INDEX Aquaculture Magazine Volume 42 Number 3 June - July 2016
68 6 8 10
New Fish Virus that Threatens Global Tilapia Stocks. INDUSTRY NEWS USDA Unveils New ‘Urban Agriculture Toolkit’ for Urban Farmers and Agri-business Entrepreneurs.
Army Corps of Engineers proposes new process improvements for oyster aquaculture in Chesapeake Bay. Farmed salmon found to be hard of hearing.
The Brazilian market for farmed shrimp. Volume 42 Number 3 June - July 2016
Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza firstname.lastname@example.org
Production-Scale Triploidization: The Process, System and Triploidy Rates in Rainbow and Brook Trout.
Book Publishing in Aquaculture, Fisheries and Fish Biology. Part III.
Counting the cost of aquatic disease in Asia.
Editor in Chief Greg Lutz email@example.com Managing Editor Teresa Jasso firstname.lastname@example.org Editorial Design Francisco Cibrián Designer Perla Neri email@example.com Marketing and Communications Manager Alex Meza firstname.lastname@example.org Sales and Marketing Christian Criollos email@example.com Sales Support Expert Gustavo Ruiz firstname.lastname@example.org International Sales and Marketing Steve Reynolds email@example.com
Leaders in Pacific North West Seafood & Aquaculture Industry Coming to Vancouver Island BC Seafood Expo being held June 9 & 10.
News From Aquaculture Without Frontiers Leading the battle against ‘invisible malnourishment’.
Business Operation Manager Adriana Zayas firstname.lastname@example.org
Subscriptions: email@example.com Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 5043642 Office in Mexico: (+52) (33) 3632 2355 Aquaculture Magazine (ISSN 0199-1388) is published bimontly, by Design Publications International Inc. All rights reserved. www.aquaculturemag.com Follow us:
News from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council ASC Releases Terms of Reference for Marine Finfish Standard Development.
Capture and retention of talent in the aquafarming industry: determining factor in ensuring food for the planet.
SEAFOOD PROCESSING REPORT
From Ocean to Plate: Ensuring Traceable Supply Chain in the Seafood Industry.
PRODUCTS TO WATCH
Centralized Monitoring and Control: PENTAIR’S POINT FOUR LC3.
Largest Event Delivers in Indonesia.
China Invests Heavily in US Soybean Export Council’s Technology Improvements for Pond Aquaculture.
columns OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
THE LONG VIEW
THE SHELLFISH CORNER
Profitability…Sustainability…Suitability By C. Greg Lutz
s most of us know, or will realize sooner or later, you can’t just grow any aquatic species profitably. In fact, there are many that we will never be able to maintain in captivity let alone culture profitably. So, we are constantly evaluating “suitable” species for aquaculture. Perhaps more focus should be placed on species for which aquaculture itself is “suitable.” We refer to many of the species we grow as “hardy” or “adaptable” or “tolerant.” There are huge investments in genetic improvement programs to develop “resistant” strains of fish, shrimp and oysters. Take a moment to consider this. Why is disease, in general, such a constant threat for most aquaculture producers? Perhaps the most egregious characterization of some aquaculture species is “forgiving.” Forgiving of what? Well, let’s consider the range of insults most cultured species must “forgive.” Most disease problems are 4 »
the result of physiological stress on the species we are working with. This basic concept in aquatic animal health is usually presented in a graphic with the overlapping circles representing the culture species, the immediate environment and the disease agent. As long as we provide our fish, or shrimp, or shellfish with adequate nutrition and water quality and handle them with care, they should be just fine… at least until they reach harvestable size. But, obviously, this is often not the case. Disease losses in this industry are often tallied in millions of dollars per outbreak. Even for small producers, diseases can be devastating and often result in bankruptcy. So… what is going on? Perhaps our animals are often not nearly as happy and comfortable as we like to think they are. Even under the best of circumstances, the animals we work with are raised under extremely artificial
conditions. And although we strive to provide a suitable environment, the perception of “suitable” inevitably is measured by profitability. It IS a business, after all. We, the producers, are willing to accept disease losses - just not too much. The fish, or shrimp, or shellfish, however, are not really provided with an opportunity to comment on their culture environment – apart from getting sick, or dying. “New” diseases, it seems, will continue to appear from time to time. At this point, we can take that as a given. But their impact will always depend on how compromised their hosts are when they encounter them.
Dr. C. Greg Lutz has a B.A. in Biology and Spanish by the Earlham College at Richmond, Indiana, a M.S. in Fisheries and a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science by the Louisiana State University. His interests include recirculating system technology and population dynamics, quantitative genetics and multivariate analyses and the use of web based technology for result-demonstration methods.
USDA Unveils New ‘Urban Agriculture Toolkit’
for Urban Farmers and Agri-business Entrepreneurs Online Resource Draws on USDA’s and Partners’ Experience with Launching and Sustaining Urban Agriculture Operations Points Producers to Helpful Financial and Technical Resources.
n April 29, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled the USDA Urban Agriculture Toolkit, a new resource created by USDA’s Know Your Farmer team to help entrepreneurs and community leaders successfully create jobs and increase access to healthy food through urban agriculture. From neighborhood gardens grown on repurposed lots, to innovative mobile markets and intensive hydroponic and aquaculture operations, urban food production is rapidly growing into a mature business sector in cities across the country. “Urban agriculture helps strengthen the health and social fabric of communities while creating economic opportunities for farmers and neighborhoods,” Vilsack said. “USDA’s Urban Agriculture Toolkit compiles guidance from our Know Your Farmer team and many private partners into one comprehensive resource to help small-scale producers manage all aspects of their business. From protecting soil health to marketing to schools and grocery store chains, USDA has tools to meet the needs of this new breed of innovative urban farmer and small business owner.” Industry estimates show U.S. local food sales totaled at least $12 billion 6 »
in 2014, up from $5 billion in 2008, and experts anticipate that value to hit $20 billion by 2019. The numbers also show that these opportunities are helping to drive job growth in agriculture, increase entrepreneurship and expand food access and choice. USDA’s Toolkit is an electronic document that helps urban and small farms navigate more than 70 helpful resources, including technical assistance and financing opportunities. It focuses on some of the most pressing challenges confronting urban producers such as land access, soil quality, water resources, capital and financing, infrastructure, market development,
production strategies, and applying for federal, state or private foundation grants. University extension service partners in Chicago and Indianapolis helped develop cost estimates for starting urban farms and the toolkit includes information on best practices and check lists for start-ups and earlystage producers planning outdoor or indoor operations.
Some of the USDA resources featured in the Toolkit include: • Natural Resources Conservation Service technical and financial assistance for drip irrigation and seasonal high tunnels to extend the growing season.
Emerald Green Aquaponics.Courtesy Texas Agrilife.
• Farm Services Agency microloans that provide up to $50,000 in financing for equipment, working capital or other expenses. • Food and Nutrition Service assistance to help urban farmers become authorized to accept SNAP, WIC and Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program benefit cards. • Agricultural Marketing Service Farmers Market Promotion Program grants that support direct-to-consumer marketing activities in cities, and Local Food Promotion Program grants that support food hubs, farmto-retail, and related projects. • National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program support for field trials in urban settings and urban farm planning and marketing guides. Vilsack made the announcement during an event opening a new school community garden at Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore. The idea for the Toolkit was originally conceived at a USDA Urban Agriculture roundtable held nearby in Baltimore last spring. A key result of that meeting was the creation of
USDA’s Urban Agriculture Working Group (UAWG) that has assembled an inventory of existing department resources and worked to make them more readily accessible. The UAWG continues to actively engage urban producers around the country to identify evolving needs and support their success as a positive socioeconomic force in their communities. Several Baltimore organizations in the vanguard of urban agriculture have developed resources that are included in the Toolkit as models for other communities like the City Farm Alliance’s Urban Agriculture How-To Guide, the Community Law Center’s Urban Agriculture Law Project Manual and the Green Pattern Book that helps local leaders map and identify productive new uses for vacant land. During the event, Vilsack also highlighted expansion of a partnership between USDA and the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that administers AmeriCorps, increasing the number of opportunities for young people in Baltimore to serve as AmeriCorps VISTA Summer Associates, earning valuable professional and life
experience while serving their community. These AmeriCorps members will serve with the Maryland Out of School Time (MOST) Network to provide summer opportunities for Baltimore City residents. They will join the more than 1,400 AmeriCorps members currently serving institutions and organizations throughout the city, including Frederick Douglass High School. The Urban Agriculture Toolkit and the UAWG are part of USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative (KYF2) supporting the Obama Administration’s work to strengthen economic bonds between rural and urban areas. Launched in 2009, KYF2 breaks down silos and takes stock of USDA programs that support the growing demand for local and regional food systems. Visit the KYF2 website at www.usda.gov/ knowyourfarmer to find local and regional food system resources in your community. Learn more about the $1 billion USDA has invested in 40,000 projects to develop local market opportunities at https://medium.com/ usda-results. »
Army Corps of Engineers proposes new process improvements for
oyster aquaculture in Chesapeake Bay
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, is proposing changes to the current aquaculture permitting process. Proposed changes include allowing unlimited project acreage for qualifying aquaculture activities under Nationwide Permit 48 and a concurrent review process with Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
With our Regional General Permit for aquaculture expiring, we are given the opportunity to consider changes in our processes,” said Beth Bachur, Baltimore District Regulatory Branch chief. “We’ve learned that there is room for improvement; we’ve listened to the feedback received over the past five years, and we intend to incorporate changes that will make the process more efficient.” The existing Regional General Permit for aquaculture activities in Maryland, which has been effective for the past five years, expires August 15, 2016. Baltimore District’s Regulatory Branch proposes to reinstate Nationwide Permit 48, Aug. 16, 2016, for new aquaculture activities with the goal of making the permit process more efficient. The Baltimore District is proposing to remove the limits on project acreage for aquaculture activities under Nationwide Permit 48. To qualify for the existing Regional General Permit, projects are limited to 50 acres for shell-on-bottom, 8 »
five acres for cages-on-bottom, and three acres for floating aquaculture activities. Proposed projects greater than these size limits had to undergo an individual permit process, which includes a public notice and comment period, and takes more time to process. “Location is everything; the size and scope of a potential project should not be limited at the start,” said Woody Francis, Baltimore District Regulatory Branch aquaculture program manager. “The project can always be scaled back as necessary based on the project location to minimize effects on endangered species, navigation and historic resources.” The Baltimore District is also working to streamline the joint state/ federal aquaculture review process with Maryland DNR. The process requires applicants to receive an aquaculture lease from Maryland DNR and a permit from the Corps. Currently, the joint application is submitted by the applicant to Maryland DNR for review, and then it is forwarded to the Baltimore District
after DNR completes its survey and plans. The Baltimore District proposes DNR forward the application shortly after receipt so both agencies can concurrently review and continue to coordinate throughout the process. Additionally, the applicant can send the application to both DNR and the Baltimore District. This will enable the Baltimore District to see the application and initiate its review sooner.
Chesapeake oyste reef restoration Courtesy NOAA.
The Baltimore District proposes to require additional information in the application to ensure the proposed activities have minimal impacts on navigation and endangered species. These details include a description of structure spacing; the number and spacing of vertical and horizontal lines and buoys; information identifying how adverse effects to navigation and neighboring properties have been avoided; and notifi-
cation to adjacent property owners. The Baltimore District also proposes to remove the geographic exclusion lines that made projects upstream of those lines ineligible for authorization under the 2012 Nationwide Permit 48. The lines were intended to protect fish spawning habitat, but the Baltimore District is coordinating with the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine how to best address this concern.
“We believe that these proposed changes will strike a balance between allowing oyster aquaculture to the fullest extent possible - recognizing aquaculture’s contributions to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the regional economy, while ensuring that projects do not have a negative effect on other natural resources,” said Bachur.
Courtesy Ruby Salts Oyster Company.
found to be hard of hearing New research published in the journal Scientific Reports has revealed for the first time that half of the world’s farmed salmon may have hearing loss due to a deformity of the earbone.
Farmed Atlantic salmon from Washington State Courtesy NOAA
ike humans, fish have ears which are essential for hearing and balance, so the findings are significant for the welfare of farmed fish as well as the survival of captive-bred fish released into the wild for conservation purposes. The University of Melbourne-led study found that half of the world’s most farmed marine fish, Atlantic salmon, have a deformity of the otolith or ‘fish earbone’, much like the inner ear of mammals. The deformity was found to be very uncommon in wild fish. Lead author Ms Tormey Reimer said farmed fish are 10 times more 10 »
likely to have the deformity than wild fish. “The deformity occurs when the typical structure of calcium carbonate in the fish earbone is replaced with a different crystal form. The deformed earbones are larger, lighter and more brittle, and the way they perform within the ear changes,” Ms Reimer said. “The deformity occurs at an early age, most often when fish are in a hatchery, but its effects on hearing become increasingly more severe as the fish age. Our research suggests that fish afflicted with this deformity can lose up to 50% of their hearing sensitivity.”
To test if the deformity was a global phenomenon, researchers from the University of Melbourne and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research sampled salmon from the world’s major salmon producing nations: Norway, Canada, Scotland, Chile and Australia. The team compared the structure of the otoliths from farmed and wild salmon. They also compared the hearing of the fish using a model that predicts what a fish can hear. Regardless of the country where salmon were farmed, the deformity was much higher in farmed fish than wild fish.
“This study raises questions about the welfare of farmed animals and could explain why some conservation programs aren’t working” said coauthor Assoc. Prof. Tim Dempster from the School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne. “Something about the farming process is causing the deformity. We now need to work out what is the root cause to help the global salmon industry produce fish with acceptable welfare standards.” Over two million tons of farmed salmon are produced every year, with more than a billion fish harvested. “We estimate that roughly half of these fish have the earbone deformity, and thus have compromised hearing. We don’t yet know exactly how
this hearing loss affects their performance in farms. However, producing farmed animals with deformities contravenes two of the ‘Five Freedoms’ that forms the basis of legislation to ensure the welfare of farmed animals in many countries,” added Ms Reimer. Deformed earbones could also explain why many fish conservation programs aren’t performing as expected. Every year, billions of captive-bred juvenile salmon are released into rivers in North America, Asia and Europe to boost wild populations, but their survival is 10-20 times lower than that of wild salmon. Hearing loss may prevent fish from detecting predators, and restrict their ability
to navigate back to their home stream to breed. Study co-author Prof Steve Swearer from the University of Melbourne said that the poor performance of restocked fish has been a long-standing mystery. “We think that compromised hearing could be part of the problem. All native fish re-stocking programs should now assess if their fish have deformed earbones and what effect this has on their survival rates,” Prof. Swearer said. “If we don’t change the way fish are produced for release, we may just be throwing money and resources into the sea.” For more information on the research, contact Dr Nerissa Hannink, firstname.lastname@example.org
USDA Announces $1.2 Million
in Available Funding for Aquaculture Research
he Aquaculture Research program focuses on projects that directly address major challenges to the U.S. aquaculture industry. Results of projects supported by this program are intended to help improve the profitability of the U.S. aquaculture industry, reduce the U.S. trade deficit, increase domestic food security, provide markets for U.S. produced products, increase domestic aquaculture business investment opportunities and provide more jobs for rural and coastal America. Aquaculture contributes more than half of the seafood consumed globally, and this contribution is expected to grow. Although U.S. aquaculture production has shown growth in the past decade, the U.S. currently
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently announced more than $1.2 million in available funding to support the development of environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture in the United States. This funding is available through the Aquaculture Research Program, administered through USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). still has an approximately $12 billion trade deficit in seafood products and imports more than 90% of seafood consumed. The factors that limit aquaculture in the U.S. are complex and multifaceted. The NIFA announcement stated that “applied research in genetics, disease, production systems, and economics is needed to develop practical solutions that will facilitate growth of
the U.S. aquaculture industry. This research will help reduce the U.S. trade deficit in seafood products and enhance the capacity of the U.S aquaculture industry to contribute to domestic and global food security and economic growth.” Since 2014, this program has awarded nearly $2.5 million in funding. For information on last year’s funded projects, visit the NIFA website. » 11
The Brazilian market for farmed shrimp By Itamar Rocha
Affected by antidumping duties on shrimp imposed by the US in 2004, Brazil’s production of farmed shrimp is now almost exclusively absorbed by its domestic market, driven by the increasing consumer demand within the country.
razil has an extraordinary potential for sustainable development of the farmed shrimp industry from both an environmental and social point of view. This potential is evident along 12 »
the coast as well as inland, where waters of low salinity are readily available. Most of these areas are geographically located in its northeast region, which has the lowest socioeconomic indicators of the country.
It is important to note that Brazil’s farmed shrimp industry was structured and grew in its first years to supply the European and American markets. However, the imposition of antidumping duties by the USA in 2004 together with the appreciation of the national currency against the US dollar affected the competitive edge of Brazil’s shrimp exports, practically halting them, which then made the domestic market the only viable alternative (Figures 1 & 2). In spite of loss of SGP tariffs in the European Union at the beginning of 2014 and the continued presence of antidumping tariffs in the USA, in 2013 several Brazilian shrimp producers started to test the international marketplace once again. In that year, a small amount (612 tonnes valued at US$ 4.1 million) of farmed shrimp was exported, but this dropped in 2014 to just 277 tonnes comprising shipments to Spain (17.28 tonnes /
vannamei) at the national level. In fact, the shrimp domestic market is satisfied exclusively by national production, which totaled 85,000 tonnes in 2014 and was expected to reach 90,000 tonnes in 2015, which would be a record volume for the last twelve years. Even though shrimp consumption in the country is still low at only 0.6 kg/per capita/year (80% from aquaculture and 20% from capture), this figure is increasing year on year due to increasing consumers purchasing power and higher supply from domestic production. The fact is that Brazilâ€™s economic growth from the years 2007 to 2013 coupled with increased average income, has positively contributed to an increasing demand for shrimp, both in retail chains as well as in the food service sector, even considering the economic stagnation in 2014/2015. Fresh shrimp still represent the largest volume of sales at the farm level. Because of the high degree of informal record keeping at this level, it is difficult to quantify with any degree of certainty the production totals and trade processes.
