US Grains Council: Virtual Aqua Talk—Turbulent Markets

On Wednesday, the US Grains Council conducted a webinar featuring the world of aquaculture and the challenges the industry faces. There were several pertinent points made throughout the webinar, interesting especially to those only beginning to explore the industry:

• Over 35% of seafood from aquaculture is traded internationally. Freshwater fish comprise the bulk of aquaculture produce, with China taking the lead in overall production. Some countries specialise more in other seafoods, e.g. shrimps for Ecuador and Thailand, the Atlantic salmon for Norway and Chile.

• Seafood demand is expected to continually grow in the coming decades. Interestingly, panelists note that the pandemic has exacerbated this demand, e.g. in America, households are still continuing to buy fresh seafood to bring home even as its population have begun dining out. There are also new challenges faced by the industry, notably the introduction of plant-based seafood and increasing concern on sustainability issues among consumers.

Seaspiracy has been referenced during the webinar as one of the likely reasons of the current rise in consumer concern regarding aquaculture sustainability.

• Dried Distiller's Grains and Solubles (DDGS), which is used as fish feed, was given quite a bit of attention during the webinar. The US produces 4.4 million metric tonnes of DDGS per annum, most of which are distributed locally; only about 4% are exported, with 3.5 million metric tonnes making its way to Southeast Asia.

• In Asia, there needs to be a focus on one type of fish—like salmon in Europe—where information on relevant factors, like genetics and nutrition, can be better gathered. One expert recommends the target fish to be the Asian sea bass and grouper.

US Agriculture Exports: Day 3 Highlights on Trade Deals, Weather, and Aquafeed

Day 3 of the AG Supply Chain Asia 2021 conference moved on to policy, economics, and weather factors relevant to the US grain industry. There were some interesting news and updates on these fronts, including ongoing evaluation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) by the new Biden administration, expectations that the USD80 billion of farm purchases by China will push up US produce prices, and predictions of La Nina dissipating in the first month of spring in North America, resulting in sudden spells of precipitation to the region.

Source: Garriss (2021)

Interestingly, the third day of the conference also included presentation on aquaculture and aquafeed, particularly shrimp. It gave several interesting insights into the industry, such as projections of the aquaculture supply chain are also discussed, such as declining live marine fish processing, forcing players to look for ways that would allow them to keep their produce over a much longer period of time. Notably, however, the presentation emphasised on the sustainability of aquaculture practices, particularly that of unused feed, i.e., uneaten feed and feed passed into faeces, discharging into lakes and destroying the quality of water, and offered a distiller’s dried grain with soluble (DDGS) as a possible alternative to the usual soybean meal and wheat flour fed to shrimps.

Farmed Seafood Versus Wild-caught: Environmental Impacts & Sustainability

In this article, we will be looking at the environmental impacts of aquaculture, and how they compare to the impacts of conventional fishing. In case you haven’t read the previous article, I answered some common questions people have when it comes to aquaculture as a source of our fish. Aquaculture for those unfamiliar with the term is essentially the commercial farming of fish and other marine organisms for consumption. 

Is aquaculture actually sustainable and/or environmentally friendly? How does it compare with conventional fishing practices? Well, let’s dive into it!

Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of Aquaculture

Simply put, aquaculture has negative environmental impacts if not properly carried out. But these problems can be and have been minimised with proper practices, and in some cases even result in positive environmental impacts. 

Aquaculture ponds in the Northern Territory of Australia (CSPIRO/The Fish Site, 2020).

Brackish water fish farming in Malaysia (Hatchery International, 2019).

One core problem is the organic waste and uneaten feed which contain nitrates and phosphorus. In high density aquaculture farms, these are concentrated in one place when the farms are not located in moving currents or if the waste is not treated (Wu, 1995). This impacts water quality in that area, and could result in eutrophication (Chislock and Doster, 2013). Poor water quality has knock-on effects on the health of the fish, as it can irritate their gills or cause other health problems and diseases (Mannan et al., 2012). Eutrophication is the increased growth of algae from extra nutrients in the organic waste. This can be extremely detrimental for the ecosystem as it results in oxygen deprivation and the formation of dead-zones of low or no oxygen (Chislock and Doster, 2013); and the ecosystem may collapse. In this day and age, aquaculture farms are mostly set up in the right areas to prevent things like this from happening and work to treat waste adequately, but there are still cases where this could happen. 

