops, and partnerships that make aquaculture not just a career path but a purpose-driven worthy cause.
Here’s the bottom line: embracing science communication and modern approaches through social media platforms isn’t optional, it is essential. Between misconceptions fueled by flashy media narratives that don’t represent or showcase all the incredible innovations we have throughout all sectors of aquaculture, it’s time to embrace fresh ideas, equip young professionals with the tools to thrive, and show them that aquaculture is where innovation meets impact.
No matter how much you don’t like or don’t want to acknowledge it, the influence and potential of social media platforms, like Instagram or Tiktok, have made an impact on the public’s perceptions, knowledge, and involvement of aquaculture and seafood.
The industry can spark the younger generation’s curiosity by showing that aquaculture not just a career path but a purpose-driven, worthy cause.
The importance of workforce development
Aquaculture is the rising star in tackling food security and sustainability, but let’s face it – the workforce isn’t keeping up with the growth.
In 2023, the average worker in the U.S. animal production and aquaculture industry was 47 years old (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024), and with an aging workforce and lagging recruitment traction, there’s an urgent need to attract younger multidisciplinary talent to sustain the industry’s future. We can’t deny that the pipeline for new talent right now is thinning fast, and in addition to the barriers to entry and engagement, coastal gentrification, and the erosion of working waterfronts, we’ve got a serious challenge on our hands.
To meet skyrocketing seafood demand, we need a skilled, adaptable workforce. That means investing in education, training, and clear career pathways in strategic, and deliberate approaches that cover all sectors of our industry.
Inclusivity? It’s non-negotiable. We need
everyone – every voice, every skill set – at the table regardless of background, demographic, or whatever we want to claim is “outside the norm” of who works in this industry. Workforce development isn’t just about filling jobs, and MIA’s mission hasn’t only been about shouting DEI from the rooftop. Ultimately, it’s about cultivating leaders who will shape aquaculture’s future that encourages people to join this workforce. Equity, sustainability, and innovation must anchor this effort to secure a thriving industry for generations to come.
The path forward
The U.S. seafood industry stands on the brink of transformation, with efforts finally underway to build a vibrant, homegrown sector that cultivates, harvests, and processes right here on North American shores. But creating a sustainable, inclusive aquaculture workforce takes more than good intentions. It requires bold collaboration, innovative thinking, and an unrelenting commitment to breaking barriers.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion can no
longer be buzzwords sprinkled into grant proposals or short-lived initiatives – they must become the foundation of a thriving, future-proof industry.
With all due respect, it’s time for academia, government, and the commercial sectors to stop working in silos and start rowing in the same direction. We all share the same goal; now it’s time to actually align our efforts to continue to make meaningful progress.
Through this column, we’ll dive deep into the tough questions, spotlight innovative solutions, and challenge the status quo. If we want a stronger industry, we need stronger collaboration – and that starts here. My goal is to tackle challenges head-on, celebrate meaningful progress, and uncover bold ideas to build a dynamic, inclusive workforce while positioning aquaculture as a cornerstone of sustainability and global food systems.
The future of aquaculture is calling, and this column is where we can start answering it. Have ideas, questions, or topics you’d like me to explore? Let’s shape the conversation together. Stay tuned – there’s so much to uncover! | ANA
Stories we tell
How aquaculture can reshape the narrative of responsible seafood farming
By Mari-Len De Guzman
Twenty-four-year-old social media influencer James Sibley is on a quest to tell the aquaculture sustainability story – one TikTok video post at a time.
Fed By Blue, a U.S.-based non-profit organization, is raising awareness about responsibly sourced seafood through a strategic media plan around a three-part docu series titled, Hope in the Water, that aired on PBS in June.
If one takes the time to search, there is no shortage of “good news” stories about aquaculture and sustainable seafood farming coming from a variety of sources within and outside the industry. But for every story, social media
PHOTO: IAN ROBERTS
post or published research evidence that paints a positive picture of seafood farming, louder, more sensational narratives are being told by the opposition lobby groups.
And if recent regulatory changes in Canada are any indication, the aquaculture industry has got some work to do to change misconceptions in the court of public opinion.
This observation cannot be more evident than in the salmon farming sector, which comprises 70 percent of the total Canadian aquaculture volume, according to data from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In British Columbia, where 60 percent of Canada’s farmed salmon comes from, the federal government recently instituted a ban on open net-pen salmon aquaculture effective June 30, 2029. A draft transition plan is currently undergoing review.
“It has been a challenge competing with the voice and voices of those that choose, for whatever reason, to
criticize our sector,” said Ian Roberts, former communications director for Mowi who has since retired from the company. He has worked in the aquaculture industry for the last 30 years.
“I would guess that for every negative article, you need 10 or 20 positive articles to have the same emotional influence.”
No such thing as bad publicity
In this current information paradigm of 24-hour news cycle and incessant barrage of social media feeds, numerous studies have revealed negative headlines get way more clicks than positive, feel-good stories.
This may explain the phenomenon of ‘doomscrolling,’ or the practice of scrolling through headline after headline full of bad tidings. In fact, doomscrolling has become so prevalent that it made the Oxford Dictionary’s words of the year in 2020. And thanks
The Hope In Water docuseries tells the story of sustainable aquaculture in the United States. PHOTO: PBS
Ian Roberts being interviewed by Dr. Sanjay Gupta in 2014 on a Mowi farm site in B.C. for CBS's 60 Minutes.
to personalized algorithms, the more people doomscroll, the gloomier their feeds are going to get.