Domestic trade and processing channels Small and medium-sized producers usually sell their output to local dealers as well as distributors that operate supply centers in the south and US$ 220,300); France (93.32 tonnes southeast regions of Brazil, the most / US$ 629,070); and Vietnam (168.8 developed regions of the country. tonnes / US$ 1,339,480). Other destinations for the shrimp Consequently, since 2006, the are plants located in the northeast domestic market has been the main region that process value-added destination of Brazilâ€™s shrimp pro- products, including cooked shrimp duction. in portions packed in 200, 400, 500 and 1000 grams, and which are then Most supplies consumed distributed throughout the country. domestically Middlemen are also mostly reFarmed shrimp production, both sponsible for the provision of from businesses as well as family- shrimp direct from the farms to certype aquaculture, strongly contrib- tain supply centers. From there, the utes to regional development while shrimp is distributed in fresh form meeting the growing domestic de- to the end-user market, consisting mand for shrimp (mainly Litopenaeus mostly of restaurants, bars and hoÂť 13
tels. Again, because of the informal nature, this trade flow is difficult to quantify precisely. In the case of frozen shrimp, the market has consolidated itself year after year based on the regularity of supply and excellent product quality provided by the farmed shrimp industry. This market is characterized by a higher level of formal commercial transactions and greater price stability during the year, and can be divided into the following segments: • Retailers: consisting of supermarket chains, where frozen shrimp is sold both in bulk, as well as in standard weight packaging. This market absorbs both IQF whole shrimp and also higher added-value products (peeled and cooked shrimp, breaded shrimp and ready to cook dishes). • Distributors: located in all regions of the country, they primarily sell frozen products in standard weight packaging to restaurant, bars, hotel, chains and small retailers. • Food service: made up of restaurants chains, industrial kitchens and fast food chains, this segment is characterized by its requirement for more standardized products in terms of weights and portions, but with lower added value. • Processing industry: specializing in cooking shrimp, preparation of ready-to-eat dishes and portioning of products, this segment uses frozen shrimp as raw material for their product lines. The fixing of selling price of frozen shrimp takes into consideration a series of factors such as size and level of added value in each product. Consumer demand pressure also affects prices in the domestic market. For some years now, the main destination of frozen shrimp has been the major urban centers represented by the main state capitals of the country (Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Florianopolis, Belo Horizonte, Recife, Salvador, Fortaleza, Natal among others). The city of Itajaí in the small State of Santa Catarina in the south14 »
ern region constitutes an important processing and distribution center at the national level. The continued increase of the average Brazilian income level has altered this scenario slightly, such that shrimp is now also increasingly finding its way to the inland regions of a number of states in the country. However, the southeast region still accounts for the largest share of shrimp consumption in the country, absorbing around 52% of shrimp sold in the domestic market in all forms of presentation.
Conclusions Brazilian shrimp farming has faced difficulties in the last decade, and horizontal expansion has been slow, but the industry is now back on the growth path. The expected increase in production is linked to the implementation of Good Management Practices and Biosecurity Measures. In this respect, it is worth noting the initiative by the Brazilian Asso-
ciation of Shrimp Farmers (ABCC) to set up regional and decentralised technical training courses for all producers, especially those in the small and medium-scale industries. This knowledge of Good Manufacturing Practices and Biosecurity Measures disseminated among producers; higher production volumes from traditional farms attracted by good prices in the domestic market; the expansion of farming to include areas with oligohaline waters (low salinity); and polyculture with tilapia; are some of the main actions that have contributed to the recovery of the sector. Furthermore, the interaction and the possibility of new partnerships between government and the private sector to facilitate and accelerate the issue of environmental permits and lines of credit for investment and operational cost at the farm level, opens the way to overcome longstanding obstacles that have prevented the expansion of farmed shrimp in Brazil. With its exceptional natural conditions, infrastructure, and strategic location as far as the main consuming centers are concerned; the country can reach a prominent position of leadership in shrimp farming in terms of global production. It is only matter of time. Itamar Rocha is President, Brazilian Association of Shrimp Farmers (ABCC). The original article called â€œThe Brazilian market for farmed shrimpâ€? was issued by Info Fish International in their edition of April 2015
Production-Scale Triploidization: The Process, System and Triploidy Rates in Rainbow and Brook Trout By: Eric J. Wagner and Randall W. Oplinger*
terile fish also are useful for stocking sites where hybridization between native and non-native fish is an issue. For commercial aquaculture, use of sterile fish can prevent precocious maturation prior to achieving market weight. Sterile triploids are produced by forcing the retention of the second polar body during meiosis, leading to inclusion of a third set of chromosomes in the nucleus. This retention is typically induced by heat shock or pressure shock. Pressure shock has produced more consistent triploid induction rates than heat shocks but hydrostatic pressure units are expensive (> US $20,000) and often lack the capacity to alter large groups of eggs. Heat shock units can be constructed less expensively and studies have demonstrated that heat shocks can produce results comparable to pressure shocks. Sterile Rainbow Trout in Utah are produced by heat shocking eggs. Triploid production of Rainbow Trout at the J. Perry Egan State Fish Hatchery, Bicknell, Utah (Egan SFH, hereafter) was initiated in 2001. Production of large numbers of triploid Rainbow Trout has resulted in a progression from initial efforts of heat shocking in coolers to the heat-shock 18 Âť
Sterile fish provide fisheries managers with a tool for controlling population numbers and reproduction of stocked fish.
methods detailed below. The Mantua SFH, Mantua, Utah; Whiterocks SFH, Whiterocks, Utah; and Mammoth Creek SFH, Hatch, Utah, have also installed production scale heat-shock triploidization equipment, starting triploidy programs in 2012.
The system Heat Shock: Two different systems are in use in Utah for heating the water used for heat shock treatment and maintaining water temperatures. One uses water from a dedicated hot water heater typically used in homes. The heater is plumbed to receive hatch-
ery well water and has a valve on the outflow to which a garden hose is connected. The hose has a sprayer on the end to dissipate heated water. Heated water is mixed with hatchery well water to achieve the target temperature. When temperature needs to be adjusted quickly, warm water from the heater or cool hatchery water is added as needed. In addition to the hot water heater, three recirculating water heaters are used to maintain the target temperature in the trough. The recirculating heaters are connected by hose to inlet and outlet manifolds. Each manifold consists of a length of
13 mm PVC pipe that sits on the bottom of the trough. The two manifolds sit on opposite sides of the trough. Holes (3 mm diameter, 6.3 cm apart) are drilled in the pipe to create an outflow directed laterally across the bottom of the trough. A tee with a hose barb is centered on the pipe, with two additional tees with hose barbs located 152 cm from the center tee. An elbow and extension without holes are put on each end of the PVC pipe to provide support. Alternatively, a second system using an on-demand heater has been innovated by Mammoth Creek and Mantua Hatchery’s staff, making the trough a flow-through system. Currently a propane powered heater is being used at Mammoth Creek with a scale inhibitor filter plumbed upstream. At Mantua, a 167,000 BTU natural gas on-demand heater was installed. The output temperature is set at 43.3°C (110°F). Heated water is mixed with 9°C hatchery well water by a mixing valve. The cost of the heater, installation, and mixing valve were about US $1,800, which is considerably cheaper than the static setup with a hot water heater and recirculating heaters (about US $1,400 each). The output of the mixing valve is plumbed directly to the trough manifold. In this case, the manifold tees at the head of the trough and two 13 mm PVC pipe lines go down either side of the trough. Holes in the pipe are directed to the wall to prevent roiling of the eggs during operation. Ex-
Figure 1. Static heat shock system: A) trough and manifold system used for heat shocking eggs for triploidy induction, B) perforated aluminum tray with nylon netting siliconed to floor of the tray, C) Recirculating water heaters (Polyscience, Inc.) used to maintain trough water temperature, and D) hot water heater system used to heat well water for heat shock trough.
perience at the Mantua Hatchery has indicated that about 30 min lead time is needed to get the trough to a temperature equilibrium and ready for the first batch of eggs. One observation on the heater operation is that the drip line hose needed a few holes in it to prevent vacuum locks. In both systems, three digital thermometers are set along the length of the trough to monitor temperature. There is variation along the length, especially as egg groups are added and removed, so it is important to have several thermometers. The trays (30 x 478 cm) used for the eggs were » 19
constructed of perforated aluminum (2.4 mm holes). Tray depth should be near or above the water depth to prevent eggs from escaping during filling and as the tray is carefully moved up and down to speed up thermal equilibration of the eggs. Trays can be lined with nylon netting (3.2 mm) glued to the tray in the corners and bottom center with silicone, but have been used successfully without the lining. Feet were made at each bottom corner by screwing on black rubber stoppers. This allowed more circulation under the tray and around the eggs. Trays made with wood sides and a perforated aluminum bottom have also been used successfully. Pressure shock: For pressure shock, the device manufactured by TRC Hydraulics Inc., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is used without modification (Model TRC APV). It is portable, and can be wheeled out when needed or stored away when not in use.
The process Heat shock: The protocol for the heat shock of Rainbow Trout eggs is: 26.5 ± 0.5°C for 20 min beginning 20 min after fertilization. Adjustment for different hatchery water temperatures can be made using the same degree-minute product (180°C-min) to derive the correct time to start heat shocking (see data in water temperature effects section
Figure 2. On-demand heater plumbing. Note heater (A), inlet and outlet hoses (B), mixing valve (C), exhaust pipes (D), and drip line (E).
below). Initially, eggs are pooled from ripe females to get about 3-6 L of eggs, which are placed into a 10 L plastic pail. Males are stripped directly onto the eggs (5-10 males per pail) using a sieve to prevent feces from contaminating the eggs. A salt diluent (about 0.75% rock salt) is added to completely cover the eggs, initiating fertilization. A timer is started, counting down the 20 min until the heat shock. The eggs are gently mixed for a few seconds, then transported with the timer to the hatchery building, where the eggs are rinsed with hatchery spring water a few minutes after fertilization. The hatchery water the eggs are held in is 9°C, derived from springs at the hatchery, which are the same temperature all year long. After rinsing, the eggs are held in a rectangular net (18 x 25 cm, 3 mm mesh), the wood handle of which was cut to about 30 cm long. The net rests on the rim of a bucket of fresh well water as eggs continue to ‘water-harden.’ At 20 min post-fertilization (p.f.), the eggs are gently poured into a tray within the fiberglass heat-shock trough. The tray is gently lifted up and down a few times to mix the heated trough water with the eggs. In the static system, heated or cool water is added as needed during the residence time to quickly adjust and maintain the target temperature. In the flow-through system, the heater output temperature may be adjusted up five degrees temporarily, but generally high flow will quickly return the water to the target temperature. After 20 min in the trough, the eggs in the tray are gently poured into a fiberglass egg jar to finish water hardening. 20 »
sure is released quickly, usually requiring just a few seconds. The eggs are removed and transferred to jars for later disinfection and incubation.
Triploid Production Data Whole blood was tested for triploidy using flow cytometry. About 10% of the lots are tested annually for triploidy. During the flow cytometry assay, some samples were unreadable, so these were not included in the calculation of the percent triploidy. Evaluation of different water temperature effects on triploidy induction
Figure 3. PVC manifold plumbed to the mixing valve and on-demand heater system (A). Aluminum mesh trays used to hold eggs during the heat shock process in the heated water trough (B).
Cumulative batches of eggs are collected in a jar until it is full (usually about 2/3 eggs) or a Rainbow Trout year class has been completed. One hour or more after fertilizing the last batch that is in the jar, the eggs are inventoried (egg volume and eggs/unit volume measured) as they are transferred to a jar or washtub with a large mosquito net or drawstring bag and water in it. The resulting bag of eggs is elevated to drain for a few seconds and carefully transferred to a bath with 100 mg/L iodine for 10-15 min. After treatment, the eggs are returned to a jar for incubation. At the eyed egg stage (eye-up), the eggs are sorted with a mechanical egg picker to separate dead from live eggs. The volume (V) of both groups is used to calculate percent survival to eye-up [(V live)/(V live + Vdead) x 100]. Eyed eggs are shipped to receiving hatcheries around the state. Pressure shock: Pressures of 6.55 x 104 to 6.76 x 104 kPa (9,500 to 9,800 psi) are used at 35 min after fertilization for a duration of 4 to 5 min to induce triploidy in Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis eggs. Tests have indicated that postfertilization intervals from 32-43 min (304 to 408.5 degreeminutes [°C-min]) all produced 100% triploid Brook Trout (Wagner, unpublished data). Work by other authors has similarly demonstrated that a range of post-fertilization times (200-400 °C-min) and pressures (6.2 x 104 and 6.5 x 104kPa) will produce 100% triploidy in Brook Trout and Lake Trout. For routine production at Egan SFH, a pressure of 6.76 x 104 kPa at 35 min post-fertilization (p.f.) for 5 min is used. For treatment the eggs are gently transferred to a metal basket within a stainless steel cylinder of the pressure device. The basket is kept in a bucket of well water until it is time for the treatment. The piston lid is secured in place and the hydraulic pressure is brought up to the target level with the foot switch on the device. After 5 min, the pres» 21
Methods Recently, Mammoth Creek (MC) and Whiterocks (WR) State Fish Hatcheries were added to the list of sites that would be creating triploid Rainbow Trout. Given the higher temperatures at these hatcheries (WR = 10.5°C, MC= 12°C) compared to Egan SFH (9°C), there were concerns regarding achievable triploidy rates. So tests were conducted to compare the traditional recipe used at Egan SFH with other induction times and durations that were based on similar degree-minute (°C-min) values as the traditional method (9°C x 20 min = 180°C-min). The first trial was conducted at the Whiterocks Hatchery. We varied temperature of the shock (26.5 or 27.0°C), time
post-fertilization (16-20 min), and duration of the shock (16-20 min) creating six different treatments. These were conducted in duplicate (replicates limited by incubation tray space and water availability) on eggs from 5-year-old Kamloops strain Rainbow Trout. The second trial was conducted at MC using Sand Creek strain Rainbow Trout. The treatments were: 1) 15 min post fertilization (p.f.) for 20 min, 2) 15 min p.f. for 17.5 min, 3) 15 min p.f. for 15 min, 4) 17.5 min p.f., for 17.5 min, 5) 17.5 min p.f. for 20 min, 6) 20 min p.f. for 20 min [Egan control], and 7) diploid control (no heat shock). The heat shock temperature for all treatments was 26.5 ± 0.3°C. Fish from both trials were reared to a size where they were large enough to permit blood collection (~50 mm total length). The percentages of triploids, deformed fry, as well as survival to eye-up, hatch, and to the time of blood collection were determined and compared among treatments using one-way ANOVA (SPSS Version 13.0 or NCSS Version 2007). Results and discussion In the first trial at WR, the triploid percentages were high in all treatments (≥ 97%) indicating a relatively broad range of time post-fertilization (16-20 min) and treatment duration (16-20 min) was effective for triploidy induction. There were no significant differences among the heat shock treatments in the percent triploidy (P = 0.35). Survival to the eyed stage varied from 26.2 to 68.6% among treatments, but did not significantly differ among them (P = 0.43). Similarly, percent hatch of the eyed eggs did not significantly differ (P = 0.47), ranging from 46.2 to 83.4%. Deformities ranged from 3.2 to 5.1% among treatments and did not significantly differ among treatments (P = 0.51). The survival data indicated that the 27°C treatments led to higher mortality, despite being only half a degree warmer. In one replicate (treatment: 16.5 min p.f., 20 min duration), all but three eggs were killed. The warmer temperature lowered the yield despite high rates of triploidy. 22 »
Figure 4. Equipment for egg handling prior to heat shock: note net in bucket of fresh hatchery well water, pipe insulation on the edge of the utility sinks for human comfort, and welded support stand to bring utility sinks up to comfortable working height (innovations by Kirk Smith, Mantua Hatchery).
The best yield was achieved by using 26.5°C to heat shock at 18 min p.f. for 20 min. The most consistent recipes for achieving good survival and 100% triploidy using 26.5°C heat shocks were either 16.5 min p.f. for 20 min duration or 16 min p.f. for 16 min duration. For the MC trial, triploidy percentages were generally high across all heat shock treatments (≥ 97%). There was no significant difference among treatments (P = 0.70). Triploid percentages of 100% were achieved when the duration of the 26.5°C heat shock was 17.5-20 min, applied between 15-20 min after fertilization. There was no significant difference among treatments in the survival to eye-up (P = 0.23), survival to hatch (P = 0.13) or fry mortality (P = 0.17). Survival of the heat shocked groups to eye-up or hatch averaged about 20% less than controls. Similar reductions in egg survival have been observed in other studies. At Mammoth Creek Hatchery, fry survival was about 5%
higher in controls than the treated groups. So, for meeting target stocking quotas, about 25% more eggs will be needed if they are heat shocked. Acknowledgments We thank the past (B. Hilton, R. Jensen, G. Coombs, D. Hiske) and present staff (D. Bone, M. Durfey, D.Behunin, D.Brinkerhoff) of the Egan Hatchery, Q. Bradwisch and the Mantua Hatchery staff, K. Smith at the Mantua Hatchery, D. Dewey and M. McCarty at the Whiterocks Hatchery, G. Nelson, K. Scott, and R. Josie at Mammoth Creek Hatchery and many of the other Utah Division of Wildlife’s hatchery staff. We gratefully acknowledge assistance by Fisheries Experiment Station staff (R. Arndt, M. Brough, S. Intelmann, E. Billman, and M. Bartley) and P. Wheeler at Washington State University. The work was financially supported by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program.
