Saving Seafood

China’s top fisheries official lashes out at ‘Cold War’ criticism of international fisheries expansion

November 23, 2016 — China’s most senior fisheries official, Yu Kangzhen, has lambasted his foreign counterparts for taking a ‘Cold War’ view of China’s international fishing ambitions.

Established fishing nations are seeking to “blockade” the development of Chinese fishing vessels overseas, Yu, the vice minister for agriculture with responsibility for fisheries, told a gathering of diplomats and officials attending the annual fishery expo in Qingdao.

China accounts for 17 percent of catches in international waters “and this is our rightful share,” Yu told his guests. In unusually blunt language, Yu told critics to “look fairly” at China’s long-distance fishing development and stop “looking through tinted glasses” while criticizing Chinese fishing in international waters.

Fishery officials in both developed and developing nations have disparaged the opaque nature of Chinese data on fish landings as well as China’s track record of secretive access deals with poorer countries.

“We produce 6.6 million tons of aquatic products in a year but only 1.8 percent of that comes from long-distance fishing,” Yu said.

China’s overseas trawlers are “old” and need modernizing, Yu said. China is a “big fishing country but not a strong fishery country,” he said.

Nonetheless, China will increase the scale of its operations in international waters, he told the assembled officials, including Canadian fishery officials and Iceland’s and Ireland’s ambassadors to China.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

NEIL ANTHONY SIMS & BRIDGET OWEN: America needs a blue revolution

November 1, 2016 — America needs another revolution. We need a Blue Revolution, to start to grow fish in the open ocean, where they belong. And we should lead the world in this initiative. This is an economic opportunity: we must reverse our $12.9 billion seafood trade deficit. We have the technologies, we have the investment capital, and we need the jobs and the working waterfronts. It is also a moral obligation: over 90% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. America controls the largest ocean expanse of any nation on earth, yet we import more seafood—by dollar value—than any other country. This means that if we quash the development of aquaculture in the U.S., then we are simply exporting the environmental footprint to other countries, where environmental standards may be more lax.

Leading conservation groups such as WWF, Conservation International and Ocean Conservancy now recognize the global imperative for expansion of aquaculture, and are actively working to encourage best practices. Yet Marianne Cufone, of the Recirculating Farms Coalition, (The Hill, October 17, 2016, 01:40 pm) asserts that the “Feds must end push for ocean aquaculture.”

Cufone and her fellow anti-aquaculture activists cling tenaciously to data that is two or three decades old, or cite no data at all, to support their position. This continues the pattern of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of the impacts of ocean culture on the environment. Growing this industry is vitally important for the health of the planet, for the health of the oceans, and for the health of American consumers. Consider, please:

Planetary health: A 2012 study by Conservation International, titled ‘Blue Frontiers’, conducted a full Life-Cycle Analysis of all water, land and feed resource use, and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, and concluded that aquaculture was, far and away, the least impactful of all animal protein production systems. We should therefore be growing more seafood to meet the increased demand for proteins. If the 3 billion people that are projected to rise into the middle class by 2050 are eating farmed fish, then the prospects for managing global climate change, and our other ecological challenges, are far brighter.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill

RESPONSES NEEDED: MAFAC Survey on Fisheries & Aquaculture Climate Requirements

October 31, 2016 — The following was released by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and is being distributed by Saving Seafood at the request of an MAFAC member:

The Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) is conducting a short survey, and feedback from stakeholders interested in fisheries and aquaculture and others is important!  MAFAC needs your help.

The purpose of this survey is to help us learn more about the information resources fishery stakeholders need and use regarding the effects of large-scale environmental change on fisheries, aquaculture, and coastal communities.  This is a voluntary survey.

This survey includes 14 questions and will take about 10 minutes to complete. We would like to hear from stakeholders about the types of information resources they need and use, the leaders they trust, and what information formats they find useful.  MAFAC will use the information gathered in this survey to formulate recommendations for NOAA regarding the information needs of stakeholders, how NOAA communicates with stakeholders, and which tools or methods are most useful.  If you have a question about the survey or how the information will be used, you can contact MAFAC.info@noaa.gov.

Please fill out this survey and share the survey link with other stakeholders.  It will be open until Friday, November 25, 2016. The survey can be found here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MAFACresilience

Thank you!

MAINE: Island fishermen learn (more) about aquaculture in Japan

October 27, 2016 — Local fisherman Marsden Brewer and his son, Bobby Brewer, have recently returned from a one-week excursion to Aomori, Japan, where they spent time studying the Japanese methods of growing scallops through aquaculture.

Growing scallops, as opposed to fishing them, has become a topic of interest in the area over the last few years; however, Brewer said it is something the Japanese have been doing for decades.

“They’ve long since brought their fishing industry to its knees as of several years ago, so they had to come up with an alternative way to still use the ocean to feed their families,” said Brewer at his home Tuesday, October 18. “That’s why we went over there, to learn how they do it, because they’ve discovered so many ways of becoming more and more efficient. It’s really quite amazing.”

Brewer said the technique he was most impressed with was a 600-foot-long line that went 15-feet down into the water. Scallops are hung on that line to grow.

“The thing I liked most about that is the line is hung from three buoys. So, if you look at it from above, all you see on the surface are those three buoys. It doesn’t look like a whole system coming out of the water,” he said.