Researchers at Stanford University conducted a “sentiment analysis” of nearly three million social media posts to investigate what drives posts to go viral. Led by Brian Knutson, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, the study found news sources overall posted almost twice as much negative content – called, high-arousal negative content – than positive stories.
“All news sources want their content to go viral, but biased news sources seem more willing to engage users with emotionally charged content, especially as political polarization increases,” Knutson said in an article in Stanford University’s website.
The bottom-line: negative content attracts more user eyeballs and click throughs, which drive up engagement
metrics. The danger, according to Knutson, is that even unbiased or “balanced” news sources might be incentivized to promote negative emotional content to increase engagement, which corresponds to increased revenue from paid advertisers.
It’s the reality of today’s information industry, where clicks and eyeballs translate to dollars and cents.
“To be producing something or to be making something, whether that’s fish or a widget, is (not likely) to attract news; but criticism of producers and people that make things and grow food is very easy to do and is very newsworthy to many journalists that are looking for click bait,” Roberts said.
“We have seen the perception of our business be eroded by headlines over the last 20 to 30 years that, at best, has been misinformation, and at worst has been completely false. False news makes page one and the correction makes page 67; that’s the challenge.”
Positive spin
Advocates of sustainably farmed seafood – called ‘blue food’ – like Fed by Blue, however, are presenting a different alternative than the doom-andgloom scenario when communicating the story of sustainable and innovative seafood farming.
The organization was behind the newly released documentary series Hope in the Water (see cover story in September/October 2024 issue).
“We had over six million watch (the documentary) in the first 30 days,” said Jennifer Bushman, co-founder and executive director of Fed by Blue.
While the documentary received significant viewership, it’s only part of a bigger, strategic campaign that includes a celebrity-filled Hollywood premier, ongoing media and event blitz, and the launch of the PBS Learning Media education toolkit for teachers and students grades 6 to 12. The toolkit “spotlights the successful,
Chef Gísli Matthías Auðunsson prepares cod, Reykjavík, Iceland PHOTO: SAM JOHNSON, INTUITIVE CONTENT
collective efforts to create sustainable food systems in the face of uncertainties caused by climate change and other human impacts on Earth’s aquatic biomes.”
The program also includes a new cookbook on sustainable seafood, to be launched in 2025, authored by Emmy award-winning Chef Andrew Zimmern and, National Geographic explorer and sustainable seafood expert, Barton Seaver.
The idea, Bushman said, is to see if all the investments on the integrated, multifaceted, extended national campaign to raise public awareness on these sustainably produced blue food, will translate to increased sales in the retail and restaurant levels. And all initial indications, according to Bushman, point to positive outcomes.
“We’re seeing tremendous momentum,” Bushman said. “We have worked with some of the retailers and it is lifting sales.”
Fly on the wall
The mainstream news media is far from the only battlefield in the fight against myths and misinformation. Social media has played an increasingly significant role in industry communications and has become a tool that cuts both ways.
James Sibley moved to Scotland soon after graduating from Northeastern University in 2023, to help shine a spotlight on sustainable aquaculture in Europe. He is now working with salmon producer Mowi, and Salmon Scotland, the association representing the Scottish salmon sector, as a digital storyteller.
A huge part of Sibley’s work is visiting aquaculture farms in Scotland to learn about the many innovations transpiring in these farms. Through video storytelling in his social media channels, mainly TikTok and Instagram, Sibley aims to educate the public about sustainable seafood production.
“Oftentimes when I’m visiting farm sites, farm managers, farm techs, fish health managers, veterinarians, etc, they don’t really know what to do with me. And that’s actually what I want. I want to be a bit of a fly on the wall. I want to have the drones up and the GoPros in the water, but I want people to go about their business,” Sibley explained.
These footage are then edited into snippets of digestible video stories that Sibley posts to his social channels. Sibley has 409,000 followers on TikTok and more than 30,000 on Instagram.
Even as a student at Northeastern University, Sibley had already taken a keen interest in aquaculture and has travelled to many farms across the U.S. and Canada showcasing their systems, technologies and products on his social media accounts.
A majority of Sibley’s audience are aged 25 to 34 years old – a key demographic that may play a huge role in shaping opinions about farmed seafood.
“I do get a lot of reception from my audience about how they feel about aquaculture... And I get a lot of messages from people right in that target demographic, you know, young millennials who are just fascinated by this industry,” said Sibley.
Changing public perceptions
When it comes to criticisms about farmed seafood, salmon farming bears the brunt of the attacks because it comprises a big part of the industry.
“Salmon is the target because it has been so successful. So if you damage the reputation of salmon, you are harming all the other aquaculture species in the world, just by association,” Roberts said.
Despite best efforts from both industry and third-party advocates, the reality is that anti-seafood farming lobby groups continue to outspend the industry in marketing and public relations efforts.
“We are very aware of the money that has been spent to amplify those criticisms to the masses, and it’s millions and millions of dollars and that money trail has been communicated over the last 20 years,” Roberts said.
“The sector has spent a fraction of that budget communicating what happens on the farms – how fish are
Behind the scenes shot of Baratunde Thurston, Rodolfo Abrams, Raimundo Espinoza with diamondback squid PHOTO: SAM JOHNSON, INTUITIVE CONTENT
raised, the risk of raising fish and the benefits of raising fish. I think just the fact that we have been clearly outspent in influencing public perception has been difficult now for the sector to catch up.”
Sibley particularly feels this in his work on the ground, as he tries to capture a vast, varied industry with his one-person digital media team.
“It was very obvious to me at the beginning that we should be doing more,” Sibley said. “Every company’s approach is drastically different as to how they’re looking at social media, even traditional media, paid advertising, organic advertising. (Whether it’s) getting the word out or staying out of the spotlight, I could not have predicted just how different every company would be in that manner.”