Book Publishing in Aquaculture, Fisheries and Fish Biology Part III In our final segment on book publishing, we will review the last few steps in the process, with some considerations every author should take By Nigel Balmforth
inal stages. Once the proofs have been checked and any corrections incorporated, then the books will be printed and bound and then shipped to the publisher’s warehouse(s). Some copies of the book, called advances or advanced copies, will be dispatched to the publisher in advance of the bulk, so that the publisher can assess the quality of the finished product and agree that it can be released for publication. You are also likely to be sent some finished copies of your book in advance of the publication date. A book’s publication date is normally when the bulk shipment of books reaches the publisher’s warehouse(s) and any copies of the book already ordered (called ‘dues’) are released. An electronic version of a book might be published slightly earlier than the print version. 24 »
What is print on demand? Print on demand is a system where copies of a book are printed individually when they are needed. Some publishers now only use print on demand. The advantages are that there is no book stock to house in publishers’ warehouses, and print on demand can be done locally, reducing shipping costs. For example all copies of a book for the Asian market can be printed in Asia, or copies for the USA can be printed in the USA. What is the ‘blurb’ and how is it used for a book? The blurb is a description of a book encompassing mention of the most important features of the book, what is good about the book and why the book should be purchased and
used. It is usually a few paragraphs in length. The publisher might draft the blurb themselves and share with you before it is finalised, or the publisher may ask you to draft the blurb, then they will edit it and finalise it with your agreement. The blurb was traditionally used on a book’s cover (often now printed on a book’s outside back cover) and in publishers’ catalogues, but now it is likely to appear in many other places such as on other booksellers’ websites where information has been provided by the publisher through direct data feeds.
Will my book be available electronically? Most publishers will now publish books not only in print format but in electronic formats for sale as e-
books through their own web site or through others such as online bookstores. Manuscripts are typically typeset using XML which allows use in many different formats. Some publishers with larger collections of books will also host online books on their websites, which, like scientific journals, can be purchased by libraries and others as a collection, or may allow the purchase of individual book chapters. Evidence now suggests that the numbers of individual e-books sold as a percentage of the total sales of a book may have levelled.
What about open access? Some publishers provide the option of the electronic version of a book appearing open access in return for the payment of a fee. If this option is of interest then you should discuss with your publisher. What about marketing for my book? It is in both the publisher’s and author’s interest to sell lots of copies of a book, and publishers have a range of sales methods which will depend on the type of book being
sold. Good marketing plays a major role in facilitating good sales. Publishers will ask authors to provide information helpful to their marketing and sales efforts, sometimes asking authors to complete a detailed marketing questionnaire. Publishers will usually provide access by authors to a 1-page marketing information sheet (a ’flyer’) about the book which the author can use to send to clients or colleagues, take to conferences, put on their departmental notice board and so on. Publishers may also provide other tools to help authors in the marketing of their book, for example an electronic copy of the book’s front cover for the author to use in presentations at conferences or to clients, and a link to details of the book on the publisher’s web site, for use with an author’s email signature. Some publishers will provide detailed guidelines on how you can help to promote your book, providing tips on the use of social networks and so on. Publishers will also normally send print or e-copies of your book, or an email alert about the availability of the book, to journals and other publications which regularly review books in that subject area. Most publishers will also include infor26 »
mation about your book in relevant e-newsletters to libraries, booksellers and to subject-specific mailing lists. Publishers may also promote your book at some key conferences, by having copies of the book at the conference, or by providing a list or catalogue sent to that conference or available on a conference-specific web page. Most publishers now also use some elements of social media to aid marketing efforts. For example providing sharing buttons on web pages for Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and others.
What about citations to books, and indexing and abstracting of books? Until a few years ago, citations to books and book chapters were not being reliably counted in the same way as those to journal papers, but increasingly, numbers of citations to books and book chapters are being used to help scholarly impact assessment. Publishers will be able to advise authors about citations to their book, where to find the information, and how to count citations. Your publisher may also provide copies of your book direct to subject-relevant abstracting and indexing services.
How will I know how my book is selling? Your publisher will be able to let you know how many copies of your book have been sold and may automatically provide this information at set intervals. Where you receive royalties on sales as part of your agreement with the publisher, details of numbers of copies of the book sold should also appear on your author royalty statement, which will typically be sent to you by the publisher once per year.
Nigel Balmforth has over 25 years’ experience building up publishing programs in fish biology, aquaculture, fisheries, aquatic sciences and related areas. Nigel has recently been appointed as Head of Publishing at 5m, part of Benchmark Holdings, a market leader in the supply of applied biotechnology, sustainability science and knowledge transfer to animal health, aquaculture and agriculture, and the food supply chain. Nigel can be contacted at: email@example.com
Counting the cost of aquatic disease in Asia
By: Andy Shinn, Jarunan Pratoomyot, Pikul Jiravanichapisal, Christian Delannoy, Niroj Kijphakapanith, Giuseppe Paladini and Don Griffiths*
sociated with the control and management of infections once established, for predictable infections there are also costs associated with the implementation and maintenance of biosecurity/preventive measures, prophylactic treatment, regular screening and management. Calculating the true cost of each disease outbreak therefore is complicated by an intricate interplay of a diverse array of environmental and management based factor that can have repercussions through the entire production pipeline from the direct losses in stock, through the associated downstream industry, and on the livelihoods of those affected.
Impact of crustacean and tilapia diseases in Asia So what is the current picture of disinterplay of environmental and management-based factors, from the ease outbreaks across Asia? Well, while direct losses in stock, through to indirect losses in the downstream it is not possible to address the impacts of each pathogen within this short arindustry. ticle, we provide a summary of pathogen presence across the 42 Southeast s Asia’s aquaculture pro- and economic viability of each aqua- Asian aquaculture-active states over duction continues to rise, culture enterprise, can be significantly the last three years (Table 1). so have the losses associat- impacted upon by a broad spectrum For certain pathogens like Streptoed with disease outbreaks. of obligate or opportunistic aquatic coccus, the figures cited are most likely The drive to intensify production and pathogens. This is appropriately dem- underestimated. From this summary, to maximize short-term profits may onstrated by the historical growth of some of the losses currently incurred mean that investment in appropri- the shrimp industry, which has been within Asia’s crustacean and tilapia ate biosecurity measures is reduced, characterized by cycles of booms industries are considered by focusing thereby exposing aquaculture enter- followed by bust caused by disease on selected viral (e.g. WSSV), bacteprises to an increased risk of disease. outbreaks. First were viral agents rial (e.g. V. parahaemolyticus; StreptococIn this article, we consider some of the throughout the 1990s (e.g. by yellow cus spp.), fungal (e.g. microsporidian E. losses associated with current patho- head virus (YHV), Taura syndrome hepatopenaei), and parasite infections as gen events that impact on Asia’s crus- virus (TSV), and white spot syndrome examples. tacean and tilapia industries and focus virus (WSSV). Since 2010 to present, on selected viral, bacterial, fungal, and it is the bacterial agents (e.g. isolates Losses within the shrimp industry. parasite infections as examples. of Vibrio parahaemolyticus with a toxin AHPND gene bearing plasmid responsible for The current Asian outbreak of AHAn impressive growth but... acute hepatopancreatic necrosis dis- PND, which first appeared in China Over the period from 2001 to 2013, eases (AHPND), and most recently in 2009, Vietnam in 2010, Malaysia Asia’s aquaculture industry grew at the fungal pathogen – the microspo- in 2011, an then Thailand in 2012 has an impressive average 6.85% year-on- ridian Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei which proven to be devastating. If the situyear, increasing its output 2.37 times is the causative agent of hepatopan- ation in Thailand is considered and from 37.59 million tonnes in 2001 to creatic microsporidiosis (HPM). assuming that the Thai production of 88.90 million tonnes in 2013. ProducFor many pathogens, their occur- Litopenaeus vannamei, in the absence of tion increased 8.64% annually over the rence and impact on production can other disease events, had been main2012-2013 period. be unpredictable/sporadic, whilst oth- tained at its last peak of 603,227 tonnes Although, there has not been a ers may be predictable/regular. While in 2011, then the current AHPND suggested drop in total output since these infections may result in the di- outbreak has cost the Thai industry 1961, the production, sustainability rect loss of stock and incur costs as- in excess of USD$5.01 billion to date
The true cost of each disease outbreak is complicated by an intricate
(based on the value of lost tonnage). Elsewhere, the current status of AHPND in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta suggests that 2,318 ha for Penaeus monodon culture and 2,309 ha for L. vannamei have had infections this past year (i.e. throughout 2015). If the following is assumed; • 38% and 52.7% of the total area was used for semi-intensive culture for P. monodon and L. vannamei respectively; the remaining area was extensive production; • P. monodon sites were stocked at 15 post larvae (PL)/m2 (semi-intensive) and 8 (PL)/m2 (extensive); the L. van-
namei sites at 100 (PL)/m2 (semi-intensive) and 70 (PL)/m2 (extensive); • One crop was lost from each site within 40 days of transfer (i.e. a T50 of 20 days is used); and, • Apply a labour rate of USD$5.77 ha/day. If we extrapolate from the production in 2014 by applying a 10.68% year-on-year increase, then Asia’s tilapia industry looks set to top 4.11 million tonnes for 2015. If a 7.5% mortality across Asia is assumed, except for countries such as Bangladesh and the Philippines, where smaller size fish are harvested, and where a loss of
Gyrodactylus sp. (Monogenea) skin flukes are commonly encountered on the gills and external surfaces of juvenile Nile tilapia.
3.75% can be applied, then the losses to streptococcal infections could be in the region of 289,440 tonnes valued at USD$480 million (applying an average Asian price of USD$1,657/tonne).
Impact of sporadic mortalities Alongside some of the major disease events discussed above, many of the smaller magnitude, sporadic mortality events that can be attributed to less specific diseases, which can result from low water quality or poor fish handling and welfare that might be ameliorated through improved husbandry practices, are also worth considering. Although most of these losses are ignored and/or unreported, either because of the smaller scale of these losses or because of the general acceptance that they fall within the typical, accepted margins of loss in production, their collective impact on aquaculture production can be very significant. The value of stock lost may arguably exceed the economic impact of many pathogens. As an example, the losses of juvenile Nile tilapia due to parasitic infections were studied at four Thai commercial farms over a 12-month period. Assuming the following survival rates at each stage of production: • 77.5% egg hatch rate; » 29
million annually. This is the total of USD$4.1-5.7 million loss at the nursery stage; USD$5.0-6.8 million loss at the mono sex stage; and USD$4.4-6.0 million loss at the swim-up stage.
The microsporidian E. Hepatopenaei (EHP) the cusative agent of hepatopancreatic microsporidiosis (HPM) within the hepatopancreas of White leg shrimp, showing how they appear under normal light (left) and fluorescence microscopy (right).
WSSV evident by the characteristic White spots, seen here on the carapace of a white leg shrimp.
Streptococcus spp. Infection of a Nile tilapia with marked bilateral expophthalmia.
• 77.8% survival from hatched eggs to the swim-up fry stage; • 78.9% survival from swim-up fry to 21day-mono-sex fry and, • 83.3% survival of the 21 day mono30 »
sex fry to 2.5 cm nursery sized fish. By applying a 20% loss due to parasitic agents to each life cycle stage, the total loss to Asia’s tilapia industry is in the region of USD$13.5-18.5
Concluding remarks Estimating the costs of disease events within the shrimp and tilapia industries is complicated, not only by the magnitude of each industry and the number of animals/sites involved, but also by the frequency of disease reporting and the access to quality farm data. Minimal investment in preventive measures, lapses in biosecurity rigour, lack of regular farm health assessment, inconsistent disinfection practices and/or complacency, consequentially exposes sites to higher risks of pathogen introduction that may result in frequent disease episodes and loss. For intensive systems, even occasional lapses in biosecurity can result in devastating losses. Although Asia’s L. vannamei shrimp and tilapia industries continue to rise, averaging 7.93% and 10.82% year-on-year over 2009-2013 period, the long term trends suggest that rate of growth for both is decreasing. While this slowing growth may be imposed by the availability of new sites for culture and access to resources, etc., the correlation of disease risk and loss with the intensification of each industry cannot be ignored and must be addressed though appropriate biosecurity, health management and control programs if Asia is to maximise its aquaculture potential by minimising losses. The authors are based in Fish Vet Group Asia Ltd (FVGAL); Bangkok, Thailand; Benchmark Animal Health (BAH), UK; Burapha University (BUU), Thailand; and Institute of Aquaculture (IoA), University of Stirling, UK. Andy Shinn, PhD is senior scientist (FVGAL; BAH; IoA) Jarunan Pratoomyot, PhD is senior scientist (BUU) Pikul Jiravanichpaisal, PhD is senior scientist (FVGAL) Christian Delannoy, PhD is vaccine development manager (BAH) Niroj Kijphakapanith, is veterinarian (FVGAL) Giuseppe Paladini, PhD is lecture (IoA) Don Griffiths, is operating director (FVGAL) Email contact: firstname.lastname@example.org; don. email@example.com The original articule denominated “Counting the cost of aquatic disease in Asia” was issued by AQUA Culture Asia Pacific Magazinein their January/February 2016 edition.
Leaders in Pacific North West Seafood & Aquaculture Industry Coming to Vancouver Island BC Seafood Expo being held June 9 & 10
By: Beth Yim, Business Examiner Vancouver Island
n exciting addition to the BC Seafood and Shellfish Festival, the Expo explores the value BC’s marine industries and future opportunities in the industry with visitors and exhibitors sailing in from around the globe. “Originally set up as the BC Shellfish Festival and run by the BC Shellfish Growers Association, it went from a small event ten years ago to a very large one after a few years,” said Dr. Myron Roth, BC Ministry of Agriculture and chair of the BC Seafood Program Committee. The Festival now includes two days of marine Expo with organized sessions, a Buyers Mission and trade show and seven days of tours and interactive events for the public. “It grew exponentially,” he said. “Comox Valley Economic Development and Tourism got involved to help out as the Festival and Expo continued to grow and the ministry joined in last year to support the commerce side.” Industry focused and sciencebased, the Expo aims to promote the growth of BC’s seafood production, for both wild fisheries and aquaculture, and to connect producers with international buyers. “International trade is very important for our seafood industry,” Roth said. “My ministry works closely with the Ministry of International Trade promoting BC Seafood globally and we have a fairly large buyer’s mission coming in from several countries, including Europe, the United States, the Philippines, Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam.” Roth, who has been involved in the agriculture industry for thirty years, has been active in organizing and chairing a long list of conferences. 32 »
Reeling in renowned speakers, award winning chefs and major names in the marine world-wild fisheries and aquaculture world, held during BC Seafood Month. “The Expo and Festival have rapidly become a major event for the seafood industry, the Festival being the largest in Western Canada. It’s exciting to be involved in such a dynamic event.” He added that the Expo’s rapid growth is due in part to an increasing demand by emerging economies for healthy, high-quality, protein rich food sources and the opportunity this presents to BC. “The take away from this event is that BC’s seafood is sustainable and the best choice for local and foreign buyers.” He pointed out that creating the conversation around sustainability of both wild and culture fisheries opens up opportunities for industry expansion. Registrants for the Expo will have access to the tradeshow with industry representatives and marine suppliers, producer site tours that include BC Salmon Farmer Assn Marine Farm Tours, Macs Oysters processing facilities and Manatee Holdings hatchery, plus 13 different sessions featuring over 30 expert speakers. Thursday’s key note luncheon presentation will be by Chef Barton Seaver, author of five books on sustainable seafood and cooking, director, Sustainable Seafood and Health Initiative, Centre for Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Change School. Dr. Dick Beamish, emeritus scientist, Pacific Biological Station, and one of Canada’s most decorated fisheries scientists including the Order of Canada and Order of British Columbia,
was also a member of the International Panel on Climate Change that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. A highlight of the Expo will be the opening reception and dinner featuring Chef Ned Bell, founder of Chefs for Oceans. They will be preparing fresh Atlantic lobster, donated by Flying Fresh Air Freight, and creating signature, mouth watering dishes. “We chose to celebrate lobster as it is another great aquaculture success story,” Bell said stressing the need to focus on sustainable, well managed fisheries and their products. Roth added that the Expo is an opportunity for both consumers and producers to ‘kick the tire’ on the seafood production, find out how well run it is and what it is doing to ensure sustainability and financial feasibility. He noted that BC has five salmon farms certified under the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, the gold standard for responsible, sustainable aquaculture, with the industry committed to having all of the salmon farms in the region certified by 2020. Six species of 13 wild capture fisheries now hold Marine Stewardship Council certification, the gold standard for sustainable capture fisheries, and include Pacific halibut, hake, albacore tune, sockeye, Pink and Chum salmon. The Expo promises to inform, excite, answer questions, and introduce new components. Tickets can be purchased on line at www.BCSeafoodExpo.com | Options for participation include full conference pass and trade show booth space.