One of aquaculture’s positive environmental features is its high resource efficiency in producing protein. It has a much lower feed conversion ratio, which means the amount of feed required to produce the same amount of protein is much lower for fish and shrimp compared to other proteins (Tacon and Metian, 2008); it takes less feed to produce a kilogram of fish than other meat. This is very sustainable as less feed crops need to be grown, potentially reducing cropland pressure. A whopping 36% of the world's cropland is used for animal feed (Cassidy et al., 2013). Food security could get a boost combining fish protein with land available for food crops. 

Besides that, another positive environmental impact is that the farming of seaweed and bivalves are beneficial to water quality (Buck et al., 2017). Bivalves are filter-feeding shellfish and are a type of extractive aquaculture, given this name due to their feeding habits extracting nutrients from the water (Buck et al., 2017). This prevents the aforementioned nutrient build-up from the farming of other fish species. They are sometimes farmed alongside other fish species to help combat the issue in a farming method called integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (Correia et al., 2020)! Think of this as an improved farm ecosystem. Species within the same trophic level share the same function in the food chain. Essentially you have both fish and shellfish on your aquaculture farm, where fish are in a higher trophic level while shellfish are on a lower trophic level, each playing a different key role in the system.

In terms of sustainability, aquaculture could improve the sustainability of wild fish stocks obviously. If we are farming more fish, we eat and demand less wild fish, therefore there should be less pressure on wild fish stocks . (If you have any questions about farmed fish vs wild fish, check out the previous article in this two-part series, where I look into common questions you may have about aquaculture.) The table below displays the most commonly caught endangered wild-fish species, which a conscious consumer might avoid. For example, tuna is the most popular wild-caught fish in the world, with about 4.6 million metric tonnes caught in 2018 (FAO, 2018). Furthermore, WWF points out that with population pressure, and 3 billion people already relying on seafood as a main source of food, aquaculture can help keep up with increasing demand without further pressure on the wild fish stocks (WWF, 2020a).

Sources: WWF (2020b), FAO (2017; 2018), Greenpeace (2020)

Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of Conventional Fishing

Before we get into any of these impacts, we will need to spend a little time on the types of fishing the world carries out. Let me ask you a question. Visualise the first thing that comes to mind when I say the word ‘fishing’.

You probably pictured an angler sitting by a lake leisurely, waiting for the fish to bite. Was I right? What I’ve described is recreational fishing. Unless you are going out to catch endangered species of fish, or on a week-long trip with a strict catch and don’t release policy, the average recreational angler won’t have much impact on fish stocks. The next type of fishing would be small-scale commercial fishing. This would be the ‘nelayan’ (fisherman) you see go out to fish in the coastal communities of Malaysia to make a living for themselves. This doesn’t really have a large impact on the environment or sustainability, as the amount of fish caught is usually in small amounts relative to the heavyweight I'm about to introduce. You probably guessed it, large-scale commercial fishing. This is industrial fishing with large trawlers or boats that are capable of catching and storing large amounts of fish.

Large scale commercial fishing is the problem here. 

This involves a plethora of destructive and unsustainable fishing methods when not regulated (Pauly, 2006). It is NOT sustainable at all if left to its own devices. There is a world where such conventional fishing can be sustainable, but this is a highly unlikely scenario. Unless we regulate it, we face the Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially, firms will continue to exploit the fish stock resource as negative externalities (third-party costs caused by these firms), are not borne by them since no one ‘owns’ the oceans. Thus they continue to reap profit from fishing until there is no more profit to be gained, and overfishing is the norm as the full cost of doing so is not borne by them (Hardin, 1968). 