Reshaping public perception and correcting misinformation should not rest on the shoulders of the industry alone, Bushman noted.
“We have been a part of this system
for a long time, and because the work is so hard, changing public perception cannot be on the backs of the farmer or the fishermen. They’re going to need help. And we think that that help is out there. We think there’s agnostic funding to do it, and the science stands on our side,” she said.
Effectively communicating the science behind the benefits of seafood farming is also key, Roberts said.
“We also need to make sure that we are speaking to the audience in a way that matters to them. Why should they care? Is it about the health of what they’re eating? Is it about the health of the communities that they live in? They need to know why this business affects them,” Roberts said.
As the industry contemplates strategies to take back the narrative from the fear-mongers and the disinformation trolls, it may be wise to heed the words of Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan, which still ring true today: The medium is the message. | ANA
LOVE THE CULTURE.
PROVEN EQUIPMENT
Mulot Bagging Machine
Mulot Washer
Mulot Vibratory Grader
Mulot Water Bath Grader
James Sibley started Sibley Media in 2023 to share aquaculture stories through social media. PHOTO: SIBLEY MEDIA
Salmon and lobster in harmony
Studies show that wild lobsters live in harmony with salmon aquaculture off the east coast of North America, but the story is far from over. By Treena
Hein
There is quite a pile of evidence at this point that wild lobster populations have historically coexisted very nicely with salmon farming, but new chapters of this story continue to be written.
Just recently, in November 2024, a lawsuit was filed by a U.S.-based environmental group Conservation Law Foundation against Cooke Aquaculture, contending that its salmon farming sites off the Maine coast involve dischargement of “pollutants such as fish feces, dead fish and trash.”
Sebastian Belle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, has stated publicly that the lawsuit was a surprise as this group has worked with salmon farmers to develop environmental standards. He did not
respond to a request for further comment, but Joel Richardson, vice-president of Public Relations at Cooke, says it’s irresponsible for this group or anyone else to claim that modern marine finfish aquaculture harms lobsters.
“It is simply not true,” says Richardson. “Salmon aquaculture and the lobster fishery have co-existed in Atlantic Canada and Maine waters for more than 40 years under the existing environmental compliance criteria. Cooke’s Atlantic Canadian and Maine salmon farms are routinely inspected by government regulators and subject to regular monitoring reports. Lobster landings are not negatively affected by Atlantic salmon farms. In fact, lobster fishers are welcome to set lobster gear alongside and within
aquaculture lease boundaries and they tell us they have success in every location where we operate. We support wild fisheries harvesters and their families 100 percent. We all need strong working waterfronts in our rural coastal communities.”
Study results
Looking at what’s been published in journals, an eight-year study of lobster abundance at one salmon farm site in the Maritimes was released in 2019 by Tara Daggett, a senior environmental biologist at Sweeney International Marine Corp in N.B., and Jon Grant of Dalhousie University (who has since died).
They found the fish farm had no obvious impact on lobster density at any point in the
PHOTOS: SHAWN ROBINSON
salmon production cycle and that inshore lobster abundance followed trends similar to those of the general fishery.
Today, Daggett adds that “our entire team of biologists has documented the presence of lobsters near the grid systems and throughout the leases of many salmonid aquaculture sites and submitted these observations in reports to provincial and federal governments. I have also seen numerous lobster traps set within lease boundaries of aquaculture sites. Fishers set their traps intentionally within the aquaculture lease boundaries (which are marked by buoys) because they know they will catch lobsters there… Well-sited, well-maintained salmonid aquaculture operations can and do coexist quite nicely with local lobster populations.”
In 2022, a team at the Centre for Marine Applied Research in Dartmouth, N.S. (Horricks et al.) published a review of studies examining interactions between lobsters and salmon farms. They found in most instances; existing regulatory compliance addresses the environmental drivers that have the largest potential to adversely impact lobster.
“While there are still knowledge gaps surrounding salmonid–lobster interactions,” they noted, “in the absence of additional known pathways of effects, we suggest that existing environmental compliance criteria currently in place to avoid hypoxic or benthic anoxia at fish farms, and appropriate regulation of therapeutants, can allow for healthy coexistence of salmonid aquaculture and the inshore lobster fishery.”
A step back
Are there any new lobster population or salmon farming changes to note? And if so, what do we need to know?
Shawn Robinson, who has many years of experience studying lobsters and other marine organisms in relation to salmon farms and many other factors, can provide insight. He’s a retired research scientist with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans based in N.B. who currently does some ecologically related work for a U.K.-based consultancy called Longline Environment.
Regarding the bigger picture of lobster fishing and salmon farming, Robinson first explains that lobsters are economically important to the east coast and represent a third of the value of the entire Canadian
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has conducted various studies of lobster and other marine organisms over the years.
Ecological impacts of salmon farming have mostly been measured right under a farm, not 10 or 50 or 100 meters out, so a complete picture of the effects of salmon farming on lobsters and other organisms has not been achieved.
Lobster harvests in Canada’s Maritimes from about 1950 and onward were relatively stable until they shot up substantially in the mid-1980s, with the reasons for this still unclear.
fishery. This amounts to about US$1 billion a year that directly supports the rural areas of the Maritimes.
“This means that all other uses of the marine environment, such as salmon farming, have long been scrutinized as to how they
may affect these fisheries,” he explains. “If we look at our growing human populations, if we’re going to eat out of the oceans, like we have done on land, then we have to seriously look at farming in the ocean.”