News From Aquaculture Without Frontiers
Leading the battle against ‘invisible malnourishment’
AwF’s woman of the month award for May goes to Dr Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted for the exceptional contribution her work has made in creating food-based systems to overcome micronutrient deficiencies in low-income countries across Asia and Africa.
hakuntala is currently Research Program Leader, Value Chains and Nutrition at WorldFish. Her work focuses on the potential of small nutrientrich fish in combating and preventing vitamin and mineral deficiencies, in particular, vitamin A, iron, zinc and calcium. She has carried out work in Bangladesh, Cambodia, West Bengal and Nepal, together with government institutions, universities and NGOs. In Bangladesh, deficiencies of these nutrients are widespread effecting more than 20 million people, particularly women and young children. Intergenerational malnourishment occurs as pregnant and breast feeding women and their children are unable to access essential micronutrients due to social and economic factors. As a result, children can suffer irreversible damage that persists through life, stunting their growth and preventing normal brain development and cognition. A sustainable source of essential fatty acids and micronutrients, including calcium, iron, zinc, vitamin A and vitamin B12 can be found in small indigenous fish. The small fish, mola can be farmed alongside 34 »
Shakuntala Thilsted, with fishing community in West Bengal India. Photo courtesy of www.aquaculturewithoutfrontiers.org/
other fish species, including carp in ponds and can be harvested frequently, making it ideal for regular household consumption. Produced locally at low cost, they can be cooked and eaten whole in a meal with rice and vegetables. Dried small fish can also be made into chutney
with onion, spices and oil and served as an accompaniment to daily meals for pregnant and lactating women, and a flour of dried small fish, orange sweet potato, rice and oil can be boiled with water and served as porridge for infants and young children.
Dr. Craig A Meisner, Country Director, WorldFish South Asia, said this about AwF’s May 2016 champion “Dr. Shakuntala Thilsted is the most persistent person I have ever met. This is a glowing complement. She knows her nutrition science and is persistent to push for greater emphasis on nutrition in all our projects. Because of her, WorldFish Bangladesh joined a 4-member coalition (SAVE, iDE, HKI) to conduct 7
years of nutritional research in NE Bangladesh, funded by EU-DFID. Because of her, we are pushing for the use of the small indigenous fish in all our development projects. Because of her work, we are ready to scale out fish chutney and fish powder on a large scale empowering the private sector. Truthfully, because of her persistence and insistence, the program of work in Bangladesh and throughout the world has broadened and due to that, our impact is much more measurable among the poor and malnourished.” Shakuntala extends her influence in the international, regional and national fora as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Nutrition Innovation Laboratory funded by Feed the Future, USAID. She plays a pivotal role in promoting the agenda of fish for improved nutrition as well as the importance of the fisheries sector in contributing to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
In 2015, she was a keynote speaker at the World Aquaculture conference in Jeju, Korea; speaker at the United Nations (UN) Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at UN, New York; speaker at the Southeast Asian Conference on Eco-nutrition: From Concepts to Practice in Achieving Sustainable Diets, Los Baños, Philippines; speaker at the World Food Prize, Des Moines, Iowa; and speaker at UN World Food Security, meeting, FAO, Rome, Italy. Director, Aquaculture and Genetic Improvement at WorldFish, Michael Phillips said “Shakuntala has also demonstrated a strong commitment to mentoring and providing opportunities for young staff and through that she has helped establish a new group of young scientists – working as interns, on PhDs and starting their careers – who will provide a strong foundation for continued development in a key area of fisheries and aquaculture.”
News from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council
ASC Releases Terms of Reference for Marine Finfish Standard Development
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) has released Terms of Reference (ToR) for the development of new marine finfish standards. The announcement was made against the backdrop of Seafood Expo Global 2016 in Brussels and represents a first for the ASC. The ToR advocates the development of standards for new marine finfish species based on the soon to be released standard for seriola and cobia.
ecause the knowledge and expertise necessary for the development of standards for seriola, cobia and, in some cases salmon, is applicable to the development of standards for similar fish and farming systems, the forthcoming release of the seriola and cobia standard creates an opportunity to test the applicability of the standard to expand the programme. This is the first time the ASC has taken such an approach. “The increasing demand for healthy protein has led to a steep rise in aquaculture production around the world,” said Chris Ninnes, CEO of ASC. “With fish increasingly becoming essential to global food supply, concerns about the effects of fish farming on people and the ecosystem have escalated. Ensuring people —those who work on the farm and those living in the surrounding community— are protected from harmful practices is paramount for busi36 »
nesses; and a key feature of the ASC standards. It is therefore important that the ASC establishes standards for fish types not currently covered by the programme to further protect the aquatic environment and make sure that farms operate to the best social standard.”
The ToR is a direct result of the many requests ASC has received to create a standard for barramundi, European seabass and seabream. If it is determined that using the seriola and cobia standard is feasible this will provide a quicker route to the creation of standards for new spe-
cies. As a market-based programme, the ASC must find ways to effectively respond to the needs of the growing community of farms and retail partners seeking certification for an increasing range of species. This new process could be an innovative way to leverage efficiencies across the organisation in order to respond more quickly to calls for new standards that will help farmers, workers, local communities and improve environmental protection. The ASC standards address the negative impacts of fish farming, including dependence on fish for feed; inadequate supply of seed; lack of appropriate techniques; discharges of organic matters, phosphorus, and nitrogen; fish escapes; transfer of diseases parasites between farmed and wild fish; and introduction of non-indigenous species. It also mandates that all workers have freedom of association, employment contracts in line with ILO regulations,
no child-labour and that the communities in which farms are situated be consulted on farm operations. As part of a comprehensive programme that expands the use of responsible practices in the aquaculture industry, the ASC makes a significant contribution to mitigating negative impacts ‘on the water’, especially in countries where best practices for environmental and social responsibility are not yet the norm. A unique feature of the programme is the use of performance metrics to measure impacts of farming. The ToR for marine finfish will officially begin with a field test of the seriola and cobia standard on selected finfish farms that have informed the ASC that they wish to be included in these initial pilots. No certificate is expected from the preliminary field-testing, however the results will help identify gaps between the existing seriola and cobia standard and what may be necessary to create a robust certification for other marine finfish. The feasibility of addressing these gaps will be evaluated, changes will be proposed and consulted on and a process to operationalize the new standard will be developed. In the event that the pilot demonstrates that the use of the seriola and cobia standard is not feasible, the results of the pilot would provide important information to speed up the development of on-going and future standard development processes. This ToR and associated pilot activity will also inform the 38 »
emerging structure of ASC’s core standard development. The document is now open for public comments and all feedback should be submitted using the form provided in the Annex to the ToR on the ASC website. Farms wishing to engage in the pilot assessments should contact an accredited certifier to undertake the audit and register interest with the ASC. Transparency is integral to the ASC programme and all information regarding the standard setting process, including field-testing results, will be found on the ASC Website.
Five years after Tsunami, Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Cooperative Oyster farms celebrate ASC certification Just five years after the east coast of Japan was devastated by a tsunami, the Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries are stronger than ever and celebrating a major milestone. The Shizugawa Branch of the Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Co-operative became the first farming collective in Japan to achieve ASC certification on 30
March, 2016. Following an independent assessment against the ASC Bivalve Standard by AMITA, a certification assessment body based in Japan, the co-operative earned ASC certification in recognition of their responsible environmental and social practices. The accredited farms are situated just off the Pacific Ocean coastline in the southern half of Shizugawa Bay in Togura, Minamisanriku Town, northeast of the Miyagi Prefecture, in northern Japan. Aquaculture in the area dates back to 1899 and has withstood many tsunamis over the centuries. However, most of the aquaculture facilities along this area, including those in the Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries, were destroyed by the tsunami that followed the devastating Tōhoku earthquake in March 2011. Toshio Sasaki of Miyagi Fishery Cooperative said, “We are so happy about gaining this certification. We members of Shizugawa Fishery Cooperative Association lost everything in the tsunami, not only all our farming facilities but our homes as well as
family and friends. Fortunately the family members and small children who survived the tsunami gave us hope to start again.” Prior to the tsunami, smallholders ran intensive family farms on small sea surfaces which were overcrowded and unsustainable. Starting over provided an opportunity to introduce responsible practices. To that end, the local community joined forces with World Wildlife Fund Japan (WWF) to revive the seabed using best practices; including reducing production outputs by a third each year in order establish a thriving and balanced base of aquaculture production. To better manage the farms and the updated farming methods, the farms joined together to form a cooperative, known as Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Co-operative, Shizugawa Branch.
Farm raised cobia.
The co-operative participated in three-year pilot programme funded by a state government grant. At the end of the pilot, families were encouraged to manage their own farms, in accordance with the new responsible farming practices to aid the recovery of the fragile ecosystem. “Our place of work is the sea and after the tsunami it was hard to return to sea farming again. Not all of us came back of course. Many older members left the fishery,” said Toshio. “Members who decided to stay had a lot of discussion about farming practices for the future. We decided to set up a sustainable farming area in order for the farming to carry on into the next generation. We reduced farming facilities to one third of that before the earthquake and the quality of the Oysters improved. It now takes one year until harvest where before it took three.” According to Toshio, “We applied for ASC certification thanks to the great connection with WWF Japan. The ASC certification for our Oysters fulfils a long cherished wish and we are grateful to all the great people who gave us guidance to get the certificate.” According to Haruko Horii, Standards and Certification Coordinator at ASC, “This achievement is a great example of the resilience of the fisheries community in Myagi,” said Haruko. “They are succeeding by not only rebuilding their community, they are also improving it. I am very happy to finally see the first certified farm in Japan coming from this area, and I believe ASC certification will bring further benefit to the community and hope for the future.”
For more Information, contact Sun Brage, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Sun.Brage@asc-aqua.org
Capture and retention of talent in the aquafarming industry:
determining factor in ensuring food for the planet The magnitude of aquacultureâ€™s historic challenge, to be able to produce enough food to substitute the food originating from fisheries in timely and due form, is huge. The only possibility for success is to endow the industry with the necessary talent to resolve the problem in the best-suited and most By: Salvador Meza
ccording to figures â€“some more, some less- fish and seafood represent 20% of the animal protein ingested by humans throughout the world. In other words, this is close to 132 million tons of product in fresh weight for human consumption. One half of that 20% contribution by fish and seafood is threatened by the unsustainability of fisheries, the ecological impact of present-day fishing methods and equipment, and the climatic change that mainly affects these fishing activities of Paleolithic origins. We already know by heart the apocalyptical predictions by the FAO, and some other institutions of world order, on the finite availability of the production of fish and seafood by the fishing industry. This points to a drastic decrease during the next decades, which could put at risk up to 10% of worldwide human protein consumption; close to 60 million tons less fresh fish production, which means a risk to food availability in several world regions. 40 Âť
efficient way. The industry today is not able to comply.
These institutions have all singled out aquaculture as the possible solution for substituting those missing millions of tons that fisheries are going to leave unsupplied in the next 20 or 30 years. Also mentioned in these reports are the millions of direct jobs and indirect jobs that will be created in the development of the aquafarming activities that will produce the tonnage to fill the gap left by fishing activities. It is thought these jobs will be held by former fishers or their children in the fishing communities around the world, so aquaculture will also supply a new way of life for over 40 million people. What a mission! In a new industry that has to fight against vested interests from other industries developed beforehand, an industry that shares spaces and surroundings with all kinds of industrial and livestock activities, and that also fights against the ignorance and lack of interest of authorities and govern-
ment employees, who in their disdain end up over-regulating aquafarming activities, this challenge is welcomed only by the people that assume this commission with a sense of mission in their life, and for bold visionaries who, in many instances, end up risking more than they have. Regardless of aquaculture having the potential of substituting the fish products that keep on getting more and more scarce, that option might not be available if the industry does not react to the lack of the talent necessary to carry out the blue revolution we have talked about for all these years. The lack and retention of talent is not only a problem for the worldwide aquafarming industry. There are a great number of specific cases where large development hubs have faced problems resulting from a lack of the talent needed to solve situations that prevent them from growing and consolidating. The delay in the development of information technologies in developing countries is a typical example.
One of the main causes that propitiates the lack of talent in any industry --and aquaculture is not the exception-- is the disconnection between education and the private sector. The result is a shortage of professionals with the necessary abilities. And the consequence is that companies have greater difficulty in covering the most important job positions to help consolidate them in the sector. Solving the lack of talent demands new courses of reasoning, new focuses and also collaboration from all. In this sense, it is essential that the leaders of the industry intensify their relations and collaborations with universities and research/resource formation centers in order to create specific education programs to help solve the problems and bottlenecks preventing the expansion and development of their companies, and consequently, of the industry as a whole. Salvador Meza is the Publisher of Aquaculture Magazine, and of the Spanish language industry magazine Panorama Acuicola.
SEAFOOD PROCESSING REPORT
From Ocean to Plate:
Ensuring Traceable Supply Chain in the Seafood Industry In 2013, the ‘horsemeat scandal’ sent tremors through the European food industry. The fraudulent replacement of beef with cheaper equine alternatives in burgers and convenience food left consumers and retailers reeling, alarmed that they had fallen victim to the largest food fraud in decades.
By Lucy Anderson, Ph.D.*
he scandal not only highlighted the shortcuts being made by food manufacturers in their attempts to compete for the lowest price, it emphasized the complexity of global food supply chains and the challenges in monitoring every step. Almost overnight, the importance of traceability —the ability to track any food through all stages of production, processing and distribution— became high on public and political agendas. ‘Food scandals’ can leave consumers feeling duped, misled and distrustful of retailers and brands. They can also lead to people eating foods that violate their religious or moral values; or worse still have impacts on their health. Recognizing the negative impacts of incorrect labelling, governments around the world have responded. The Food Standards Agency in the UK, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority and Food Standards Australia New Zealand, to name a few, 42 »
commit extensive resources to ensuring the safety and correct labelling of our food. But the problem persists —and responsibility is often laid at the feet of food suppliers—.
Mislabeled Seafood: A Widespread Form of Food Fraud Seafood fraud, the selling of seafood products with a misleading label, description or promise, has become a widespread form of food fraud as the most highly traded food commodity in the world; increased market demand for fish coupled with weak legislation has incentivized the renaming, substitution and mislabeling of seafood to reap higher profits. Not only does this illegal activity threaten the bottom line of honest fishers and seafood traders, it undermines the progress being made by sustainable fisheries. The need for traceability in the seafood sector is now widely recognized. Major seafood import markets such as the U.S., Japan and the EU have introduced traceability components to their import regulations in
recent years. But despite increasing legislation, a recent global analysis revealed that on average 30 percent of seafood across the world is misdescribed or mislabeled,  with figures as high as 43 percent reported in some species-specific studies. 
The Problem with Fish: Mislabeling Motivations Although it is possible for seafood to become unintentionally mixed with different species at various points along the supply chain, intentional seafood fraud is motivated by profit. Scientific investigations have repeatedly revealed higher rates of mislabeling among premium, sought after fish like Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and wild-caught chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and lower rates in convenience seafood like fish fingers and processed seafood sticks. Higher rates of mislabeling have commonly been reported in restaurants and take-away outlets than in food retailers. In restaurants, unlabeled products can quickly be substituted to boost
profits or meet gaps in supply. One of the more profitable seafood substitutions revealed in a Belgian restaurant was the replacement of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua; typically costing €20–25/kg) with the farmed Vietnamese river catfish ‘pangasius’ (Pangasianodon hypothalamus; typically €4/ kg). Both species share similar flaky white flesh which is likely to go unnoticed by consumers, while dishonest traders reap the benefits. Can you spot the difference in Photo 1?
Consequences of Seafood Fraud The implications of seafood mislabeling can be alarming and wide ranging. IUU: Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing refers to fishing activities that do not comply with national, regional or international fisheries conservation or management legislation or measures. A global analysis of IUU fishing from 54 countries, comprising 75 percent of global catch, revealed that an estimated 11–26 million tons of IUU fish
Photo 1. It can be near impossible to accurately identify the species of fish present in a product from sight alone, as shown by these two fillets of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) (left) and Pangasius (Pangasianodon hypothalamus) (right)
SEAFOOD PROCESSING REPORT
are landed each year, representing a loss of between $10B and $23.5B to the fishing industry.  Consumer health implications: Not only can mislabeled seafood affect ocean health, it can have health implications for consumers. Although not all traceability systems specifically include food safety requirements, the simple substitution of one fish for another can lead to consumers unwittingly purchasing fish that should be presented with health warnings. Consumer deception: Consumers are increasingly demanding fish from sustainable sources often using ‘fish to eat/avoid’ guides to aide their purchasing choices. Others make an ethical decision to choose wild-capture fish over farmed products. Where fish are incorrectly labelled, these consumers could unwittingly be eating options that are less sustainable, or that do not meet their ethical criteria.
ensure the integrity of seafood supply chains. The Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Chain of Custody Standard is one such scheme, covering over 3000 seafood suppliers, distributors and processors across the world. It assures consumers that the MSC-labelled seafood they buy has been sourced legally from a sustainably managed source, has not been mixed with uncertified seafood and can be traced along the supply chain from ocean to plate. Companies certified against the Chain of Custody Standard are audited regularly to ensure that they meet robust traceability requirements: MSC-certified seafood can only be purchased from certified suppliers and must be identifiable at all times, segregated from non-MSC-certified seafood and sold with the correct paperwork identifying it as certified. This means that seafood sold with the blue MSC label can be traced back to the ocean, giving buyers confidence in its provenance and sustainability.
Finding a Solution Despite the clear threats posed by seafood fraud, there is hope. A number of voluntary supply chain traceabil- How DNA Works ity schemes have been developed to The use of DNA testing (Figure 1) 44 »
has revolutionized seafood traceability over the past decade, and there is ongoing research and development to improve efficiency and accuracy for an ever-growing number of species. It provides a vital tool to verify the authenticity of seafood products, deterring the commercialization of endangered and vulnerable fish species and to preventing seafood fraud. The color, shape and texture of fish and other marine species can often be altered beyond recognition during the manufacture of seafood products. This makes it near impossible to accurately identify the species of fish present in a product from sight alone. But regardless of how a seafood product is stored (fresh, canned, frozen), and what form it is in (fillet, eggs, fin, processed product), even the smallest fragment will contain a unique genetic code. By comparing a particular segment of DNA with a reference library holding the genetic codes of most fish species, scientists can identify exactly which species is present in a sample and, for some species with
very distinct populations, where in the world that species was caught.