So what do we mean by sustainable? Sustainable fishing would require a certain sustainable level of fish to be caught annually. This level is called the maximum sustainable yield, which is equal to the level of growth of the fish stocks (Maunder, 2008).

What are the environmental impacts of volume-driven, unsustainable conventional fishing? First, methods such as bottom trawling and drift or gill nets are extremely dangerous to marine ecosystems and their denizens. Let’s take drift nets as an example. These are huge nets that are placed in the water column to catch anything and everything. Marine mammals, larger creatures and other fish species not being targeted end up in these nets as well, and die as bycatch (Lewison et al., 2004). Furthermore, these types of nets usually catch whole schools of fish, not leaving any behind to reproduce (FAO, 2020a). The damage does not stop there. Pieces of fishing gear might be discarded, or are abandoned if damaged or stuck on structures. These are near permanent environmental hazards for marine life, with more than 100,000 dolphins, whales, turtles and seals caught in abandoned gear annually (UNEP, 2018). 

Second, commercial fishing can destroy marine habitats and the seabed. This is an issue commonly associated with bottom-trawling, where large nets are dragged along the seabed to catch bottom-dwelling fish (FAO, 2020b). This completely destroys coral, sponges and other structures used as shelter for marine life. Coral reefs are key nurseries for many species, and damage to them adds to further fish stock decline on top of overfishing (Ecol et al., 2006). Another type of fishing involves dredging for clams in the sea-floor itself. This basically digs up the seabed, churning up sediment that is detrimental to water quality (Todd et al., 2014). This also dislodges worms and microorganisms whose actions are crucial for keeping the seabed habitable and supplied with oxygen (Coleman and Williams, 2002).

To conclude, aquaculture is the future, unless we find a way to reliably regulate the commercial wild-caught fishing industry. Proper regulation is extremely difficult due to the nature of the resource, and it is also hard to enforce on the high seas. A prime example is the super trawlers fishing off the coast of the UK now, as they scramble to exploit the UK's fishing grounds before Brexit happens, even when they are supposed to be regulated under EU regulation (Dalton, 2020). Even when people do care about preventing overfishing, there are also huge issues. In the EU for example, while they supposedly lead the push towards sustainability standards in food chains, only 1% of their marine protected areas out of about 3000 are protected by fishing bans (McVeigh, 2020). This shows us that aquaculture is the more sustainable and environmentally friendly option, and has obvious property rights and responsibilities, along with potentially easier regulation.

I hope this and the previous article has given you some insight into the world of aquaculture. Till next time!

By Robin GOON, Segi Enam intern, 25 Jan 2021 | LinkedIn

Edited by KHOR Yu Leng and Nadirah SHARIF

Aquaculture: Common Questions

What do tilapia, shrimp and cockles have in common?

They are all key products of the aquaculture industry in Malaysia (FAO, 2020a). But what exactly is aquaculture? Aquaculture is farming, but with fish or other delectable aquatic organisms intended for human consumption. This practice has become increasingly common globally, and now makes up about 54% of the world’s fishery production (FAO, 2018). In Malaysia, aquaculture makes up a substantial 21% of our fishery production (DOSM, 2019). When it comes to aquaculture here, it is commonly split into two types; freshwater and brackishwater aquaculture. Freshwater aquaculture, as the name suggests, is the breeding and raising of aquatic animals such as tilapia, catfish and carp in freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers or even reservoirs for economic purposes (Li and Liu, 2019). Brackishwater aquaculture, on the other hand, is the dominant aquaculture in Malaysia, making up about 70% of our aquaculture production, where it is the breeding of mainly bivalve molluscs like cockles and clams in waters that have a salinity fluctuating between 0.5% to full strength salinity (FAO, 2020b). These conditions can be commonly found in estuaries, bays and lagoons.

Now that we have the introduction out of the way, lets address some common questions people might have when it comes to aquaculture.

Is wild caught fish really better than farmed fish?