With regard to historic lobster population trends, Robinson notes that lobster harvests from about 1950 onward were relatively consistent and lower around Nova Scotia but shot up substantially in the mid-1980s.
“We don’t know why,” he says. “We know that salmon aquaculture also increased sharply in the 80s, but that’s only a correlation and likely unrelated. Correlation is a bad way to manage resources. It’s only looking at one factor and you need the complete picture to make wise management decisions. Perhaps predators of juveniles were removed from the environment. No one looked at that or other possible factors.”
But now, lobster populations are decreasing, and Robinson says because that complete historic data picture is missing, we have no data to compare to, even if comprehensive studies are completed in the near future in Canada.
“In the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Maine, lobster numbers peaked in 2015 with a continual decline since,” he notes. “In Nova Scotia, they peaked in 2018 and in New Brunswick, in 2020-2021. The data from 2022 shows fewer lobsters landed overall and we don’t have the 2023 data yet. But in Quebec in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, lobster populations have been increasing since 2014 or so. Lobster might be moving there or surviving better there or both. There, there’s oyster and mussel farms but no salmon farms. But that is still only a correlation that you can’t conclude anything from.”
At the same time, the number of salmon farms in the Bay of Fundy were capped in 2010.
“We have to look at the ecology and all the factors,” says Robinson. “We need to dig down deeper into the ecological interactions to find out what’s going on for lobster and other wild-harvested seafood species. And that’s why it’s important to have full longterm comprehensive data.”
Looking at the U.S., Daggett points to the American Lobster Settlement Index which has been published by scientists at University of Maine for at least 23 years in order to inform stock assessments and forecast fishery trends.
She explains the indexes “show declines in lobster settlement (lobster offspring) in areas that do not have, and never did have, salmon aquaculture. Declines are linked to
Cooke’s Atlantic Canadian and Maine salmon farms are routinely inspected by government regulators and subject to regular monitoring reports. Lobster landings are not negatively affected by Atlantic salmon farms.
Cooke states that it’s irresponsible for anyone else to claim that modern marine finfish aquaculture harms lobsters, and that salmon aquaculture and the lobster fishery have co-existed in Atlantic Canada and Maine waters for more than 40 years under the existing environmental compliance criteria.
environmental changes such as temperature, and lobster populations are moving northward.”
Robinson adds, “our studies with Dr. Chris McKindsey from DFO showed that there are often lots of lobster under a farm. They are eating bits of fish feed from the cages above and some of the other organisms that are benefiting from the organic waste. Monitoring studies show that there’s usually more hydrogen sulfide under salmon farms as a result of microbial digestion of increased organic matter, and lobsters don’t like it.
“At the same time, we have to remember that lobster are mobile, and individuals may be going in and getting food particles from under the farms but mostly living a little distance away. The ecological impacts of salmon farming have mostly been measured right under a farm, not 10 or 50 or 100 meters out, so we don’t get a complete picture. If we’re going into a time of environmental uncertainty with climate change, we need the complete picture of the relationship between farms and lobsters and other organisms. We need more than correlation.”
More pieces of the puzzle
Preliminary results of a new University of New Brunswick study indicates some effects of aquaculture pens on biodiversity patterns of various marine species, but specific conclusions in some cases are difficult to make due to limitations of data and other factors.
The team did find no consistent differences in the abundance of young-of-year or juvenile lobsters between sampling locations near and away from aquaculture, but did not examine the areas directly below pens.
Lobster fishers themselves are also a good source of information as they observe populations closely. A team at University of Washington has analyzed 15 years of comments from the Maine Fishermen’s Climate Roundtables and found an observed overall shift in lobster biomass further east and offshore over that time period.
This “strategic expansion of lobster fishing seasons and areas” (as described by the scientists) is speculated by the fishers to perhaps be due to warmer water, decreases in salinity, a shift in ocean currents and/or
Oyster Trays stacked with quality
For over 35 years oyster growers worldwide have trusted our S1000 Oyster Tray and S4000 nursery tray, to produce the highest quality half-shell oyster for today’s demanding consumers.
loss of predator species.
Robinson notes that the Gulf of Maine waters are expected to warm up more than almost any other marine area in the world due to changes in the Labrador currents and other effects. So perhaps lobsters there are moving northeast to find cooler water.
Peter Norsworthy, president at Pisces Consulting in Halifax, has analyzed lobster abundance patterns and sees a positive relationship between changing environmental conditions having a direct impact on abundance, likely increasing larval survivability. However, he stresses that “it’s not possible to really tease out the precise environmental effect as the carapace size has increased over the same time, increasing reproductive capacity.”
It’s clear many questions still to be answered about lobster populations, but one thing seems certain. Both lobster fishing and salmon farming should be watched closely regarding potential impacts of climate change and all other factors to ensure the continued success of both endeavours. | ANA
Ask the Expert
BY PETER PARK, SKRETTING NORTH AMERICA
Peter Park is the technical manager at Skretting North America, leading the regional company’s formulation and product development. Closing in on five years in the aquaculture industry, he previously served as the formulator for Skretting’s Vancouver facility. Prior to transitioning into aquafeed, Peter began his career in the land animal feed business, serving two years as a monogastric nutritionist in Ontario. (peter.park@skretting.com)
Novel raw materials in 2025are we in or out?
They say pressure creates diamonds – we can absolutely say that about how far our industry has come from the days of all-marine-based aquafeeds. Farmed fish of today grow well despite using less and less marine ingredients per tonne of feed. Yet, depletion of wild stock fisheries remains a global threat and fuels the endless hunger for innovation, in turn powering the search for novel ingredients.