How We Know It Works The MSC regularly monitors this supply chain in order to ensure that our strict Chain of Custody requirements are followed correctly. In combination with product tracebacks and supply chain volume reconciliations, the MSC uses a biannual DNA testing program to monitor the effectiveness of the MSC Chain of Custody certification program, and to verify the authenticity of products carrying the blue MSC label. Since 2009, DNA tests on hundreds of MSC-certified seafood products, all over the world, have shown that incidence of mislabeling amongst MSC-labelled seafood are less than 1 percent, and the latest results have revealed that 99.6 percent of MSC products were correctly labelled.
Given industry levels of mislabeling, these results are quite remarkable. But we’re not complacent. Any non-conformities are thoroughly investigated and improvements made to ensure that the MSC Chain of Custody Standard continues to be applied correctly. For example, the results of our latest round of DNA testing revealed that a product labelled as containing southern rock sole, was in fact northern rock sole. An investigation was immediately launched but did not show any evidence of the deliberate substitution of an MSC-certified species with a non-certified species, but rather the accidental mix-up of two closely related species, both of which had been caught in MSCcertified fisheries. Actions have now been taken to ensure that this error does not reoccur. The results of the MSC’s DNA testing program are very positive.
They assure consumers that the MSC seafood that they buy has been sourced from a sustainably managed source, has not been mixed with non-certified seafood and can be traced along the supply chain from ocean to plate. Looking to the future, the scope of the MSC’s testing program will be broadened to include more seafood products and will explore the use of new technologies to verify the authenticity of products that are more difficult to test using DNA. *Lucy Anderson, Ph.D., is the science communications manager at the MSC. References 1. Pardo, MÁ, E Jiménez and B Pérez-Villarreal. 2016. “Misdescription Incidents in Seafood Sector.” Food Control62:277–283. 2. usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/salmon_testing_report_finalupdated.pdf. 3. Agnew, D and CT Barnes. 2004. “The Economic and Social Effects of IUU/FOC Fishing: Building a Framework,” inFish Piracy. Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, 19–49. Paris: OECD.
PRODUCTS TO WATCH
Centralized Monitoring and Control:
PENTAIR’S POINT FOUR LC3
Pentair understands that access to immediate, reliable, accurate water quality information is critical in demanding aquaculture applications, that’s why the Point Four LC3 has been fully redesigned with connectivity in mind. This refined system provides facility managers and site employees with full access to system information securely from anywhere at any time - even on the go.
isplaying, notifying and reacting to sensor data is what the LC3 does best. Whether it’s triggering a low level water sensor alarm for an individual tank, cycling oxygen diffusers or sending an email/text message system alert warning to your smart phone; the Point Four LC3 is designed to keep complex, critical operations running smoothly & efficiently. Users can collect, manipulate, or control their data locally via the LC3’s clear and intuitive touch screen display. Connecting remotely is a snap using any smart device, or use a PC to access the built-in web-server. A typical configuration for a monitoring and control system designed by Pentair features Point Four (PT4) equipment. The Point Four RIU3 can capture and display water quality readings, for parameters such as dissolved oxygen and temperature. 46 »
Alarm or control levels can also be set for dosing oxygen or triggering a notification when levels are too low. At larger facilities, managing these operations at the tank level is inefficient; that is where the Point Four LC3 comes in. All data and controls at the tank side can be fed upstream to the PT4 LC3 (max 24 RIU3 units). Data flows in a continuous cycle from the RIU3 units, relay devices and PT4 LC3, providing a dynamic real-time monitoring system. The PT4 LC3 provides the added benefit of sending notifications via text message or email alerting users of issues when not on site. View and change values remotely using tools such as the built in web-server or VNC functionality.
Additional key features: • Remote access compatible with a wide range of devices [Android™
platform, iOS™ mobile digital device, OS X®, Linux and Windows® Operating Systems] • Built-in web server allows control system access via the internet via web browser • Automated data logging for all connected Point Four RIU3 controllers, control devices, and sensors • Communication options via Web Server • Auto dialer output • Digital alarm output • Send email and email to SMS functions (Short Message Service) • FTP (File Transfer Protocol) • Remote System Access via VNC (Virtual Network Computing)
For more information, visit PentairAES.com/point-fourlc3.html or call one of Pentair’s in-house aquaculture experts at +1.407.886.3939
Largest Event Delivers in Indonesia
Following World Aquaculture Society (WAS) first successful meeting in 2005 in Bali, Asia Pacific Aquaculture (APA) 2016 (26 - 29 April)was By: Roy Palmer*
ndonesia is rapidly expanding its aquaculture industry â€“ nearly 20% increase in the last 5 years in hectares in aquaculture production and over 50% per year increase in tons produced every year for the last 10 years! The people flocked to the event which saw some 240 exhibition booths and eleven rooms of conferences over three crammed but exciting days at the Grand City complex in the centre of the large city. The numbers may well have been expected to be down a little on usual because of the clash with the Seafood Expo Global in Brussels but, primarily due to the local Indonesian support, WAS saw record numbers exceeding 5,500 people attend. Additionally to the normal program of events The International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture (ISTA) along with several special Industry sessions/workshops with the latest in practical knowledge for the Indonesian aquaculture producers were held attracting many of the domestic farmers. IndoAqua, Fita and 12th All Indonesian Young Koi Show were also included in this event. WAS-Asian Pacific Chapter held its board meeting which will see a changing of the guard. The incoming President, Dr. Endhay Kusnendar Kontara, 48 Âť
the next chance for the WAS aquaculture community to visit Surabaya.
is a Senior Researcher at Research and Development Center for Aquaculture, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF). He has held several important positions at the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) during his time there and continues being a person of influence within Indonesia. Recently he was SEAFDEC Council Director for Indonesia and currently he is actively involved as member of the Indonesian National Research Council, Ministry of Research and Technology, and Geographical Indication Expert Team, Ministry of Law and Human Rights. He is one of the founders and Vice President of the Indonesian Aquaculture Society (IAS) and is joined by new President Elect, Dr Guillaume Drillet. Dr. Farshad Shishehchian moves to Past President having been the major driver of many facets of the APC for the last period. Roy Palmer retires from the board after involvement in many achievements since 2008. Dr Drillet received a Young Elite
Scientist Award from the Danish Ministry of Independent research and is now based in Singapore working for DHI Water and Environment where he supported the development of the Ballast Water Technology and Innovation Center as well as the DHI Environmental Laboratories. He is currently Chairman of the important International Maritime Organization (IMO) committee on Ballast Water. Both Dr. Patrick Sorgeloos (University of Ghent) and Dr. Endhay gave keynote presentations to the packed Grand City Hall at the Conference opening which followed the Welcome to Indonesia activities held on the previous evening. In order for a country to achieve what Indonesia has over these past years you need a formula of a government that sets the governance, infrastructure and incentives to engage people in aquaculture coupled with industry groups that grasp the opportunities and in the background you need active service industries that sup-
ply education, equipment, feed and all the other ingredients. You can see in Indonesia that this is happening. Of course you also need to be blessed with geographic location and the Indonesian nation is made up of thousands of volcanic islands, known for its natural beauty with beaches, volcanoes and jungles sheltering elephants, tigers and Komodo dragons. It is a great recipe. WAS-APC put on a great show in Surabaya and importantly engaged the students in a terrific session followed by a Students Reception which saw many talented young people engage and give a glimpse what could be to come for the burgeoning aquaculture industry in the future. Aquaculture competition, national dress competition, cat-walk competition and a talent show ensured that everyone had a great chance to ‘strut their stuff ’ and benefit from the prize money on hand. The next WAS-APC event in 2017 will be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
China Invests Heavily in US Soybean Export Council’s Technology Improvements for Pond Aquaculture
PA technology was first brought to China by USSEC’s Aquaculture Program in 2013 at a demonstration project in Pingwang, Jiangsu Province. The IPA demonstration achieved notable success in tripling yields, better fish performance, health and quality, a lower feed conversion ratio, labor savings and higher profitability. Impressed with the results, officials from both the central government’s Ministry of Agriculture and the local fisheries department committed to adopting and extending the technology throughout aquaculture producing regions countrywide. Developed at Auburn University with funds from the soybean checkoff program, the IPA system creates a healthier environment with a riverine flow for fish in in-pond raceways and protects water quality by removing waste and recycling it for other uses, such as biodiesel and fertilizer. This has the added benefit of significantly conserving water resources by reusing the pond water, which previously was discarded due to waste pollution. This benefit is of particular importance as water resources become increasingly compromised and overexploited in China. “While the advantages of the IPA system are well recognized by producers and it has strong support from the government, it has also demonstrated advantages to the U.S. soy industry,” said Jim Zhang, Regional Director for USSEC’s Aquaculture Program. “The system requires higher quality feed with high protein and better wa50 »
The Chinese government, together with private aquaculture producers, invested roughly $10 million in 2015 for Intensive Pond Aquaculture (IPA) technology, according to the International Soy in Aquaculture Program of the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC). That investment is expected to double to $20 million in 2016.
IPA System Courtesy USSEC.
ter stability for lower feed conversion and less waste removal, which means more soy-based feed consumption.” To support the expansion of IPA technology in China, USSEC’s Aquaculture Program created six additional demonstration projects in various provinces, is providing more technical support through seminars and on-site technical services, and organizes visiting teams to well-operated IPA units. “We’re very pleased that the IPA technology has yielded such successful results and is being so widely adopted in China,” said Colby Sutter, Director of the International Soy in Aquaculture Program. “USSEC re-
mains committed to working with the Chinese government and aquaculture producers to help improve the sustainability of their products with innovative technologies, while optimizing the value and utilization of U.S. soy products in feeds.” A video of the IPA technology transfer can be viewed at: http:// www.soyaqua.org/videos/aquacultural-revolution-china The USSEC operates internationally and works with aquaculture programs in different nations to help ensure sustainability and profitability for industry producers. USSEC programs are partially funded by the United Soybean Board (USB).
There’s a lot of talk out there
about open ocean aquaculture… It’s always exciting to talk about possibilities, and to then share ideas and opinions as they take shape, and start to come to fruition. It’s what we humans do… what we have always done: we identify challenges, then imagine how they might be better resolved, and then, if we work hard, and don’t mess up, and a little luck falls our way, we can watch them become reality.
By Neil Anthony Sims*
know, I know… I’m as guilty as the rest of you. Actually, I’m probably waaaay more guilty than most of you. A lot of the talk, of late, has been inspired by the long-longed-for set up of the permitting pathway for aquaculture in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This was the topic of a gabfest at the World Aquaculture Society meeting in lovely Las Vegas. Jenny Molloy of EPA and Jess Beck-Stempert of NOAA’s South-East regional office bravely faced a crowd of the curious and the critical, and answered most of the curve-ball questions with confidence, if not aplomb. The Army Corps of Engineers were also represented, and outlined their permit process, but that largely flows from the NOAA Environmental Assessment. All of these various agencies have clearly spent a lot of time trying to anticipate every possibility, but it’s a little like engineering an aircraft, or building a boat, or having a baby: at some stage, you just have to do it – take off / launch it / or birth them, and hope that it flies / doesn’t sink / has ten fingers and ten toes. And if not, you just figure out what’s wrong, and try to fix it and move forward. At some stage, you have to stop talking about it, and – as 52 »
Photo courtesy NOAA.
the sneaker people say – just do it. Susan Bunsick of NOAA’s national aquaculture office later gave a presentation on the “emerging roadmap” of the process, and the complexities of co-ordinating the various agencies. It is a daunting prospect, no matter how you paint it. Other folk also spoke in various other sessions scattered throughout the schedule; there was strangely no specific open ocean aquaculture session. Langley Gace proudly showed InnovaSea’s plans for a 14,500 cubic meter Sea Station, with copperalloy mesh materials, and spoke of the forthcoming SS22000 (i.e. 22,000 cubic meters). That’s a significant – and highly commendable - step up in cage
volume, which addresses in spades the oft-muttered mantra about small cage volumes and operational inefficiencies offshore. Kelly Stromberg outlined Catalina Sea Ranch’s mussel farming plans off Long Beach, in California. One of the beauties of culturing a bivalve is that as an unfed (or rather, naturally-filter-fed) organism, the potential environmental impacts are almost all beneficial. After all, who wouldn’t want cleaner water? Well, as they say, you would be surprised. The permitting pathway – even for a mussel farm – has proven deeply problematic. Sigh. Diane Windham, the Southwest Regional Aquaculture Coordinator for
Photo courtesy Courtesy Kampachi Farms.
Photo courtesy Courtesy Kampachi Farms.
Photo courtesy NOAA.
Photo courtesy NOAA.
Photo courtesy Courtesy Kampachi Farms.
NOAA, described the growing interest in offshore aquaculture in Southern California, including various harbour agencies, who presumably see aquaculture as a way to maintain working waterfronts for their communities…. and yes, I’m sure, revenues for their coffers. Paula Sylvia – formerly of HUBBS and various tuna ranching exploits - was also present; she is now representing the San Diego Port Authority in their quest for aquaculture clients. So clearly, someone, somewhere, must think that someone else has some chance of something happening, right? There is frequent hand-wringing about the genetic impacts of offshore aquaculture fish escapees on wild stocks. This is part of the reason why the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Plan for Aquaculture goes into so much minutiae over the source of broodstock for producing fingerlings. Some of us sceptics have long looked askance at this thinking. Sure, genetic blurring is a conceivable risk for salmon, where you have a high degree of genetic granularity between stocks, even in adjacent watersheds. But c’mon… we’re talking marine fish, here! They are birds of a markedly different feather; a different kettle of fish. Most of these species are broadcast spawners. A marine fish spawning aggregation is an oceanic orgy, where foreplay consists of asking “Who’s next?!”, or sometimes not even asking. The eggs and larvae drift for days… weeks… sometimes months!… in the oceanic eddies and gyres, before the fry settle out of the plankton wherever they can find a place to call home. Fish such as cobia and Almaco jacks – the prime candidates for offshore culture - wander the seas ad libatum – perhaps not migratory, per se, but just unfettered by any deep affinity for place. So how much damage can a few (or a few thousand) cultured fish wreck on a wild marine fish stock? This question was addressed with some solid science, and not just hyperbole, at the Las Vegas meeting. Monica Solberg from Norway had looked at potential farmed salmon impacts
on the already depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks. Some salmon farmers are expending considerable effort to get in front of these issues, with six farms reportedly testing triploid-sterile fish, and with Norway’s IMR research institute testing mechanisms for genetic sterilization: CRISPR neutering, and the like (which even the deepest diehard against GMOs would be hardpressed to oppose, as it is clearly not an inheritable trait!). Tanya Darden of South Carolina’s Marine Resources Research Institute reported on a Cobia Genetic Risk Assessment, and Kristen Gruenthal, who works as a consultant to NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, reported on the OMEGA project Offshore Mariculture Escapes Genetics Assessment… (Dang, but I love a great acronym!). This is a model that assesses the actual genetic impacts of escapees, given the size, survival, and fitness of escapees, and the numbers of those let loose, and those upon which they are loosed. The latter is clearly a paramount concern: if you have a robust wild stock, it’s pretty impregnable (in the fullest sense of the word). And it’s not just preventing bad: lots of good can also be done with genetics: Dane Klinger of Princeton reported a 113% improvement in growth rate of Atlantic Salmon through selective breeding over five generations. We all wanna get us some of that, right? On the Wednesday night of WAS there was also the traditional Annual Membership Meeting and soiree of the Ocean Stewards Institute – the open ocean aquaculture trade association. This was perhaps by a factor of two, the best attended meeting in Stewards history, which reflects the increased interest in the space… the metaphorical space of offshore aquaculture, and the physical space, further offshore, in deeper waters. The keener interest in offshore aquaculture had also been a recurring theme at the Seafood Summit, which had convened several weeks previously, in Malta. There were some peculiar parallels here: it was 10 years since the
first offshore aquaculture panel graced a Seafood Summit, and it was about the same time since the Offshore Mariculture Conference convened in a nearby hotel a few bays around the coastline from the Seafood Summit site. Your humble correspondent had been one of the “Offshore Aquaculture” panellists at the 2006 Seafood Summit, which was held in that redoubt bastion of anti-aquaculture activism - Seattle. My co-panelists back then consisted of an Alasakan salmon fisherman, and Becky Goldburg from Environmental Defense Fund, and the panel was chaired by the legal counsel to Food and Water Watch. (You think I’m joking, right?… no, indeed! ‘Tis true!). While it was not exactly a tarring-and-feathering, the audience back then was not particularly warm to the idea of sullying their pristine seas with fish farms. Well, what a difference a decade makes! The 2016 Seafood Summit panel on Offshore Aquaculture was chaired by Dr Konstantine Rountos
of St. Joseph’s College, in New York, who is working alongside one of the other panellists, Donna Lanzetta, in developing a project to culture striped bass offshore of Long Island, NY. Also sitting on the panel was David O’Brien, the Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, and yours truly. The atmosphere in the room in Malta was diametrically opposite to the lynch-mob in Seattle: even the conservation group representatives in the audience were supportive of expansion beyond the nearshore. They could hardly have demurred: in the Seafood Summit keynote the preceding morning, Prof. Steve Gaines of University of California Santa Barbara presented compelling evidence of the global need to shift animal protein consumption away from lard-laden, methane-pumping terrestrial critters towards seafood. And – (Hey! Oceana! Please take note!) – Prof. Gaines relayed a global assessment that concluded that even if all wild stock fisheries management was optimized from
here onwards (And what are the odds of that?!), then wild catches could only meet 5% of total global animal protein needs by 2050. You all can probably guess where Prof. Gaines thought the other 95% should come from – aquaculture! I was ecstatic! I wanted to stand on my chair and hoot and stomp! Academics arguing our case for us! Oh, frabjous day! (Editor’s note: This contribution will be continued in the next issue!)
