Saving Seafood

US Senator Roger Wicker files bill to further aquaculture industry

July 9, 2018 — U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) has filed a bill that he said would further develop the aquaculture industry in the country.

S. 3138, named the “Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act,” calls for the creation of the Office of Marine Aquaculture within NOAA Fisheries. That office would oversee regulatory issues within NOAA and push for development opportunities to spur aquaculture’s growth, especially within the country’s exclusive economic zones.

“Aquaculture is the fastest-growing sector of the agriculture industry,” Wicker said in a press release. “This bill would give farmers a clear, simplified regulatory path to start new businesses in our coastal communities. The AQUAA Act would also fund needed research to continue the growth and success of this important industry.”

The bill itself twice mentions it aims to address the U.S. seafood trade deficit. It notes that the country imports about 90 percent of the seafood Americans consume, with half of those imports coming from aquaculture.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) is listed as a co-sponsor, and a trade group has started a letter-writing campaign to land additional co-sponsors.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

North Carolina legislature adjourns without passing aquaculture bill

July 5, 2018 — The North Carolina legislature has ended its session without considering a bill that would have made it easier for Cooke Seafood USA and others to ramp up oyster farming in the state. Costal Review Online reported.

The North Carolina General Assembly had been preparing to vote on the Support Shellfish Industry Act, HB 361, which would have raised the cap for oyster permits in the Pamlico Sound, the US’ second largest estuary, covering over 3,000 square miles of open water behind North Carolina’s touristy Outer Banks. Permits would have risen from a combined 50 acres to 200 acres, allowing for larger scale operations. It’s a change being sought by the Wanchese Fish Company, a Suffolk, Virginia-based harvester and processor acquired by the Canadian Cooke family in 2015, among others.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

A new chapter for US aquaculture?

June 28, 2018 — A bill that could allow for the culture of fish and shellfish in US Federal waters for the first time has been welcomed by representatives of the US aquaculture industry.

The bill to introduce the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act was implemented by Senator Roger Wicker and aims to streamline the permitting process for aquaculture farms in federal waters, and fund research and development to advance the aquaculture industry.

Its introduction was welcomed by the US National Aquaculture Association (NAA), whose president, Jim Parsons, told The Fish Site: “The last time the US Senate considered this topic was in 2005. Over the last several decades, shellfish, fish and seaweed farming in state waters has contributed considerable jobs and income benefits to coastal communities and resulted in the production of high-quality seafood. Because of this experience and success, the stage is set to recognize times have changed. We can farm offshore using new technology, new production gear, and greatly improved feeds to make the US a net seafood exporter instead of the second largest consumer of global seafood. In addition, a proven regulatory model of federal and state regulations has demonstrated that we can grow fish, shellfish and seaweed sustainably and be fully protective of the environment. We are looking forward to working with Congress to pass legislation beneficial to the US aquaculture community.”

Read the full story at The Fish Site

Ocean science agency chief floats removing ‘climate’ from mission statement and focusing on trade deficit

June 26, 2018 — A recent presentation by the acting head of the United States’ top weather and oceans agency suggested removing the study of “climate” from its official mission statement, focusing the agency’s work instead on economic goals and “homeland and national security.”

Critics say this would upend the mission of the $5.9 billion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the administration disputes that interpretation, saying the presentation did not intend to create a change of direction at a vast agency that tracks hurricanes and atmospheric carbon dioxide, operates weather satellites, manages marine reserves and protects endangered ocean species, among other functions.

NOAA’s mission, the agency says, is “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.”

But in a presentation at a Commerce Department “Vision Setting Summit” this month, Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, the agency’s acting administrator, suggested a change to that mission statement, as well as a new emphasis on tripling the size of the U.S. aquaculture industry within a decade and moving to “reduce the seafood trade deficit.”

The new NOAA mission, the presentation said, would be “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”

“This presentation is a simplified draft for discussion,” said Gallaudet, an oceanographer who has spoken in the past about climate change’s effects on the Arctic, in a statement provided by the agency. “It was not intended to create change in NOAA mission or policy from what it was before. Any interpretation to the contrary is simply inaccurate.”

But the proposed removal of language about studying the “climate” and about the managing of coastal and marine resources has aroused considerable ire and concern.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Bill to make North Carolina ‘Napa Valley’ of US oyster industry also good for Cooke

June 25, 2018 — The following is excerpted from a story originally published in Undercurrent News: 

Many North Carolina fishermen are petitioning in support of the Support Shellfish Industry Act. One group, Citizens for a Level Playing Field, have created a petition in support of the Act.