It seems however that we hear about the initial buzz of a novel ingredient, but often the momentum slows upon its breakout in the major league. So why is it that some enjoy the successful adoption by the industry they were hoping for, while some remain “upand-coming” for quite some time? As we approach the midpoint of this decade, are we in or out on this?
Here are some thoughts from a commercial aquafeed supplier’s perspective.
First things first –the basics
Today we think of a novel ingredient as one predominantly (but not always) of plant or animal origin, typically undesired by the human food chain, and can either be through optimizing existing (“conventional”) raw materials or creating something new. No doubt you have come across one of these if you have been involved in aquafeed in some capacity: alternatives to fish oil, functional micro-ingredients, highly purified protein concentrates, rendered animal byproducts, insect meal, microbial proteins… the list goes on. Without oversimplifying, commercial adoption of a novel ingredient looks something like this: innovative methods or processes paired with early academic studies on its ability to replace conventional raw materials generate the initial buzz from a
supplier. Upon regulatory approval and sufficient investment to scale to a marketable output, it is sampled by feed manufacturers and often validated with feeding trials. Gradually, more fish producers embrace its presence in the feed they buy, which in turn the raw material ultimately acquires its place in the feed supply chain. Straightforward, right?
Let it be known: I am a firm believer in alternative raw materials. They are key in enabling abundance in our food/feed supply and reducing the human-and-animal food chain overlap. With each conference I attend, emails I receive and news articles I read, I am fascinated by the many new ingredients I find from around the world…. and as a nutritionist I wish that I can reach out to every supplier. Reality frankly paints a different story.
Which came first, the broodstock or the egg?
At this point we have all heard about the scalability dilemma, in which a cycle of feed manufacturers seeking
more cost-competitive novel feed ingredient prices, and raw material suppliers/startups seeking more investment to increase production, exists. It is well known that aquafeed manufacturers and fish producers are persistently conservative in accepting change in their feed composition.
Like ingredient suppliers and fish producers, every feed manufacturer at their core must operate as a business. The feed industry is particularly competitive, and cost of raw materials is only one thing; costs to stock both raw material inventory and finished goods, shipping feed and investing in manufacturing infrastructure to name a few also need to be considered. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted all facets of the industry, especially fish producers. According to the latest U.S. National Aquaculture Development Plan (the first in 40 years), feed can make up to 70 percent of an operation’s budget – of course they will look to optimizing costs there first. We cannot forget that everything else costs more.
FIGURE 1. SOURCE: INTERNAL SKRETTING DATA
For as long as price volatility creates uncertainty, and competition encourages least-cost formulation, feed manufacturers will inevitably ask suppliers “how much?” first.
Preperation meets opportunity
In the early years of this decade, the aquafeed supply chain was at the mercy of sky-high logistics costs and heavily restricted fishing seasons year over year (Figure 1). This brought Omega-3 alternatives to fish oil such as algae oil and genetically-modified (GM) enriched rapeseed oil into the spotlight yet again. Given that volatility is becoming a norm, in the years that will follow when fish oil price eventually drops, will the demand for such alternatives remain high?
The U.S. Department of Energy reported around 15 billion bushels of corn produced every year since 2021, with one-third of that used for biofuel production. With advancing distillation technology and a surplus of substrate, corn fermented protein’s successful implementation in aquafeed is attributed further via logistics ease from the
I am a firm believer in alternative raw materials. They are key in enabling abundance in our food/feed supply and reducing the human-andanimal foodchain overlap.
Midwest and North America’s familiarity of GM ingredients.
Opportunities are ample yet regulations are slow to adapt. While the U.S. is now beginning to entertain phytase in aquafeed to navigate the growing pressure of effluent/ discharge restrictions, Canada is yet to see a phytase product approved for use in fish. Corn fermented protein is still classified under “corn distillers dried grains” according to the Association of Animal Feed Control Officials’ (AAFCO) Official Publication which dictates the approved ingredient terms used when labelling animal feed (well, until last October, when AAFCO ended their 17-year memorandum of understanding with the FDA!). Fish producers still associate that to
the conventional, lower-protein, inconsistent variety. Insect frass, recently showing promise as a protein source for species like tilapia, under the same guidelines is not yet approved for use.
How do we all win?
To create value beyond being the lowest-cost supplier, feed companies must work with fish producers to establish a clear, long-term vision justifying the added cost to include a novel ingredient no matter the economic climate. The ingredient must feature attributes beyond capitalizing on the next price dip or surge of conventional raw materials. Regulators must adapt quicker and foster guidance for fish producers to make informed decisions on what’s in their feed. The answer will lie somewhere that also satisfy mutual sustainability goals and other certification requirements.
With each passing year there is less reason to hokey-pokey with novel ingredients: we put our leg in, don’t put it out, and definitely don’t shake it all about. | ANA
CLEANER FISH BIOLOGY AND AQUACULTURE APPLICATIONS
Cleaner Fish Biology andAquaculture
Applications reviews and presents new knowledge on the biology of the utilised cleaner fish species, and provides protocols in cleaner fish rearing, deployment, health and welfare.
The latest knowledge is presented on specialist technical areas such as cleaner fish nutrition, genetics, health, immunology and vaccinology, welfare, transport and fisheries. Specific chapters detail cleaner fish developments in the main salmon-producing countries. Contributions from over 60 leading researchers and producers give an exciting mix of information and debate.
BY BEN NORMAND
Teach them how to feed Deep Dive
and communications. (ben.r.normand@gmail.com)
Feeding can be simple and monotonous, but it should always be done with care.