Neil Anthony Sims is co-Founder and CEO of Kampachi Farms, LLC, based in Kona, Hawaii, and in La Paz, Mexico. He’s also the founding President of the Ocean Stewards Institute, and sits on the Steering Committee for the Seriola-Cobia Aquaculture Dialogue and the Technical Advisory Group for the WWF-sponsored Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Recent news from around the globe by Aquafeed.com
Feed companies support African aquaculture expansion The promise of expanded aquaculture production in Africa has been underscored by substantial investment in the continent by two of Europe’s biggest aquafeed producers.
By Suzi Dominy*
emand for affordable protein is growing quickly in Africa, which is one of the world’s fastest growing regions by both population and income. Aquaculture is expected to play a significant role in African food security and lakes such as Kariba, Victoria and Volta offer high potential. Aquaculture in Zambia – particularly of tilapia - is developing rapidly in order to reduce the dependency on imported fish, but a lack of high quality feed is a major bottleneck. Both Skretting and Aller Aqua have partnered with local tilapia producers to help increase supply. Denmark’s Aller Aqua Group has joined forces with Yalelo Limited, one of the world’s leading tilapia aquaculture firms, to construct an aquaculture feedmill: it will enable Yalelo to boost tilapia production to 20,000-30,000 tons within the next few years. The US$10 million aquafeed mill has a capacity of 50,000 tons of feed per year and gives Aller Aqua a good basis for expansion in Zambia, a country that aims to be not only 56 »
self-sufficient with farmed fish, but also to be able to export to neighboring countries such as Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Tanzania and Congo. “The factory will be situated near the town of Siavonga, on the shore of Lake Kariba, close to the
Scapa FF Small feed trial ponds Courtesy Sarnissa.
major fish farms in Zambia and Zimbabwe, and is expected to be ready mid-2017, provided that the final commitments and permits are given from various authorities and institutions as expected” said Henrik Halken, Group Vice President, who is responsible for the company’s activities on the African continent.
SON FF Pond with breeding hapas Courtesy Sarnissa.
Meanwhile, Skretting Zambia, a 75/25 joint venture between Nutreco and African Century Foods (ACF), has also picked Siavonga to build a tilapia feed plant. It will have an initial capacity of 25,000 metric tons of extruded aquafeed, much of which will be used to supply ACF’s tilapia farms. ACF is Africa’s largest fish producer, with farms in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Uganda. Plant capacity will be expanded in a second phase with the aim of supplying the wider South-East African region. Harm de Wildt, Managing Director for Nutreco´s operations in the region, said the joint venture is a new step in the company’s commitment to the African market. It comes on the heels of fish feed investments in Egypt, as reported in the January 2016 column - and in Nigeria, where the company opened a 10,000 metric tons capacity catfish feed plant in Ibadan in February, with an eye to producing 50,000 metric tons of feed a year in the near future.
“Having consistent supplies of high quality feed is critical to the success of our aquaculture operations in Zambia and Zimbabwe,” Henry Pitman, CEO of ACF: said. “This new feed mill will allow us to expand our operations from the current production levels of 10,000 tonnes and help to reduce our cost of production in line with our strategy to become the lowest cost producer of tilapia in the region.” Aller Aqua’s Halken recognizes great potential in Africa and says the company needs to make the most of the momentum it has created over the last few years. “We experienced significant growth in Egypt in 2015 and created two new sales subsidiaries in both Kenya and Nigeria, both of which contribute positively to the company’s growth. The feed for these two markets comes from our European factories and contribute positively here. In Zambia and the region, we plan to replicate our experience of supporting smallholder
fish farmers through training in the use of more efficient commercial fish feeds.” Aller Aqua’s new factory in Egypt was inaugurated a year ago. With the new factory in Zambia, Halken said Aller Aqua Group will consolidate its position as the largest producer of environmentally friendly, extruded fish feed in Africa.
Feed research and innovations • Skretting recently claimed to be the first to market with salmon feeds that can be formulated completely free of fishmeal, while delivering equal performance in terms of fish growth and health. The development means that Skretting can be increasingly flexible with raw material inclusions, enabling available responsibly sourced fishmeal to go much further than in the past, and thereby increasing the sustainability credentials of salmon production globally. However, although Skretting now has the knowledge and capability to » 57
produce fishmeal-free feeds, it does not mean that fishmeal will be eliminated from the products. “Fishmeal is a natural and well-balanced source of high-quality protein,” said Trygve Berg Lea, Sustainability Manager Skretting. “As an ingredient in aquaculture feed, fishmeal carries large quantities of energy per unit weight and is an excellent source of protein, lipids (oils), minerals and vitamins.” “Skretting will continue to use fishmeal in our products if it benefits the nutritional composition of the feed, is economic, and the source of fishmeal is responsibly managed fisheries or the valuable use of by-products from seafood processing,” added Berg Lea. • Cargill has launched two new grower feed innovations for the Norwegian salmon farm market to replace OPAL. They are based on the EWOS COMPASS biological model that takes into consideration temperature, geography, season, salmon prices and raw material prices. The feeds – available exclusively in Norway – help ensure that customers receive the optimal feed for their location and production strategy. “One and the same feed can’t be best at everything”, explained Synne Marte Andersen, product manager grower feed. “That is why we now want to differentiate,
Scapa FF Earthpond farm Courtesy Sarnissa.
so that our customers have more freedom to select feeds based on their own needs and challenges. That means they will have more room to adjust growth upwards or downwards to exploit the MPB (maximum permitted biomass) to the best advantage.” EWOS SOLID is designed to give the smallest production cost per kilo fish, and has high focus on use of cost effective raw materials. It is built on varying nutritional needs through the production cycle. EWOS EXTRA is a high-performance feed that shortens the production time. Micronutrients have also been added to the feed, as well as a heightened level of antioxidants to ensure the right utilization of nutrients as well as good fish health. • Feed company, Zeigler Bros, Inc. started up a new aquaculture research center at Florida Atlantic University Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute in Fort Pierce, Florida. The new research center, Z-ARC, is a cooperative agreement between Zeigler and the Florida Atlantic University, and will be used for animal research trials that will help to improve and expand aquaculture technologies for the industry. The existing facilities at Harbor Branch will significantly extend the scientific capability of Z-ARC to evaluate different species, health management, and the impacts of feeds and nutrition. In addition to developing its own products, Zeigler welcomes cooperative efforts with other technology companies to identify and test new ingredients, additives, and technologies, Dr. Craig Browdy, Director of Research and Development at Zeigler said. 58 »
consumers who are more likely to be under nourished. Recent WorldFish research in Egypt and Bangladesh suggests poor consumers typically prefer purchasing less expensive, smaller fish while aquaculture production systems in both countries are increasingly geared towards producing larger fish. Focusing on tilapia, AquaLINC will examine the business case for how to increase the production and market for smaller fish, which consume less feed and have shorter lifecycles, and may reduce the environmental footprint for fish production.
Crystal Lake FF Ghana Land tank site Courtesy Sarnissa.
• Research by Nofima into outbreaks of the salmon diseases PD (pancreas disease) and HSMB (heart and skeletal muscle inflammation) has shown that mortality can be halved through the optimum use of feed. PD and HSMB are two of the most widespread and common diseases in the Norwegian salmon farming industry, and often occur simultaneously. In June 2015, a simultaneous infection of PD and HSMB was studied by Nofima researchers. They noted that salmon fed on a lean, protein-rich test feed had a mortality rate of 4 per cent. Salmon fed normal control feed with a higher fat content had a mortality rate of 9 per cent. The group fed on the lean test feed also had higher feed intake and growth. Statistical analysis confirmed that there was lower mortality in large fish, and in fish that were less stressed during handling. Stress, the size of the fish and the diet explain 99 per cent of the variation in acute mortality. Further research is now needed to explain the specific mechanisms contributing to the positive effects on fish survival. • German-funded AquaLINC, aims to increase supplies of fish that are more affordable and have a higher nutritional content for consumers in Egypt and Bangladesh. Implemented by WorldFish, the project will focus on developing production models for tilapia that meet the demands of resource poor consumers and are profitable for producers and retailers. Using feed-additives to increase the Omega 3, and micronutrient content of farmed fish will have significant benefits for all, but especially for resource poor » 59
Suzi Dominy is the founding editor and publisher of aquafeed.com. She brings 25 years of experience in professional feed industry journalism and publishing. Before starting this company, she was co-publisher of the agri-food division of a major UKbased company, and editor of their major international feed magazine for 13 years. firstname.lastname@example.org
Aquaponics’ next frontier: Urban Agriculture
“As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to By: George Brooks*
lying from Phoenix to Las Vegas for Aquaculture America a couple of months ago I got a pleasant surprise. The inflight magazine featured an article on a trendy restaurant that served fresh tilapia that they grow themselves. Though the word was never mentioned, the IBC tote in the photo spoke volumes. They use aquaponics. Anecdotal stories like the one about the restaurant are not unusual and are getting more and more common. Spurred on by the aftermath of the great recession and the sustainability/green movement, there is a need and rapidly growing desire for local sustainable sources of healthy food. Because of this, urban agriculture has gone mainstream. In other words, majorities of people are accepting it as a viable means of achieving important goals. A great example of this is here in my home city of Phoenix Arizona. By Arizona law, every 10 years all cities must develop a new General Plan for approval by the residents. A 60 »
have trouble.” —Harrington Emerson.
Phoenix- Courtesy SVP.
General Plan is essentially the dream of what the residents want their city to be. Zoning and civic planning are the processes used to frame the dream and then development follows to make the dream real. The past couple of years I had the honor of being one of those good people appointed by the mayor to write this document and ended up as one of the vice chairs and sustainability leads. Believe it or not, Phoenix has a food problem. Most of our food comes from hundreds if not thousands of miles away, creating huge potential sustainability and food security issues. According to the local newspaper, we actually waste 40% of the nearly 2 billion pounds of food shipped here every year costing the city millions of dollars to landfill. To exacerbate issues, at about 520 square miles Phoenix is huge. It is 6% larger in surface area than the city of Los Angeles with only a little over 1/3 of the people. This low population density is a prescription for food deserts where some who don’t own cars, particularly seniors, have great difficulty getting to healthy food. Imagine waiting a half hour for a bus when it is 110 degrees in the summer and with distances often exceeding a mile or two to the next supermarket, it is too far to walk for most. Phoenix has also been in a drought since the late 1990’s. To further complicate food access, nearly 18% percent of the population of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale metro area live in poverty, in 2013 the third-highest percentage among the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the nation according to local media. So increasing food cost is a major issue that beyond economics echoes into family health and wellness and the academic achievement of children. Simply stated, if a child can’t eat, a child can’t learn. However the people and leadership of Phoenix are forward thinking. Based upon the principles of Sustainability, the new general plan found at Phoenix.gov, places a direct focus on creating healthy food systems so that all residents have access to “healthy, affordable, secure and sustainable food” for all residents. This includes such things as reducing food waste, improved recycling, water conservation, improved transit (more buses and light rail lines) but also more sources of food including Urban » 61
Agriculture. The plan was presented to the voters in August of 2015 and passed 76% to 24%. The city is now beginning the challenge of rule making where the details will be worked out, but so far so good. The cool thing is, Phoenix is not alone. Cities across the nation from Tucson to Atlanta are doing the same thing. They are creating circular economies where the local production of food is a major component. 62 »
The question is “is aquaponics ready do join the party?” In Phoenix amongst others, there are two clear opportunities for aquaponic technology and product. Because they have not been formally defined until perhaps now, let’s call one distributed production and the other is centralized production. I have adapted these terms from the solar industry, for they fit aquaponics quite well.
As solar energy production located on home rooftops can supply lower cost power literally at the source of the need for it, backyard aquaponics has the potential to provide food in a similar manner. Because the market for such food is the family, the competition for costs/ price for this “solar panel for food” is not the traditional land farm, but instead the supermarket down the street. If the family can grow food with aquaponics for less money and hassle than buying it from the store, aquaponics wins. This is particularly important if small aquaponics units can indeed, like solar panels, be demonstrated to produce an economically important percentage of a family’s total needs. However as with producing distributed energy, output or backyard food production are difficult to manage consistently creating intermittency in output. There are also the challenges of zoning, homeowner associations and other rules and regulations that may restrict all types of urban agriculture including aquaponics. There are also sometimes unpredicted regulatory restrictions. For example, recently and unexpectedly, the state of Arizona in seeking to, understandably, protect its valuable natural resources placed new requirements for the use of tilapia in aquaponics. So, what needs to be done? In my humble opinion, construction, operational costs and system complexity must be reduced significantly. The systems must be made more userfriendly and aesthetically pleasing. A good example of this is found in a particular and popular vertical hydroponic garden that is on sale now. The design has as small footprint and is considered to be clean, pleasant to look at and easy to use. Though for some it may seem pricey, the clean design overcomes many marketing obstacles. Aquaponics innovators must now do the same thing while being cost competitive.
At a recent Aquaculture America conference in the aquaponics section, after listening to several presentations make the same basic claims about the technology, a participant asked the obvious question about the gorilla in the room. â€œWhere is the data?â€? An additional major hurdle that must be overcome is the lack of replicated studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Business is business and must have its proprietary information. However, universities producing the foundational information for the farmers to build on have traditionally supported agriculture. In my opinion for the industry to advance and for its credibility to be enhanced, this tradition must continue. But research takes money. Some aquaculture industries have trade associations dedicated to, amongst other things, finding funding for such projects. Aquaponics currently does not but this is an issue that may be addressed soon.
These replicated studies must cover all aspects of the science from demonstrating seemingly simple things such as, for example, are blue and pink boards truly safe or to they actually leach? They must also review the more advanced issues including new fish species and plant species to use, real production rates and costs. Case study scans across the web reveal lots of systems but most are growing little food and most food production numbers are anecdotal or part of company marketing. Finally and quite frankly, many people would rather buy their food from the store anyway, so that leads us to the second market, Centralized Food Production. Like solar, Centralized Food Production follows the current food production and management models and may be in the parts of cities where the resource is most available. Their size adds to their operational stability, ability to produce a wider
variety of produce than backyardscale operations and ability to capture economies of scale and scope. However, they require large capital investments. Because they are producing food for public consumption they must also comply with all city, county, state and federal food safety regulations and that can be a daunting task. The fact that the national GHP/GAP rules are not written yet makes the challenge even greater. Their market is also more difficult than the backyard version. Unlike the backyard models, centralized commercial production must compete directly with traditional organic and non-organic soil based food production on price and quality. At the recent Balle (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) conference in Phoenix it was stated, and quite accurately, that even if local entrepreneurs did not have to compete with traditional food production, as Urban Agriculture increases supply
and demand will still force the price down. Case in point, Phoenix sits just 200 miles from one of the major lettuce farming areas in the United States, Yuma AZ. This creates a market, at least for this product, that is very difficult for aquaponic producers to compete in.
Conclusion Aquaponics is an innovation and innovations evolve to solve problems. One of the biggest challenges for any technology to jump to mainstream success is to understand what the mainstream wants. All too often the needs of innovators and early adopters of a technology are quite different or only a fraction of the needs of the more pragmatic mainstream audience. For example Elon Musk seems to have a good handle on this. His new low cost electric car has been called the Tesla for the 64 »
mainstream. Why? Because it gives the customer the sustainable cachet and luxury of the earlier models at a lower cost while still getting good mileage on a charge. His SpaceX company is seeking to do the same thing, in this case make space flight more affordable. Also as geeky cool as it was, the iPhone did not really go mainstream until Apple was able to demonstrate that it could be as good a business phone as the then market leader Blackberry. In my opinion an innovation is ready to go mainstream when it is mature enough to take on big issues. Things like practical electric cars and affordable space flight are big issues but so is healthy, practical and affordable urban agriculture. Fortunately thanks to cities like Phoenix and many others like it across the nation and the world, aquaponics innovators have now been given their
marching orders on what needs they must address, and so, they don’t have to guess. If local entrepreneurs can indeed meet the stated desires of cities like Phoenix, the technical and business model innovations created will kick aquaponics into the mainstream.