This is a question that stems from what I have heard come up countless times in conversations about wild vs farmed fish among family and friends, as well as in studies (Verbeke et al., 2007). There is this assumption by the general public that wild fish seem to have the edge over farmed fish when it comes to quality. Well luckily for you, I'm here to do the research and answer this question once and for all.

The answer: There really isn’t much difference from a nutritional standpoint. In fact, farmed fish has the potential to be more beneficial than wild fish. Some studies have shown that because farmed fish can be controlled in terms of diet and water quality, this could result in fish with lower levels of potentially toxic heavy metals, compared to their wild counterparts (Cahu et al, 2004). While it is true that farmed fish in some cases can have higher fat content than wild fish, this can be easily tweaked through the composition of the fish feed used, as well as the size of the fish enclosures (Nettleton and Exler, 1992; Cahu et al, 2004). 

But what about the antibiotics?

Another common question involving farmed fish is the fear of antibiotics and other artificial substances that may be used on farmed fish affecting us human beings. 

The answer: Yes, this is a potential issue with some farmed fish. The issue stems from the risk of antibiotic resistance. For those who aren’t familiar with this term, antibiotic resistance is when bacteria start to develop resistances to the antibiotics used to destroy them. Antibiotics are commonly used in aquaculture to fight bacterial infections and keep the fish healthy. While fine to use moderately, antibiotics are sometimes overused by the farmers, which then leads to antibiotic resistance issues. Residues of the antibiotics tend to stay in the fish when overused, which is then passed on to us humans when we then eat the fish (Miranda et al., 2018). This could then result in bacteria in our body developing resistances to antibiotics. It is important to note however, that this is still a relatively new field of research. There are limited studies done on the long term effects of antibiotic residues, as well as just how impactful it is on human health (Chen et al., 2020). It can only get better over the next few decades, as it will take time for more scientific studies to be carried out to determine the right doses of antibiotics and alternative methods to combating bacterial infection in aquaculture (Chen et al., 2020).

Does aquaculture hurt the fish or have any negative effects regarding welfare?

Where are the animal rights activists at? This is also a pretty common question when it comes to aquaculture, where people question whether the welfare of the fish is taken care of.

The answer: It would probably be no surprise to you that aquaculture does have negative effects on fish welfare, given that they are commonly reared in enclosures that are smaller than the size of an ocean or river. Generally, issues such as the handling and manipulation of fish, malformation and inducing reproduction all commonly affect aquaculture fish (Saraiva et al., 2019). However, most studies on fish welfare are usually limited to several popular aquaculture species, and a lot more research needs to be done in order to better understand both the physiological and behavioural measures we have to account for to maintain good fish welfare in the farms (Ashley, 2007).

Why support aquaculture?

So you’re telling me that I should buy farmed fish and support aquaculture even when you have just pointed out some of its issues?

Well, like any food source, there will always be pros and cons. I could also write an article on how wild caught fish could potentially be just as harmful, if not more harmful to our health (maybe I will). Arguably, the welfare of wild fish isn’t doing so well either, with severe overfishing plaguing the high seas. The reasons why aquaculture has been painted in this slightly negative light mainly stem from media portrayal, as well as a lack of knowledge among the public on aquaculture (Froehlich et al., 2017). Furthermore, a relatively new technique of procuring fish, when compared to the practice of catching wild fish for thousands of years is bound to have some initial wrinkles that need to be ironed out. Only through continuing to support the transition to more aquaculture based fish production can we move forwards. 

Let’s not forget the main reason aquaculture is being pushed in the first place. Overfishing has left global wild fish stocks dangerously low, and we need alternative food supplies. This is not an environmentalist push to protect wild fish stocks for the sake of preserving nature. The world population is growing every day. With about three billion people in communities around the world reliant on seafood as the main source of food, dwindling fish stocks are a pressing food security issue (WWF, 2020). Aquaculture is looking to be the perfect solution to the problem, we just need to refine it.

Aquaculture production has surpassed wild catch since 2012, with an average person now consuming almost double the amount of seafood compared to the past 50 years (Ritchie, 2019).