Lao Tzu very wisely once said, “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Although I don’t purport to be as wise as Lao Tzu, I would argue that since we now grow more fish than we catch, perhaps a more appropriate version for the future would be, “give someone a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach them how to feed a fish you feed them for a lifetime.”
This updated version not only points to the fact that a person feeding fish properly could theoretically grow their own food and eat for a lifetime. It also points to something very real about feeding fish that some farm managers get and some don’t: it’s the most important job on the farm. Someone who knows how to do this well and prides themselves on doing it should and will always have a job with which they can feed themselves!
This might sound obvious, and honestly, it is. If our business is the growth of fish, and the main input to that fish is feed, and our profits are a direct product of our degree of operational efficiency, then how efficiently we administer the main input is logically the central driver of our profitability.
In order to maximize profits farms need what I call a “feeding culture,” one in which feeding well is taught, encouraged and rewarded and where all tasks revolve around giving people the time and space to do it right.
On paper and in theory, everyone gets this. But, and I’m not alone here in my experience, this doesn’t always translate into a feeding culture.
Let’s be honest – feeding can be boring. It’s monotonous, and unless something unusual is happening, it’s not terribly stimulating. Human brains love novelty, excitement and dopamine. In my own experience, I had to willfully choose to find joy
in feeding, and having some music or a podcast going went a long way in keeping the mind occupied during the long periods when the fish were feeding actively.
This lack of excitement means that sometimes people try and avoid the task, and that means it can sometimes get “kicked down” to the newer folks, or the less liked folks, or those that aren’t fit for other tasks for whatever reason. When those associations are made in the farm culture, people who
are shunted into that job tend to be disengaged and won’t do a good job. At best, this results in decreased efficiency and lost growth, and at worst results in them literally throwing money away in the form of wasted feed.
An example is a coworker I had. He was 62 and had been there for 20 years. Due to his age, he was left to feed every day. He didn’t like doing it, and it showed. I remember standing next to him while we were hand-feeding a cage and when they were done, he
Ben Normand a fish farmer, writer, college instructor, and cheerleader for aquaculture. He has worked with various fin and shellfish species in New Zealand and Canada in production management, compliance,
Farms who have achieved a feeding culture understand that feeding is a mission-critical task.
decided he didn’t want to carry half a bucket (about five kilos) back to the hopper and just dumped it into the cage. All those pellets went to the bottom.
I was shocked. How could he not care? As I’ve grown older and have had experience managing people, his actions, though wrong, make sense to me. He’s been pushed into feeding for years because it’s an “easy” job. No one took him and his work seriously, and he felt unvalued. He had become totally disengaged with the success of the farm.
Farms who have achieved a feeding culture (and there are many who have) understand that feeding is a mission-critical task that should be entrusted to those folks that enjoy or can be satisfied doing the work and will do a good job. These people are absolute legends, and they should be held in very high regard on any farming operation. These people are the ones that really drive profitability.
If you feel like your operation does not have a feeding culture, consider these tips:
Start people on other tasks: feeding is mission critical – you need people in there that you know you can trust, who do the right thing even if it’s not easy, and who don’t stop until the job is done right. Managers should be working closely with new staff to size them up and understand which kind of job they would be best suited for. If that person strikes you as a good feeder, speak to them honestly about what day-to-day feeding work looks like and the incredible importance of this job. See if there is buy-in before entrusting them.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket: So, you’ve found your rockstar feeders – good on you! Should you stop when you have the bare minimum needed? No. What if one of them gets sick, or quits? Anyone who can be trusted to do the job well should
“Give someone a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach them how to feed a fish you feed them for a lifetime."
be trained and ready to do it. I suggest having a predictable rotation schedule to keep everyone’s skills sharpened, and to avoid monotony which, for many, is the enemy of engagement.
Be flexible: This is just good advice for just about any area of farm operations. Listen to the feeders, listen to what they ask for, and do your best to be accommodating. The real trick for building a feeding culture is creating buy-in from your feeders. If you can give them what they ask for, do it. And if you can’t, then give them the honest answers why and work with them to figure something else out.
Give feeding the time and space it deserves: This is particularly important for smaller operations where staff may do several different tasks in a day. Don’t rush the feeders – if the fish are eating, let them keep eating. If the feeders are taking their time to ensure the fish have achieved satiation, let them. Give them the benefit of the doubt – when they’re taking longer than you expected, trust that there is a good reason. If you can’t trust them, they shouldn’t be a feeder. Good feeding should also happen several times a day and this takes time.
Motivate them: At one salmon farm I worked at, we had a great feeding culture. We were trying new tech, we were given the time and space to do our jobs well, and feeding was prioritized. However, we found ourselves in a position where we really needed to see one population hit market size on a tight timeline to meet customer demand. It was doable, but would require extra effort.
The managing director offered, “if they get to X kilos by this date, I’ll send you all on a fishing trip.” It was a great motivator to take the extra time to top them up at every opportunity, and to get out on rough days and feed them. Motivation doesn’t always have to come in the form of money, and if you know your staff, you’ll know what makes them tick.
Respect the nuances of feeding: It’s so important to start off slow, to entice the fish into eating. Once they ramp up, increase the rate until you see one or two pellets (not a whole bunch) near the camera (not pass the camera), then back off the rate and feed there until you once again see a pellet near the camera. Then, stop for a moment. Then, start the process again, but more cautiously. Every pellet that enters a fish’s
mouth increases your efficiency and every pellet that sinks past the camera decreases it. It can be hard to create that sense of urgency in feeders when they see thousands of tons moving through your farm but do what you can to drive home the point that every pellet counts.
As well, offering the fish a bit more in every feeding session after you do your first stop allows the smaller, slower fish an opportunity to eat, which helps close the size spread in your population which increases yields at harvest.