*Dr. George Brooks, Jr. holds a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences from the University of Arizona in Tucson and served as that institution’s first Aquaculture Extension Specialist. He is currently Principle at the NxT Horizon Consulting group and also teaches Aquaponics at Mesa Community College. Dr. Brooks is co-chairing the upcoming Aquaponics Association conference in Austin Texas. He may be reached at email@example.com
Antimicrobials in Aquaculture â€“ Research Opportunities
The use of antibiotics and other compounds in aquaculture has been under scrutiny for several decades now, and is a common topic By Greg Lutz*
when the industry is subject to broad-brush criticism in the media.
ntibiotic use has been widespread and indiscriminate for many decades, not only in aquaculture but in human populations and farmed animals throughout the planet. This has led to the development of antibiotic resistance in many pathogenic microorganisms. Once they arise, resistance genes can be transferred between bacterial communities, especially in aquatic environments. Unfortunately, many microbes appear to be developing resistance much more rapidly than we are developing new compounds to combat them. Several years ago, Hansa Done and Rolf Halden, researchers at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive study on the use of antibiotics in aquaculture industries across the globe. They looked for the presence of 47 different antibiotics in samples of aquacultured species ranging from swai to salmon, and found traces of 5 of the compounds. Although all the levels detected were below FDA limits, the results were published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials and served as the basis for news stories and a press release by the University which stated that â€œmassive aquaculture operations threaten the health of seas, due to large volumes of fish waste emit66 Âť
Resistance Transfer Between Bacteria Courtesy NIH
ted, containing excess nutrients,” and “large amounts of pathogens…” In spite of such sensationalism having nothing to do with the topic of the research in question (with the implication that wild fish apparently emit little or no waste), the use of antibiotics in aquaculture should be of special concern to all of us because the transfer of genetic resistance from one bacteria to another appears to occur more commonly in aquatic environments. Around the same time that the Done and Halden study was promoted (late 2014), President Barack Obama established a federal task force to address problems surrounding the development of resistant strains of microbes, which at that time were implicated in the deaths of some 23,000 Americans each year. In the interim, more and more reports are coming to light of multi-drug resistant “super-bugs” that pose serious threats to human health. On May 2, 2016 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the availability of $6 million to fund research to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in a number of areas of food production, including aquaculture. This funding is available through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, and administered by USDA’s National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). “Through our Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan, USDA is leading the way to better understand how antibiotic resistance develops find alternatives to antibiotics, and educate people practices that reduce the need for antibiotics,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The research projects funded through this announcement will help us succeed in our efforts to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics and protect public health.” This funding announcement is one of many ways that USDA supports the Combating Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria (CARB) National Action Plan and work of the Task Force for Combating Antibiotic Resistance, which USDA co-chairs. Specifically, this program priority promotes the development of sustainable and integrated food safety strategies that reduce public health risks along the entire food chain, from producer to consumer.
Applications must address one or more of the following: • Develop novel systems approaches to investigate the ecology of microbial resistance microbes and gene reservoirs in the environment in animals, in crops, in food products, or in
farm-raised aquaculture products. Develop, evaluate, and implement effective and sustainable resources and strategies, to include alternative practices, techniques, technologies or tools that mitigate emergence, spread or persistence of antimicrobial resistant pathogens within the agricultural ecosystem, in animals, in crops, and in food. • Identify critical control points for mitigating antimicrobial resistance in the pre- and post-harvest food production environment. • Design innovative training, education, and outreach resources (including web-based resources) that can be adapted by users across the food chain, including policy makers, producers, processors, retailers and consumers. • Design and conduct studies that evaluate the impact and efficacy of proposed research, education and extension/outreach interventions on antimicrobial resistance across the food chain, from primary producers to primary consumers. Agriculture or aquaculture crops and species must be used for at least 50% of any proposed research, as outlined in the Program Area Priority Section of the Request for Applications. Applications are due by August 3, 2016. See the request for applications (https://nifa.usda.gov/ funding-opportunity/agricultureand-food-research-initiative-foodsafety-challenge-area) for more information.
C. Greg Lutz, has a PhD in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Louisiana State University. His interests include recirculating system technology and population dynamics, quantitative genetics and multivariate analyses and the use of web based technology for result-demonstration methods. firstname.lastname@example.org
New Fish Virus that Threatens Global Tilapia Stocks On April 5, 2016 the American Society for Microbiology announced in a press release that an international team of researchers has By Greg Lutz*
n the same day, the Mailman School of Public Health at Colombia University, where several team members work, also issued a press release describing the discovery. In total, the team of 18 researchers represent five institutions in four countries: the Center for Infection and Immunity (at Mailman) and the New York Genome Center in the U.S., Tel Aviv University and Kimron Veterinary Institute in Israel; the University of Edinburgh, Scotland; and St. George’s University, Grenada, West Indies. In work published in mBio, an online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, the team clearly shows that the Tilapia Lake Virus (TiLV) was the culprit behind mass tilapia die-offs that occurred in Ecuador and Israel in recent years. The work also provides a foundation for developing a vaccine to protect fish from TiLV. “Tilapia is one of the most important fish industries worldwide,” says 68 »
identified a new virus that attacks wild and farmed tilapia.
Eran Bacharach, a molecular virologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel and one of the lead researchers on the study. “Moreover, because they eat algae, they are ecological gatekeepers for freshwater and they are an inexpensive, important source of protein in poorer countries.” The global tilapia industry is valued at US $7.5 billion each year. Various countries in Asia and South America are the largest tilapia producers and the United States is the largest importer, consuming 225,000 tons of these fish each year. In 2009, wild tilapia in Kinneret Lake, also known as the Sea of Galilee, and fish in commercial ponds in Israel began suffering from an unknown disease with high rates of mortality of up to 70%. A couple of years later, fish in commercial ponds in Ecuador also suffered a mass dieoff. On first glance, the two diseases seemed unrelated because the fish in Israel showed brain and nervous system symptoms while the fish in Ecuador suffered from liver symptoms.
Courtesy acuacolombia blogspot.
Courtesy acuacolombia blogspot.
In late 2012, researchers working on both outbreaks sent diseased fish samples to the lab of W. Ian Lipkin, an expert in hunting down new viruses. “This was an atypical viral discovery project,” says Lipkin, John Snow professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York City. His team’s usual approach to tracking down which virus is causing a particular disease is to pursue a genetic sequence analysis of blood, feces or tissues from a diseased animal, remove all the known genetic sequences found in normal animals, and then compare what is left to known sequences in databases. “But, in this instance, what my colleague, Nischay Mishra found didn’t look like any previously entered sequences,” says Lipkin. In this case, the team found 10 short RNA gene sequences. “The more we studied them, the more
convinced we became that what we had represented an entirely new virus,” says Lipkin. While nine of the gene segments shared no similarities with any other known viral proteins, one segment looked weakly similar to an influenza C virus protein. The 10 segments also had similar starting and ending sequences, a feature of segmented viruses. And the team showed that the virus replicates itself in the nucleus of fish cells. These characteristics led the team to classify TiLV as an orthomyxo-like virus, related to the same family of viruses as influenza. The team also showed that the virus expresses 10 proteins that correspond to the 10 gene segments. They also sequenced the virus from tilapia from Ecuador and Israel and showed that it was the same virus causing the fatalities in two locations halfway around the globe. Because the viruses from the two sites shared almost identical gene sequences, Bacharach
believes they came from the same source. But how the virus traveled between Israel and Ecuador is still a mystery. “Our research provides the first means of detection—knowing the genetic sequence of the virus is the first step to designing diagnostic and screening assays,” says Bacharach. Such tests will allow fish farmers to detect when the virus is present in a commercial pond and limit its spread. The finding brings other practical applications with it, too, says Lipkin: “Building a vaccine would save billions of dollars and preserve an industry that ensures employment in the developing world and food security.” In the coming weeks, the researchers will publish on the link between the TiLV and an outbreak of disease among tilapia in Colombia. The virus has been implicated in recent catastrophic losses in Colombia, centered in the Betania reservoir, estimated by
some industry observers to be in the range of 20,000 tons over the past 18 months. In these fish, the virus has produced lethargy, skin erosions, kidney damage and brain inflammation. Margy Villanueva, national leader of the Aquaculture Species Health Program in the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA), says it’s important to investigate and understand this virus because it is one of the few that pose a serious threat to tilapia stocks. For now, Villanueva says the most important thing is to continue to understand “the epidemiology of the virus, its biological properties, infectivity and transmission.” She urged growers to report any abnormalities and to incorporate biosecurity protocols in the management of their fish. “It’s very dangerous what is happening. It is dangerous because the virus can continue mutating in the natural environment,” says Francisco de Paula Gutierrez, a researcher at Jorge Tadeo Lozano University. In his view, much of the threat is because in Colombia species are often introduced without complying with biosafety protocols and without putting the animals in quarantine. In fact, several industry observers in Colombia have implicated the introduction of fish from Ecuador, for purposes of genetic improvement or production of all-male stocks, as the source of the current crisis.
Detection of TiLV RNA in brain and liver of infected tilapia and infected E-11 cells by in situ hybridization and image of dead tilapia in Israel. (A and B) Brain sections of infected Nile tilapia hybridized with Affymetrix Cy3-conjugated probes (red) of various polarities to TiLV segment 1 to detect genomicRNA(A) or mRNA (B). White arrowheads indicate hybridization signal. (C) Liver sections hybridized with Cy3-conjugated (red) Stellaris probes to segment 3 to detect mRNA. Nuclei are stained with DAPI (blue). (D) Liver section stained with hematoxylin and eosin reveals multinucleated giant cells (asterisk). (E) TiLV-infected E-11 cells hybridized with Quasar 670-conjugated (red) Stellaris probe to segment 3 to detect TiLV mRNA. Nuclei are stained with DAPI (blue). (F) Images of confocal sections of cells in panel E were reconstituted into a 3D image.
C. Greg Lutz, has a PhD in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Louisiana State University. His interests include recirculating system technology and population dynamics, quantitative genetics and multivariate analyses and the use of web based technology for result-demonstration methods. email@example.com
The Long View
The Road Ahead for
Aquaculture Products in the US Market The presence of slavery and forced labor in the seafood industry has been brought out of the shadows in high-profile media reports during the past two years with questions raised about the sale of these products in the U.S. An arcane provision in Customs law from 1930, known as the consumptive demand exception, allowed products and commodities made with forced or coercive labor practices to be imported when domestic production or supply in
By Aaron A. McNevin*
the U.S. was insufficient to meet “consumptive demands” of the United States. However, recent changes in the statute have brought an end to this provision.
n addition, some imported seafood, considered high risk, will soon be required to have traceability back to point of harvest. These new regulations will be finalized later this year as the result of a commitment by President Obama and work by the Presidential Task Force to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. For further information on the full list of “at risk” species, the reader is referred to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2015-10-30/pdf/2015-27780. pdf. The intention of the regulations is to apply to all seafood, but the application of these rules will be phased in with regards to species over time. The first species to be addressed that are produced through aquaculture are abalone and shrimp. In accordance with the WTO and in order for the US federal government to enact traceability regulations on imports of farm products, domestically produced products in the US also must comply with these new rules. Some US producers of abalone and shrimp are in direct competition with imported products and as such, 72 »
many US producers are in favor of greater accountability that would accompany traceability. However, there is a challenge that first needs to be overcome. Because in the US, the states regulate aquaculture, there will need to be an effort to coordinate the information on traceability (pri-
marily volumes sold and to whom) between state and federal agencies. This state-federal relationship has been offered as a reason to slow or postpone the application of the new regulations to abalone and shrimp. The US produces approximately 350 metric tons (mt) of farmed abalone
and 1,700 mt of farmed shrimp. The imports of abalone and shrimp to the US in 2015 are approximately 780 mt and 580,000 mt, respectively, according to the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. In the US, many producers are concerned with “over-regulation” of the private sector. However, it appears that there may be an advantage to not only domestic aquaculture producers, but also to consumers that desire the point of harvest of the products they consume. In discussing many of the issues around these new regulations with NOAA, state agencies and US aquaculture producers, they do not appear to be overly burdensome. There is an effort to align the traceability requirements with that information which is already provided to state agencies. Why would WWF care about these new regulations? The simple answer is accountability. There are high performing aquaculture producers all over the world. There are also poor performers as well. The effort to reward the best performers is hampered by the inability to discern who has produced a particular product. While many consider retail outlets as having great visibility on the origin of their food products, for aquaculture, this is seldom the case. In reference to the recent confirmation of forced and bonded labor in the seafood industry, it is unfortunate that horrific revelations tend to be the reason for action. It would be easy and likely expected for the NGOs to get on their bully pulpits and “preach” to this issue. However, the Monday morning quarterbacking gets quite old by Thursday so it may be that NGOs and their corporate partners in the seafood world need to reflect on how they measure progress and track success. Further, maybe the glamour of “commitments to sustainability” are not as important as actually meeting commitments. So in retrospect, it appears that more doing and less talking is necessary.
As we have determined, whether it be a human rights group or an environmental conservation organization, traceability is a fundamental requirement for accountability. It is “agnostic” when it comes to environmental protection or social justice. I believe that we need to be united around traceability. In my mind it is the notion of standing behind a product that one produces and if you don’t want to take responsibility for the product that you produce, then maybe it is not appropriate for others to ingest that product. In the aftermath of these recent revelations, many in the seafood world are taking things into their own hands. Appalled by trade associations that have claimed to never have seen this coming, the buyers are coming together to verify their own supply chains. It is time for the US aquaculture industry to play its part in fostering greater accountability for US imports. The typical, knee jerk antiregulation reaction likely needs to be subdued such that one can see the forest for the trees in this case. I am confident that there is no desire to be over-burdensome to the US aquaculture industry, and reflection upon these new regulations may be viewed as pre-competitive rules to play the game.
Dr. Aaron McNevin directs the aquaculture program at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). He received his MS and PhD from Auburn University in Water and Aquatic Soil Chemistry. Aaron has lived and worked in Indonesia, Thailand and Madagascar and currently manages various projects throughout the developing world. He previously worked as a professor of fisheries science, and is the co-author of the book Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment.
Brown trout and sea trout:
a prospective species for aquaculture? The species Salmo trutta L. represents two major morphs, Brown trout By Asbjørn Bergheim*
(S. trutta fario) and Sea trout (S. trutta trutta).
rown trout is the freshwater form with typical habitat in rivers and lakes, while the anadromous form, Sea trout, is found spawning in freshwater, migrating to sea in the spring and returning to its native river in autumn. This trout is native in most European countries and in parts of the River Volga in Western Russia and has been introduced into highland regions of South and North America, Oceania, Japan, India, Pakistan, and some other countries (www.iucnredlist. org/details/19861/0). Compared to other trout species, brown trout is rather tolerant to fluctuating temperature; a main reason why it was possible to transfer it to other parts of the world even 150 years ago. Sea trout and brown trout are, as indicated, the same species but a combination of genetics and environmental factors (principally lack of food), will mean that some trout in rivers along the coast will go to sea to feed before returning to spawn. The stay at sea commonly lasts for less than three months. It is impossible to distinguish residential and migrating individuals as fry and juveniles in freshwater and they might even originate from the same parents (www. fagrad.com/). Going to sea gives the trout a much larger source of food 74 »
Native brown trout landed in River Lærdalselva, Norway (courtesy: Bjørn Olav Rosseland).
Fertilizing brown trout eggs in the hatchery (courtesy: Bjørn Olav Rosseland).
A proud angler with a matured sea trout, River Lærdalselva (courtesy: Yngve Hjertenes)
and sea trout will nearly always be bigger than the resident trout of the same river. In less nutrient-rich rivers, such as most Norwegian coastal rivers, sea trout are mostly females. Lacustrine brown trout migrate from lakes into rivers or streams to spawn. Older big trout in lakes often feed on fish and may reach large sizes, such as the reported state record in Michigan of 18.8 kg (caught in a tributary of Lake Michigan in 2009). Salmo trutta is rarely farmed for the table, but there is a considerable production of fry for re-stocking rivers and lakes in many countries. As an example, 74 farm sites in the UK produced around half a million fry and 500 tons of re-stockers annually in rivers to motivate trout anglers (http://www.fao.org/fishery/ culturedspecies/Salmo_trutta/en). River Lærdalselva is a famous salmon river which reaches the sea in the inner part of the long fjord system, Sognefjorden, in Western Norway. This river also attracts trout anglers. According to the FAO, brown/sea trout is probably the first species of fish for which artificial reproduction was performed. This probably occurred in Germany around 1739 and the first sea trout hatchery was established in 1841 in the UK. FAO’s production statistics include all morphs of S. trutta. In 2010, around 80% of the global brown trout production in aquaculture took place in Russia, mainly in freshwater. The other recorded producers are primarily European countries, but even Kenya and Zimbabwe are on the list. Compared to the dominating salmonid species in aquaculture, the global production of brown and sea trout is modest and below 5,000 tons per year. Since 1990, the annual production volume has been at the same level. Though most of the brown trout farming today takes place in freshwater, the future aquaculture potential seems to be more focused on cage farming in sea. Fjord localities which
are protected against wind and waves could be actual sites for sea trout farming. Sea trout has a potential advantage as it can tolerate higher summer temperature than salmon (up to 18 – 20 °C). In the long term, the global warming may favor sea trout farming again (FAO’s report). At present, farming of sea trout cannot compete with high-priced salmon. Marine trout farming only constituted around 1% of the total global trout production of 5,000 tons in 2010 (https://aquatrace. eu/documents/80305/142567/ brown+trout+leaflet.pdf). In saltwater, growth rates of brown trout are reported to be similar to those of Atlantic salmon and Rainbow trout. However, sexual maturation in brown trout strongly reduces growth, increases mortality and reduces the fillet quality. Maturity is considered a serious constraint to commercial production and options to minimize early maturation should be emphasized. The potential of brown trout for mariculture seems to be connected to introduction of female monosex material and/or sterile all-female material in order to reduce the maturation problems. The mentioned usage of female brown trout for aquaculture has been ‘dwelling in backwater’ for a long period – there seem to be no available reports dealing with these issues since 1992. Undoubtedly, mariculture of brown trout will attract interest sooner or later and hopefully it will become a competitive species.
Dr. AsbjØrn Bergheim is a senior researcher in the Dept. of Marine Environment at the International Research Institute of Stavanger. His fields of interest within aquaculture are primarily water quality vs. technology and management in tanks, cages and ponds, among others. firstname.lastname@example.org
THE Shellfish CORNER
of Exotic Shellfish Species The issue of aquaculture of non-native or exotic shellfish species is periodically raised at times when the industry becomes distressed, or stocks of the native species become depressed, or the industry By Michael A. Rice*
begins teetering on the edge of economic viability.
otable examples of successful aquaculture introductions in the past have included the aquaculture of the Japanese oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and the Manila clam, Ruditapes philippinarum, along the Pacific coast of North America in both Canada and the United States. Introductions of these species over five decades ago have proved successful over time and have, over time, built a very robust culture industry in the region. In more recent times in 1997, Dr. Stan Allen of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences and his colleague Dr. Ximing Guo proposed to introduce the East Asian Suminoe Oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis into "aquaculture parks" in the Chesapeake Bay on the eastern coast of the United States as a means to restore the ecosystem services and oyster fisheries that had been decimated due to 1000-fold losses in the historic populations of the native American oyster, Crassostrea virginica due to overfishing, destruction of reefs and disease pressure. Unlike the exotic bivalve introductions in earlier times, this proposal generated considerably more controversy. In 1998, Dr. Allen and colleagues at the Virginia Institute of Marine 76 Âť
Philippine mussels (left to right) The Southeast Asian Green Mussel, Perna viridis; The Charru mussel, Mytella charruana; and the smaller Philippine horse mussel Modiolus modulaides. Photo by the Philippine BFAR-NIFTDC.