A vote by the North Carolina General Assembly — potentially as early as Monday — could make it easier for Cooke Seafood USA and others to harvest more oysters in the US coastal state. But it’s coming down to the wire, as the state’s legislature is expected to end its session either this week or next.

The Support Shellfish Industry Act (HB 361) would raise the cap for oyster permits in the Pamlico Sound – the US’ second largest estuary, covering over 3,000 square miles of open water behind North Carolina’s touristy Outer Banks — from a combined 50 acres to 200 acres, allowing for larger scale operations. It’s a change being sought by the Wanchese Fish Company, a Suffolk, Virginia-based harvester and processor acquired by the Canadian Cooke family in 2015, among others.

The measure, which was originally introduced in late May as Senate Bill 738 by Republican state senators Bill Cook, Harry Brown and Norman Sanderson, passed the North Carolina upper chamber on June 15 by a 28-9 vote, but still requires approval by the state’s Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

“With our acres of pristine waters, and a large and growing interest in cultivated oysters, the potential for the industry in the state is huge,” the three lawmakers said in a press release when introducing the original bill. “Our goal is for North Carolina to become the ‘Napa Valley’ of oysters and to become a $100 million dollar industry in 10 years.”

The North Carolina lawmakers might have picked a different area to represent dominance in the US wine industry. Despite its reputation, Napa Valley produces just 4% of the grapes used in California.

Regardless, Jay Styron, president and owner of the Carolina Mariculture Company, an oyster grower in Cedar Island, North Carolina, would settle right now for his state just getting on a playing field that’s level with the oyster industries in Virginia and Maryland, two states on the Chesapeake Bay (the US’s largest estuary), with lease caps that allow operations of up to 2,000 total acres.

Other states, like Louisiana and Washington, allow similarly high oyster growing caps, he said in a letter to the editor published Friday by Undercurrent News.

Styron told Undercurrent he isn’t interested in expanding beyond the 6.5-acre floating-cage oyster and clam farm he owns in the adjacent Core Sound, but is arguing for the change on behalf of other oyster growers in his role as the president of the North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

NEW BEDFORD STANDARD-TIMES: Finding new ways to bolster New Bedford’s fishermen

June 15, 2018 — We’re encouraged by recent efforts to boost the local fishing industry. And we’re excited about bigger developments on the way this summer.

Last week, restaurateurs from around New England gathered with aquaculture experts at Johnson and Wales University in Providence. The purpose: to exchange ideas on sustainability in America’s seafood industry.

Derek Wagner, chef and owner at Nick’s on Broadway in Providence, told attendees that he once struggled to get his hands on locally caught seafood — until about 10 years ago.

Frustrated by the lack of information about where his restaurant’s salmon originated, he met with two fishermen out of Point Judith, Rhode Island. Instead of telling them what he wanted for his menu, he asked the fishermen what they wanted to sell: ″What is abundant? What are you having a hard time selling? What do you think people should be eating?”

Wagner pledged to take whatever the local fishermen could provide and “make it delicious.” Now he said he consults with local fishermen whenever he creates a new menu.

Another chef, Bun Lai from Connecticut, told of how he began making sushi with the Asian shore crab — an invasive species found in great abundance along the New England coastline. “They’re absolutely delicious,” he said.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

New Ray Hilborn study investigates environmental impact of aquaculture

June 13, 2018 — A new study from fisheries expert Ray Hilborn compares the environmental impact of various forms of animal husbandry.

The study, which appeared in “Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment,” is an all-encompassing look on how animal protein production affects the environment.

“From the consumers’ standpoint, choice matters. If you’re an environmentalist, what you eat makes a difference,” Hilborn said. “We found there are obvious good choices and really obvious bad choices.”

Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, has been working on the study for almost a decade. The study investigates the impacts of animal-rearing including energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer and other excess nutrient exposure to the environment, and emissions of substances that can cause acid rain.

The study found industrial beef and catfish farming to be among the most environmentally costly meat and seafood production methods. On the other hand, farmed mollusks and small wild-caught fish pose the least amount of environmental impact.