The real nuance lies in observation, though. What I describe above is a good approach, but rarely do two days look alike, so it’s important for feeders to pay very close attention to how the fish are eating and adjust accordingly.
Happy feeding, everyone. | ANA
HOSTED BY Ian Roberts,
Presented by Sponsored by
Showcase
Aker QRILL partners with Tersan Shipyard to build krill fishing vessel
Aker QRILL Company, a krill-based ingredients company, is partnering with Tersan Shipyard to construct its fourth krill fishing vessel.
This agreement involves the purchase and rebuild of a project that was cancelled a while back. It also ensures a steady supply of fish feed and raw materials made from Antarctic krill.
“Adding a fourth vessel to our fleet is crucial for our success as we enter the next phase of growth and development. Equipped with the latest and most advanced technologies, this vessel will bolster our ambition to maintain our leadership position in the krill industry and ensure access to renewable and sustainable marine raw materials—vital to meet the growing global demand for sustainable marine feed ingredients with excellent nutritional qualities,” said Webjørn Barstad, CEO of Aker QRILL Company.
The vessel will be rebuilt and customized to meet the requirements of Aker QRILL Company.
Quality
The company said it also works with significant advances in the use of alternative fuels.
“We are glad to finally find a solution to a challenge we have been working hard to solve. This partnership provides valuable opportunities for both parties, and we are grateful for the chance to complete and deliver this vessel. Partnering with Aker QRILL Company aligns perfectly with our vision of innovation and excellence,” said Ahmet Paksu, vice president of Tersan Shipyard.
The vessel will operate under a Norwegian fisheries license in the CCAMLR krill fishery starting in the third quarter of 2026.
BioMar research tackles nutritional loss in waterborne aquafeed systems
Research from BioMar has highlighted some of the aquafeed challenges associated with waterborne feeding systems.
Waterborne feeding systems use underwater feeding technology to feed fish in aquaculture tanks. It is considered to be gentler on pellets and has the potential to reduce energy consumption, microplastic pollution, and sea lice exposure.
BioMar used the ORBIT product range and POWER grower diets in its research and iden-
tified factors contributing to nutritional loss in feed delivered through submerged systems. These factors vary in intensity, showing the complexity of creating an aquafeed that performs consistently in waterborne feeding.
“Through our research, we have a better understanding of the complex dynamics of waterborne feeding. These insights allow us to enhance our feed formulations and production techniques to reduce nutrient loss significantly,” said Ewan Cameron, product marketing manager of the Grower Category for BioMar.
Although the company’s work in this area is ongoing, it notes that the current results demonstrate a commitment to addressing the challenges of waterborne feeding head-on.
“Farmers can trust that we are not only aware of the challenges but are actively developing practical solutions. Our progress to date is a significant step forward, and we’re excited to share more as we advance towards a final product,” Cameron added.
New books on aquaculture nutrition available for industry and researchers
An international group of experts have published the first edition of a book on nutritional management.
Feed and Feeding for Fish and Shellfish: Nutritional Physiology is said to have foundational knowledge and the most recent advances in aquaculture finfish and crustacean metabolism and nutritional requirements, feed ingredients, nutrient deficiency disorders, and integrated sciences.
Nutrition is an important aspect of the aquaculture industry. This book provides a coverage of the nutrition, metabolism, and feeding strategies of key aquaculture species.
The book was edited by Vikas Kumar and published in Elsevier. It introduces nutrient
requirements of finfish, prawn, shrimp, crabs, and lobster before mentioning advances in feed ingredients, production, and practices and the risks of nutritional deficiency and associated diseases and disorders.
The final section of the book describes integrated sciences, including aquaculture species immune systems, muscle development, reproduction, gut health, and broader perspectives on seafood quality and food security.
Another book edited by Kumar is Nutrition and Physiology of Fish and Shellfish: Feed Regulation, Metabolism and Digestion. It is a reference on the most recent advances and fundamental subjects in nutrient metabolism, intestinal transport and physiology of taste in fish.
The book was published in the March 2025 edition of Elsevier. It covers the known nutrient requirements and deficiency effects for different fish, along with information on the digestion and metabolism of nutrients and energy. It also addresses current topics of interest to researchers and nutritionists in aquaculture.
All chapters are said to provide the essential literature related to the principles of fish nutrition and physiology that will be useful for academic researchers, aquaculture professionals, students and researchers.
Global Seafood Alliance welcomes two new board members
Global Seafood Alliance (GSA) has added two new members to its board of directors.
According to the GSA, Michael Szemerda and Trin Tapanya have extensive expertise and commitment to the seafood industry will guide the nonprofit in promoting responsibility and innovation in global seafood production.
Szemerda serves as the global chief sustainability officer at Cooke Inc., where he oversees environmental programs, regulatory compliance, industry certifications, and sustainability initiatives across its global wild and farmed seafood operations.
He’s been with Cooke for over 30 years at several roles including vice president of saltwater operations for Cooke Aquaculture’s North American operations. Szemerda has leadership experience in advancing responsible seafood practices.
Tapanya, senior vice president of operations at Chicken of the Sea Frozen Foods/ Thai Union Group, brings diverse expertise spanning the seafood business, supply-chain management, food service and restaurant industries.
“We are thrilled to welcome Michael and Trin to our board of directors,” said Mike Koc-
sis, CEO of GSA. “Their diverse perspectives and deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the seafood industry will be instrumental in helping us achieve our mission of advancing responsible seafood practices worldwide.”