Sciences had begun experimenting with the aquaculture of sterile triploid C. araikensis in the Bay, in growth and salinity tolerance trials alongside the native C. virginica. By 2001, the Virginia Seafood Council had experimented with taste testing triploid C. araikensis and found that these non-natives tasted similar
to the natives and were acceptable in the local markets. And by 2002, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), an intergovernmental body concerned with coordinating fishery regulations among the coastal states, had begun studying and convening a workshop to discuss the issue, including po-
Figure 1 Oyster Landings in the Chesapeake Bay have declined a thousand-fold over the last century. Data provided by NOAA Fisheries. Chesapeake Bay oyster landings by state, 1880-2008 140,000 Landings (Thousand of pounds)
tential environmental downsides. Of course, the issue evoked strong interest by both the natural resource conservation communities who simultaneously recognized the benefits of having improved ecosystem services in the Bay while remaining skeptical and cautious about introducing an exotic species from across the globe that potentially might bring unintended ecological consequences. The introduction, and spread of the exotic zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha into the freshwater lake and river systems of North America in the 1990s was fresh on peoplesâ€™ minds at the time. This tiny mussel from the Caspian Sea region proved to be an aggressive fouling organism, forcing the expensive redesign of water supply systems and industrial facilities drawing water from freshwater sources that had been invaded by the mussels, and there was reluctance to risk another similar episode with another exotic bivalve. As a result of the growing controversy and moves by the states of Maryland and Virginia to favorably consider the introductions, the US Congress directed the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and several cooperating federal agencies to study the issue and prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) about the introduction. This effort resulted in cooperation with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office and the National Research Council in convening a top panel of experts and reviewers to produce a 2004 Report on Non-Native Oysters in Chesapeake Bay [available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10796/ nonnative-oysters-in-the-chesapeake-bay]. This report analyzed the three management options of: introducing and allowing aquaculture of the reproductive non-natives, aquaculture of triploid non-natives, and total prohibition of introductions. The report also recommended at least five years of research on C. ariakensis biology, including susceptibility to pathogens,
80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 79 886 893 900 907 914 921 928 935 942 949 956 963 970 977 984 991 998 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
their ecology and interaction with native North American oysters. In the end in 2009, the final decision by the states of Maryland and Virginia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was to disallow the introduction of Crassostrea ariakensis into the Chesapeake Bay. However, research undertaken as part of this effort to evaluate the exotic species has serendipitously shown that triploid versions of the
native C. virginica do have very good growth characteristics in comparison to their reproductively active counterparts, so these fast growing native triploids have become very popular among Chesapeake Bay oyster farmers and they now comprise a substantial fraction of the oysters being farmed in the Bay. On the other side of the world in the Philippines, a recent acciden-
Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Director Asis G. Perez examining aquaculture trials with the exotic Charru mussel, Mytella charruana, in 2015. Photo courtesy of the Philippines BFAR- NIFTDC.
THE Shellfish CORNER
Oyster dredge coming aboard the skipjack J. T. Leonard in Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Central Library Historical Fisheries Collection photo by Robert K. Brigham, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 1964.
tal introduction of an exotic mussel is proving to be controversial but for different reasons. Beginning in early 2014, fishermen and shellfish farmers in the Province of Cavite on the southern shore of Manila Bay had begun finding sets of an unusual mussel with a black shell similar to the European blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Within a few months, the mussel had spread to estuaries in Pangasinan in the northern part of the Philippines where they had become locally abundant during the period of reduced water salinities. Genetic testing by Dr. Paul Rawson at the University of Maine found that they were genetically identical to a specific strain of the Charru mussel, Mytella charruana, native to Brazil and the northern Caribbean and also found in the tropical Eastern Pacific from central Mexico to the Guayas Estuary in Ecuador. Undoubtedly the exotic Charru mussels in the Philippines arrived accidentally in some way associated with trans78 Âť
Pacific shipping, possibly by way of ships traversing the Panama Canal bound for port areas in Manila Bay. Since the 1970s, Philippine mussel farmers have been culturing the Southeast Asian green mussel, Perna viridis and it has become very popular in local markets. The green mussels are known to thrive in high salinity waters between 25 and 35 ppt and grow quickly during the dry seasonal months, being harvested for sale prior to the onset of monsoonal rains that considerably lower estuarine and coastal water salinities. Mussel farmers, particularly in Western Pangasinan, quickly realized that the Charru mussels that appeared to be setting primarily in the low salinity months following the heavy monsoon rains proved to be a viable culture species that is marketable in the off-months when the P. viridis are not as widely available. The Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the mussel industry began researching means to adapt the traditional culture techniques to the Charru mussels and begin optimizing the staggered seasonal culture of these two species. The beginnings of some controversy over the Charru mussels arose after the rainy season of 2015 (August to October in Pangasinan and Manila) in which the mesohaline (mid-salinity) M. charruana began to overset spat collectors for mangrove oysters (primarily Crassostrea iredalei) in the Dagupan City estuary system. These oysters thrive in the same salinity regimes as the Charru mussels, but the oysters can tolerate the high (>33 ppt) salinities of the dry season (March to May) and are harvested year-around, obtaining slightly higher market prices than either of the two mussel species. Charru mussels oversetting of productive farms has been cited as a problem for some oyster farmers, thus creating some conflict between different groups of shellfish farmers. Initial enthusiasm for having a new mussel species to
fill the less-served post-rainy season market niche has been dampened somewhat and BFAR has begun some work to investigate salinity tolerances of the Charru mussels, and the timing of their spawning to better advise mussel and oyster farmers on timing and placement of spat collectors to optimize either oyster or Charru mussel sets. Unlike the Chesapeake Bay experience of investigating before-hand aspects of the biology of the proposed exotic species, the Philippine shellfishery and aquaculture communities are mostly managing the introduction of the exotic species after the fact. Although they quickly found the mussels to be readily accepted in local markets, some downsides to the accidental introduction did crop up. Dr. Christopher McKindsey and coworkers provide an excellent review of bivalves and exotic species if the reader wishes to further explore the potential impacts of introduced bivalves in greater depth (Journal of Shellfish Research 26:281-294.) It is often best to deliberate before-hand the introduction of a new species as was done by the Chesapeake Bay authorities, but in these times of expanding global ocean transportation and global markets, after the fact management of the introduction of a species may be more common than not.
Michael A. Rice, PhD, is a Professor of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at the University of Rhode Island. He has published extensively in the areas of physiological ecology of mollusks, shellfishery management, molluscan aquaculture, and aquaculture in international development. email@example.com
AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2016. Edinburgh, Scotland September 20-23. Finally, Aquaculture Europe in Scotland organised by the European Aquaculture Society. Aquaculture Europe 2016 will take place at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC) from September 20-23. AE2016 is organised by the European Aquaculture Society with the cooperation and support of Marine Scotland, part of the Scottish Government, and The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland. The event is Gold Sponsored by Biomar. The event theme “FOOD FOR THOUGHT” means something to think about, something to be seriously considered and something that provides mental stimulation and nourishment. Aquaculture in Europe has plateaued resulting in overall output remaining more or less constant in volume since 2000. AE2016 will present the latest science to support further development, and industry panels will discuss key opportunities. It will also identify areas to encourage further sustainable growth in aquaculture. The morning plenary sessions will address different aspects of the event theme in a novel way. More info on www.easonline.org. LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN AQUACULTURE 2016. Lima, Peru, November 28 – December 1. Innovative Aquaculture under Environmental Challenges is the theme for this event. LACQUA16 will be the 2016 annual meeting of the Latin American & Caribbean Chapter of the WAS. LACQUA16 will be held in the Sheraton Convention Center in Lima, Peru. We now accept the abstracts in English. Presentations can be in English and in Spanish. Submit your abstract now on www.was.org and click the LACQUA16 logo. Booths available contact Mario. AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2017. San Antonio, USA – Feb. 19-22. Aquaculture America 2017 returns to one of the favorite tourist spots in the world for the only major national aquaculture conference and exposition held in the U.S. The U.S. Aquaculture Society (formerly U.S. Chapter of WAS) joins with National Aquaculture Association and the Aquaculture Suppliers Association to produce the annual Aquaculture America meetings. These sponsors are joined by the annual meetings of Aquacultural Engineering Society, American Tilapia Association, Striped Bass Growers Association, US Trout Farmers Association, US Shrimp Farming Association and many more associations to make Aquaculture America 2017 the one meeting in the U.S. that you don’t want to miss! www.was.org. WORLD AQUACULTURE 2017. Cape Town, South Africa – June 27-30. World Aquaculture 2017 will be held in Cape Town with involvement from countries throughout the Africa continent and around the world. Aquaculture is rapidly growing in Africa and increasingly being integrated into the continent’s food systems; therefore 2017 is the perfect time for the world aquaculture community to focus on Africa. A major international trade show at WORLD AQUACULTURE 2017 is the place to learn about the latest aquaculture technologies presented by exhibitors from around the world. Mark your calendar. Online info on www.was.org coming soon. MarEvent Conference Management Mailing Address: Begijnengracht 40, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Linkedin: Mario Stael. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Web: www.marevent.com UPCOMING EVENTS MIDDLE EAST & CENTRAL ASIA AQUACULTURE 2016 Izmir, Turkey June 2-4 | AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2016 Edinburgh, Scotland September 20-23 | LACQUA16 Lima, Peru November 28 - December 1 | AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2017 San Antonio, Texas, USA Feb. 19-22 | WORLD AQUACULTURE 2017 Cape Town, South Africa, June 27-30 | ASIA PACIFIC AQUACULTURE 2017 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 25-27 | AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2017 Dubrovnik, Croatia October 16-20 | AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2018 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA Feb. 19-22 | AQUA 2018 Montpellier, France August 25-29 | AQUACULTURE 2019 New Orleans, Louisiana, USA March 6-10 | AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2019 Berlin, Germany October 8-10 | AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2023 New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Feb. 19-22
advertisers antibiotics, probiotics and FEED additives Biofeed Solutions, Inc...........................................................23 P.O. Box 3434 Glendale, AZ. 85311-3434 USA Contact: Daniel Lee - President/CEO T: 623-930-7510 Fax: 623-930-8598 E-mail: email@example.com / www.biofeedsolutions.com KEETON INDUSTRIES INC............................................................35 1520 Aquatic Drive Wellington, Colorado 80549, USA. Contacto: Aney Carver T: 800.493.4831 o 970.568.7754 (USA) E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.keetonaqua.com/shrimp Lucky star................................................................................25 Contact: Ken Hung E-mail: email@example.com / www.luckystarfeed.net Reed Mariculture, Inc............................................................15 900 E Hamilton Ave, Suite 100. Campbell, CA 95008 USA. Contact: Lin T: 408.377.1065 F: 408.884.2322 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.reedmariculture.com Zeigler Bros, Inc..................................................Inside cover 400 Gardners, Station RD, Gardners, pa. 17324, USA. Contact: Priscila Shirley T: 717 677 6181 E-mail: email@example.com / www.zeiglerfeed.com aeration equipment, PUMPS, FILTERS and measuring instruments ARVO-TEC OY...............................................................................37 Ruukintie 45, 79600 Huutokoski Finlandia Contac: Joonas Jääskeläinen T: +358207299910 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.arvotec.fi Aqua Logic Inc..........................................................................21 9558 Camino Ruiz San Diego, CA 92126, USA. T: 858 292 4773 www.aqualogicinc.com Critical Environment.............................................................43 Unit #145 - 7391 Vantage Way, Delta, BC, V4G 1M3, Canada Contact: Rebecca Erickson - Marketing Manager T: +1.877.940.8741, +1.604.940.8741 Fax: +1.604.940.8745 E-mail: email@example.com / www.critical-environment.com DELTA DELFINI.............................................................................53 Av. Miguel H. Alcívar, Edificio Torres del Norte Torre A, Piso 7, Oficina 704. Guayaquil – Ecuador. Contac: Fatima Jordan V. T: (593-4)2687-280 Fax: (593-4) 2687-290 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.deltadelfini.com Fresh Flo..................................................................................20 3037 Weeden Creek Rd. Sheboygan, WI 53081 Contact: Barb Ziegelbauer T: 920-208-1500 E-mail: email@example.com Integrated Aqua Systems, Inc..............................................63 2867 Progress Place, Suite E. Escondido, CA 92029. Contac: Christine McKay General Manager T: (800) 640.2148 Office: (760) 745.2201 Fax: (858) 408.2922 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.integrated-aqua.com
O2................................................................................................61 8 Ha’zoran st., Poleg Industrial Zone Netanya, 4250408 Contac: Roy Brosh - Business Development Manager T: +972.74.7136600 Cell: +972.50.4909040 Fax: +972.4.6709014 E-mail: email@example.com / www.o2waterator.com Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Inc...............47 / back cover 2395 Apopka Blvd. Apopka, Florida, Zip Code 32703, USA. Contact: Ricardo Arias T: (407) 8863939, (407) 8864884 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.pentairaes.com RK2 Systems.............................................................................55 421 A south Andreassen Drive Escondido California. Contact: Chris Krechter. T: 760 746 74 00 E-mail: email@example.com / www.rk2.com YSI...............................................................................................41 1700/1725 Brannum Lane-P.O. Box 279, Yellow Springs, OH. 45387,USA.Contact: Tim Groms. T: 937 767 7241, 1800 897 4151 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.ysi.com events and exhibitions 11th International Conference on RECIRCULATING Aquaculture ICRA & 2016 Aquaculture Innovation Workshop..................................................................................49 August 19th - 21st, 2016. Ronoake, Virgina, USA. T: 540-553-1455 E-mail: email@example.com / www.recircaqua.com AQUASUR 2016...........................................................................17 October 19th - 22nd Puerto Montt, Chile. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.aqua-sur.cl BC SEAFOOD EXPO & WORKSHOP SERIES..........................33 June 9th - 10h, 2016 Comox Valley, Vancouver Island. www.bcseafoodexpo.com The 11th ShangHai International fisheries & Seafood exposition.....................................................................................51 August 26th - 28th, 2016. Shanghai, China. E-mail: email@example.com / www.sifse.com/en/ XVIII CONGRESO ECUATORIANO DE ACUICULTURA & AQUAEXPO 2016...........................................................................31 October 25th - 27th Guayaquil, Ecuador. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.cna-ecuador.com Blast freeze / drying / smoking racks Industrial Bakery Equipment................................................5 PO BOX 1283 BATTLE CREEK, MI 49016 Contact: Todd Mick T: 260-710-0063 Fax: 269-965-9010 E-mail: email@example.com / www.industrialbakeryequipment.com Information Services Aquaculture Magazine.....................................................79 Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 504 3642 Office in Mexico: (+52) (33) 3632 2355 Subscriptions: firstname.lastname@example.org Advertisement Sales: email@example.com
Buyer´s Guide & Industry Directory 2017.....................27 Ad Sales. Chris Criollos, Sales Manager firstname.lastname@example.org | Office: +52 33 80007595 Cell: +52 (33) 14660392 Skype: christian.criollos Steve Reynolds, International Sales and Marketing email@example.com | Cell: 778 903 4743 Office: 210 209 9175 | Skype: dpsteve Gus Ruiz, Sales Support Executive firstname.lastname@example.org | Office: +52 33 80007595 Cell: +521 (33) 14175480 | Skype: gustavo.rcisneros AADAP PROGRAM.......................................................................69 Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/home.htm Aquafeed.com..........................................................................71 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com Urner Barry.............................................................................75 P.O. Box 389 Tom Ride. New Jersey USA. Contact: Ángel Rubio. T: 732-575-1982 E-mail: email@example.com seafood professionals........................................................65 www.seafoodprofessionals.org RAS SYSTEMS, DESIGN, EQUIPMENT SUPPORT AQUACARE..................................................................................58 T: 1 360 734 7964 www.aquacare.com SPECIALIZED LITERATURE IN AQUACULTURE “Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment”....59 By: Claude Boyd, Aaron McNevin. February 2015, Wiley-Blackwell. Buy online: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd0470959193.html tanks AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE FLEXABAR CORPORATION..............................Inside BACK cover 1969 Rutgers University Blvd. Lakewood, NJ 08701 Contact: Rick Guglielmo T: 001-732-901-6500 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.flexabar.com Frigid Units..............................................................................45 5072 Lewis Ave. Toledo, OH 43612 Contac: Dawn M. Heilman T: 419/478-4000 Fax: 419/478-4019 E-mail: email@example.com IAGROS.........................................................................................1 Hermenegildo Galeana Street #85. Ciudad Guzman Centro. Ciudad Guzman. Jal, Mex. Contact: Sandra Reyes T: (341) 413 - 6878 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / www.iagros.com.mx Yunker Plastics......................................................................16 251 O’Connor Dr. Elkhorn, WI 53121 Contact: Mark Yunker T: 800-236-3328 Cell: 262-215-8782 Fax: 262-743-1233 E-mail: email@example.com / www.yunkerplastics.com
New Fish Virus that Threatens Global Tilapia Stocks