Because constant water circulation is needed to raise species like shrimp, tilapia, and catfish, livestock production generally uses less energy than aquaculture. But at the same time, beef production results in emissions of large amounts of methane. As a result, both catfish aquaculture and beef production contributes 20 times more greenhouse gases than farmed mollusks or farmed salmon and chicken.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Eating Plants & Seafood

June 13, 2018 — A paper we wrote about yesterday, Hilborn et al. 2018, went out with a press release that argued that a selective diet of seafood could have a lower environmental impact than a vegetarian or vegan diet. This claim comes from comparing the results of Hilborn et al with Poore and Nemecek 2018, a paper published just a few weeks before the Hilborn paper that used the same kind of analysis to also evaluate the environmental cost of food.

Both papers used a newer kind of analysis, called life cycle assessment, that can quantify nearly every environmental impact of a food product throughout all stages, from “cradle to grave.” Life cycle assessments are a comprehensive way to measure and compare the environmental impacts of food.

Poore and Nemecek compiled the most complete dataset of life cycle assessments for agricultural food production and reported general findings for several major food types. Hilborn et al. focused only on animal-protein, but went into greater detail. For example, Poore and Nemecek reported the impact of all capture fisheries grouped together, while Hilborn et al, reported the impact of different kinds of capture fisheries, like small pelagics, large pelagics, and white fish.

The results from Hilborn et al’s analysis show that certain kinds of seafood have a lower environmental impact than plants. For example, farmed oysters and small pelagic fish (like sardines) are probably the best food you can eat for the planet. Below is an unpublished figure provided by Ray Hilborn that adds plants to the comparison from Figure 1 in Hilborn et al. The figure, and discussion of plant-based food vs animal-based food, were cut during the review process.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

A closer look at the environmental costs of food

June 13, 2018 — The relationship between food and environment is one of the most important conservation issues in the anthropocene. Currently, agriculture uses 38% of the world’s land and accounts for over 90% of freshwater use. Farming and food production has been, and continues to be, the largest driver of habitat and biodiversity loss on the planet.

But, not all foods have the same environmental cost. Comparing and quantifying environmental impacts of different foods is important to guide agricultural policy and empower consumer choice. A paper published today is the most comprehensive comparison of the environmental impacts of meat and fish production—its findings can better inform personal food choices and, hopefully, will help decision-makers devise better food policies that account for environmental cost. Lead author of the study, Ray Hilborn said, “I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done…Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.’”

The paper used 148 different life-cycle assessment papers (also know as “cradle-to-grave” analysis) to look at environmental impacts associated with every aspect of animal protein as food. Researchers quantified 4 different kinds of major environmental impacts caused by food production: (1) electricity/energy use; (2) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) potential for nutrient runoff—this causes most of the world’s water quality issues; (4) potential to cause air pollution.

By standardizing environmental impacts per 40g/protein produced researchers were able to compare different kinds of animal proteins. Basically, the paper answers the question: what are the environmental costs of producing a hamburger patty’s worth of protein from different animal sources?

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Industrial Beef, Farmed Catfish Worst Foods For Environmental Impact, Study Finds

June 12, 2018 — Not all foods are created equal, especially when it comes to the environmental impact of meat production. Industrial beef and farmed catfish take the biggest toll on the environment, while small fish caught in the wild and farmed shellfish and mollusks cause the least damage, a study had found.

Researchers used the standard of producing 40 grams of protein — the daily recommended protein serving — as the base for looking at four different metrics of how various types of production of different foods impact the environment. The four metrics were the amount of energy used, emissions of greenhouse gases, the potential for contribution of excessive chemicals — in the form of nutrients, such as fertilizers — to the environment, and the potential to contribute to acid rain by emitting specific substances.

They looked at all stages of the food products’ lives, called “cradle-to-grace” analysis. There are about 300 different assessments for such analyses when it comes to animal food production, and the study’s authors selected 148 of those, choosing ones that were comprehensive and not too specialized.

Livestock farming at the industrial scale had the worst impact in the acid rain category, due to the emission of methane from manure. It also scored poorly when it comes to excessive nutrients being released into the environment. Industrial beef production, as well as aquaculture catfish, produce about 20 times more greenhouse gases than producing chicken, or salmon and mollusks that have been farmed. Seafood aquaculture, including catfish, tilapia and shrimp, used the most energy, even more than livestock production.

On the other hand, producing mollusks like oysters, mussels and scallops in aquaculture absorbs excess nutrients that would otherwise harm the ecosystem. It also emits fewer greenhouse gases. Catching fish in the wild requires no fertilizers of any sort, and the biggest environmental factor there is the fuel used by the fishing boats. The exact amount of fuel consumed varies greatly, depending on the type of fishing method used.

Read the full story at the International Business Times