Their contributions are expected to support the organization’s initiatives in driving innovation, promoting best practices, and ensuring a sustainable future for the industry.
WHAT’S
What species are you considering?
RAS or open water system?
Will you need a grant or funding?
We provide entrepreneurs and business startups professional support and world class facilities to develop their aquaculture ideas.
Contact us today to see how we can help turn your aquaculture idea into a
Michael Szemerda, global chief sustainability officer at Cooke Inc. PHOTO: COOKE AQUACULTURE.
Aquanomics
BY ALAN COOK
Alan Cook has more than 25 years of experience in the aquaculture and seafood industry in notable companies around the world, including Mowi Canada East and Cooke Aquaculture. He now runs his own consultancy firm, providing his expertise in strategic and operational planning, investment planning, and project management. (info@AlanWCook.com)
Navigating though company financial results
Quarterly and annual reports from publicly listed companies contain a wealth of information.
One thing that stood out for me, however, was how it would be possible to completely miss the gravity of the situation faced by some farmers, if you relied on the narrative and commentary of the reports and overlooked the key statistics that can be somewhat buried in a sea of backward-looking financial statements.
Mortality rates
Farmers tend to be oblique when it comes to mortality rates.
They often refer to total mortality rates for closed/harvested groups which are fine from a historical perspective, but if you are attempting to understand the prospects for the company, it is much more important to understand mortality rates for living inventory and how those rates have trended over the past few cycles.
A few farmers provide good information on this front – Andfjord Salmon and Salmon Evolution are examples, perhaps because their results are something to brag about.
In reports where high mortality rates are an issue, companies studiously avoid providing the actual numbers. Recent examples include Q3 2024 reporting for Grieg Seafood, Masoval, and H2 reporting for Atlantic Sapphire, where the results suggest mortality was a major factor in the poor results. But, finding information on actual mortality rates is a challenge.
To be fair to the companies in the “poor results” category, I don’t think they’re trying to hide from reality or their shareholders, but it is the nature of public reporting to present information in a confident, optimistic manner to protect share prices and investor confidence.
Financial reporting inherently does a poor job of predicting future outcomes –particularly in salmon farming with its long production cycle. harvest data can be a key indicator of production system health.
Size matters
Another element that can be glossed over by a positive spin in the production narrative is
the harvested size of fish. The market size for Atlantic salmon generally 4-5 kg and up.
Fish in this size range are ideal for fillet and portion yields and industrial uses. Larger fish are more desired for sushi, fine-dining and other premium outlets, etc.
Below these ranges, discounting can be steep, and fillet and portion yields can be poor. If a farmer is harvesting much below 4 kg in average weight, it should raise questions about the status of their farming operation.
When reviewing financial reporting, it is worthwhile paying attention to average harvest weight information when it is provided.
A couple of recent examples: on Slide 7 of the Grieg Seafood Q3 2024 presentation, they mention an average harvest weight of 3.6 kg, on Slide 20 of Atlantic Sapphire’s H2 presentation, a chart showing average harvest weights is presented. A few things can lead to harvesting small fish, none of them are good (for the most part).
From a cost of production perspective, Atlantic salmon juveniles are very expensive. They are delicate in the early stages, vaccine costs are high, and their nutritional needs are expensive to meet. And so, it is important to build as much biomass as possible in the lower cost, later portion of the life cycle.
In the Grieg example, harvesting fish at 3.6 kg in average weight (not sure if this is a live weight or HOG weight) would have suggested the harvest fish were in Month 14 of the production cycle – not bad from a unit cost perspective, but they would have missed out on the 25 percent of biomass growth that would have been produced in Months 15-18. So, 25 percent less biomass than optimal sold at a ~20 percent discount on price.
The Atlantic Sapphire example is more extreme, in the past five quarters, their harvest weights have averaged 1.6 kg. That implies harvesting took place in Month 8, again potentially not a disaster from a unit cost perspective, but implies they failed to realize 62 percent of planned biomass production. So again, a massive miss on production volume sold at a deep discount. (Some volumes were sold at a Bluehouse premium per their reporting, but the vast majority would have been deeply discounted.)
So why would a farmer harvest such small fish?
There are three main reasons and it will pay to ask the question if it isn’t spelled out. I’ll go from most likely to least likely.
Most likely – they don’t have control of their production system and the alternative to harvesting small fish is letting them die. The fish may have a virus, been badly impacted by jellyfish, have been hit with a plankton bloom, or the farmer is unable to control sea lice. I’ve experienced this first-hand and as much as it stinks to harvest small fish, it is far worse to watch them die. In addition to getting punished on pricing and biomass development, small fish are generally more expensive to process.
Next most likely – they need the cash. Salmon farming is a cash-intensive business, and they may need cash to come in the door even if they aren’t fully grown. Occasionally, if the market demand is high, it may make strategic sense to harvest small fish. For example, if you have a fish that is just under 4 kg in average weight in June, it may make sense to harvest early when prices are stronger rather than waiting until August when prices are normally weakest.
Least likely (in today’s context) – in Norway, farmers plan for maximum production from their sites. For example, if a farmer has a maximum allowed biomass (MAB) of 4,000 tons, they will plan their production to hit that ceiling when the fish are at a marketable size. On a farm with one million smolts and an assumed mortality of 15 percent for the cycle, the MAB would be hit when the fish are somewhere around 4.3 kg average weight. If things go extremely well with the farm and the mortality is significantly lower – i.e. five percent (challenging today but routine historically) the site may hit the MAB level at an average weight of 3.7 kg and be forced to harvest to stay below the cap.
Bad news on average price achievement but good news overall. | ANA
AQUACULTURE SOLUTIONS