I hope this article has given you some insight into the aquaculture scene, and gotten you hooked! Stay tuned for the next article on the environmental impacts of aquaculture, and how they compare to the impacts of conventional fishing.

By Robin GOON, Segi Enam intern, 10 Dec 2020 | LinkedIn

Edited by Nadirah SHARIF

Antimicrobial Resistance: Part #3 - Antimicrobials in Aquaculture

Next up on our antimicrobial resistance (AMR) series: antimicrobials in aquaculture. Similar to livestock production, antimicrobials are used in fish farms to treat and prevent diseases, and are commonly administered via water medication and medicated feed. While these methods do encourage the development of AMR, they are not its only source—the use of organic fertilisers, such as farm animal wastes, also contribute toward AMR, especially if the waste was from livestock already extensively fed with antimicrobial agents (Aly and Albutt, 2014).

Aquaculture production has surpassed wild catch since 2012, with an average person now consuming almost double the amount of seafood compared to the past 50 years (Ritchie, 2019).

More crucially, while the use of antibiotics in aquaculture remains the same as their livestock counterpart, the dosage administered in the former can be much higher proportionally compared to the latter (O’Neill, 2015). This, combined with the fact that antibiotics can remain within the aquatic environment for an extended period of time—there is evidence to suggest that 70 to 80% of antibiotics fed to fish are excreted into the water (Cabello et al., 2013; Burridge et al., 2010)—has led to experts dubbing aquaculture sites as “reservoirs” and “hotspots” for AMR genes (Van et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2017; Muziasari et al., 2016).

The situation is further aggravated by the rapidly growing practice of aquaculture itself—since the stress of industrial-scale farming compromises the fish’s immune system, it justifies the widespread use of antibiotics as a way to compensate for the fish’s increased vulnerability to infections and diseases (Meek, Vyas, and Piddock, 2015). A recent study between CIRAD and French National Research Institute for Development has also shown global warming may even promote the use of antibiotics, particularly in the low- and middle-income countries—warmer temperatures almost always result in higher mortality rates of fish, which could lead to an increased use of antibiotics (Reverter et al., 2020).

Unsurprisingly, the development of AMR in aquaculture production (as with any other agri-food industries where antibiotics are used) adversely has devastating affects on the environment and public health, typically in the form of superbugs, i.e. bacteria that should have been killed by antibiotics, but instead evolved to become stronger. Yet, overall data on the amount of antibiotics used in aquaculture and how much of it is absorbed into the aquatic surroundings is still far from satisfactory. Approximately 90% of global aquaculture production is carried out in countries where regulations on antimicrobial use are either lax or non-existent, resulting in data that varies greatly from nation to nation (Watts et al., 2017).

The figure above depicts the global multi-antibiotic resistance (MAR) index calculated from aquaculture-derived bacteria. An MAR index of 0.2 indicates a high-risk of antibiotic contamination. The mean global MAR index is 0.25. 28 countries out of the 40 selected for study displayed an index of higher than 0.2 (Reverter et al., 2020).

Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that antibiotic use is dependant on a country’s regulations and legislation on the same. For example, in Chile, where there have been resistance from some aquaculture companies against the government’s attempts to regulate antibiotic use, approximately 300 tonnes of antibiotics is used every year in the aquaculture industry. As a comparison, Norway imposed stringent legislation on antibiotic use in aquaculture (and largely replaced with more sustainable alternatives such as vaccines) and now relies on only one tonne per annum (FAO, accessed June 2020).

There is some sliver of hope, however. Some companies are beginning to respond to the growing concern on the impacts of antibiotic use. Chilean-based Marine Harvest, one the largest marine farming enterprise in the world, has pledged to slash its antibiotic use from 450gm per metric tonne of harvested salmon to 150gm per metric tonne. Lerøy Seafood Group from Norway has stopped using antibiotics in their fish farms since 2017 (although it should be noted that as mentioned before, Norway as a whole had already enforced strict monitoring of the antibiotics use, which included measures such as a traceability system that tracks the health and harvesting details of fish products). Nevertheless, experts widely agree that much more needs to be done.

This is the third article of a multi-part series on the topic of antimicrobial use in the agri-food sector by Khor Reports. Read the previous posts here: Antimicrobial Resistance: Part #1 - The General Gist; Antimicrobial Resistance: Part #2 - Antimicrobials in Livestock.

---

In separate news, a newly found cluster of coronavirus cases from the Xinfadi meat market in Beijing recently triggered a consumer panic after traces of the virus were found on a chopping board used to cut up imported salmon. The discovery prompted China to temporarily stop salmon imports into the country as numerous eateries and supermarkets began pulling foreign fish and meat products from their menus and shelves.

In response to this incident, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and Norwegian Seafood Council stressed that there are no cases of coronavirus infections spreading via contaminated food. This claim was later backed by the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who further clarified that there is currently no evidence to suggest that salmon itself could host the said virus.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Part #1 - The General Gist

There is a growing danger as big as, but lesser known than, the looming threat of climate change: antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Defined by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) as “micro-organisms—bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites—[evolving] resistance to antimicrobial substances, like antibiotics”, AMR adversely affects food safety and security by rendering medicines much less effective or useless when it comes to treating infections. While it is difficult to quantify the full economic and health impact of AMR, the FAO estimates that global GDP will decrease by 2 to 3.5%, equivalent to USD100 trillion, by 2050, with up to 10 million human lives lost each year.

Generally, antimicrobials in agriculture are used by farmers in the livestock production and fish farming industries to treat sick animals, to prevent future disease from spreading amongst livestock, and to stimulate growth, usually via the feed and water provided to the animals. In plant agriculture, antibiotics are usually sprayed onto plants as a fine mist, although direct antibiotic application on crops is much more modest compared to its use in livestock (McManus et al., 2002); however, it should be kept in mind that indirect applications could still happen via the use of manure and wastewater already contaminated (Zhang et al., 2017).

The amount of animal consumption of antibiotics is rather eye-opening—in the United States throughout 2012 alone, 72.5% of the use of medically important antibiotics were found to have been for animals, with only 27.5% used by humans; in absolute figures, animal consumption of antibiotics was 8.9 million kg compared to human consumption of 3.4 million kg (FDA, 2012; IMS Health, 2012).

“When we have a flock and there’s a lot of sick chickens in that flock, the quickest way to get an antibiotic in them is to put it in the water. We do that through a system that proportions that water out uniformly through all of these water lines so that every drink, every drop has the correct amount of antibiotics.”

The same practices were later adopted in aquaculture, the difference being that antibiotic doses may be proportionally higher than doses in livestock (O’Neill, 2015). Residue from antimicrobials as well as undigested food and faeces containing unabsobed antimicrobials usually remain in the water and the surrounding sediments for an extended amount of time, with some studies further suggesting that 70 to 80% of antibiotics administered to fish are excreted into the water (Cabello et al., 2013; Burridge et al., 2010).

Pathways of AMR genes from closed and open aquaculture systems into the water and its surrounding environment (Watts et al., 2017).

In comparison, the antibiotic use for crops is relatively low, comprising only 0.36% of total agricultural antibiotic consumption (Smalla and Tiedje, 2014). While this resulted in much less attention given to antibiotic use in plants, the potentially extensive use of fungicide may be a source of concern since fungal diseases presents significant threat to crops (O’Neill, 2015).

It is quite undeniable that the issue of AMR is an increasingly alarming one. With news of bacteria developing new resistance to antibiotics and increasing resistance in animals such as dolphins, it is clear that, quoting author and journalist Maryn McKenna in her book Big Chicken, AMR is becoming “an overwhelming threat, created over decades by millions of individual decisions and reinforced by the actions of industries.” It would be interesting to see further developments in this area.

This is the first article of a multi-part series on the topic of antimicrobial use in the agri-food sector by Khor Reports.