Read the full story at Island Advantages

NEW JERSEY: Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak & Assemblyman Bruce Land Bill to Promote N.J. Aquaculture Industry Heads to Governor’s Desk

October 27, 2016 — TRENTON, NJ – Legislation Assemblymen Bob Andrzejczak and Bruce Land sponsored to promote aquaculture in New Jersey recently gained final legislative approval in the Senate. The bill now heads to the governor’s desk.

Aquaculture involves fish or shellfish farming, and refers to the breeding, rearing and harvesting of animals and plants in all types of water environments including ponds, rivers, lakes, bays and the ocean.

As chair of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Andrzejczak led recent tours of aquaculture research centers and farm locations throughout Cape May County, including the Rutgers Aquaculture Innovation Center, the Rutgers Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory and the Green Creek Oyster Fishery.

The year-long tour series gave members of the committee a first-hand look at the various types of research, farming and food processing that makes up the backbone of the state’s agriculture and agrotourism industries, so that members would gain a better understanding of the specific issues facing New Jersey farmers and the type of legislation that may be necessary to maintain the state’s position as the Garden State.

“New Jersey’s coastal location and its proximity to the largest consumer markets in the nation indicate that aquaculture can and should be a thriving and vital industry in the state,” said Andrzejczak (D-Cape May/Cumberland/Atlantic). “Aquaculture plays an important role in meeting the dietary needs of an increasingly health conscious and growing population, and fish farming can help supplement the harvest of wild caught fish to meet that demand. Aquaculture is also important to the future of the seas, because it can provide reasonably priced, good quality, highly nutritious food while helping to maintain the long-term sustainability of wild caught fisheries.”

Read the full story at the Cape May County Herald

Entrepreneurs getting creative with seafood byproducts

September 28, 2016 — Global fisheries are missing out on millions of dollars in profits from seafood byproducts – including fish oil, fishmeal and lesser-used parts of the fish such as the skin and intestines.

According to a recent study from the Marine Ingredients Organization (IFFO) and the University of Stirling Institute of Aquaculture (in Stirling, United Kingdom) found that, even though there is increasing availability of raw material from aquaculture byproducts, there is significant underutilization of by-products from both wild fisheries and aquaculture.

Fisheries could also be using their by-products for cosmetics, clothing leather, supplements and other products that are more profitable than fishmeal, Thor Sigfusson, founder of the Iceland Ocean Cluster, told SeafoodSource.

Nearly 20 million tons of raw material is used annually for the production of fishmeal and fish oil globally, according to the model used by the University of Stirling researchers. However, only around 5.7 million tons of by-products are currently processed to produce fishmeal and fish oil. An additional 11.7 million tons produced in processing plants which are currently not collected for marine ingredient production.

“If all fish were processed and all the byproduct collected, it is estimated that globally there would be around 36 million tons of raw material available, producing about 9.5 million tons of fishmeal and 1.5 million tons of fish oil,” according to the University of Stirling/IFFO report.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

University of New Hampshire researcher trying to develop sustainable fish farm

September 27, 2016 — MADBURY, NH — A researcher at the University of New Hampshire hopes to increase local food production through an integrated land-based aquaculture and hydroponic plant production system.

Todd Guerdat, an assistant professor of agricultural engineering, is leading a series of studies at Kingman Research Farm in Madbury.

He and others are taking waste nutrients from fish and using them for plants.

In three greenhouses, they are trying to determine if higher protein diets are more beneficial for plant production.

“The goal is to use all the nutrients from the feed, without having to supplement anything,” Guerdat said.

Researchers are using tilapia because they are efficient, cheap and reliable, but researchers hope is to start using cold water fish such as striped bass.

Guerdat said that if they are successful, more seafood can be raised on the local level.

According to Guerdat, more than half of the world’s seafood is farmed and 90 percent of the seafood Americans eat is imported, resulting in an annual trade deficit of nearly $11 billion.

“We are food insecure when it comes to seafood,” Guerdat said. He said there are companies that are already implementing similar systems, including Victory Aquaponics in Londonderry.

Read the full story at the New Hampshire Union Leader

Can farmed fish feed the world sustainably?

September 14, 2016 — The world’s population is expected to soar by 2.5 billion people by 2050, bringing a host of global challenges – including how to feed so many hungry mouths.

If projections hold, the global demand for animal protein will double over the next four decades, rising along with pressure to find ecologically sustainable food production practices.

Could farmed fish save the day? Just maybe, says UC Santa Barbara’s Steve Gaines. He and his team looked at wild-caught fish, farmed fish and land-based farming to assess the most viable long-term options.

The surprise: Fish farming floated above the rest for ecologic and economic reasons.

But there’s one big catch: Aquaculture has gotten a bad rap with American consumers.

“I meet people all the time who say, ‘I will only eat wild fish because aquaculture is bad,’” said Gaines, dean of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC Santa Barbara.

Gaines has been working to change minds about aquaculture, speaking at conferences around the country like this week’s Monterey Bay Aquarium Sustainable Foods Institute.

While some forms of aquaculture can harm the environment, others have a much lower impact, especially when compared to raising livestock – and in some cases even compare favorably to an entirely vegetarian diet, he said.

Read the full story from the University of California

Salmon Farming On The Rise In Washington

August 22, 2016 — Human travelers have interstates 5 and 90. Salish Sea salmon have the Juan de Fuca Strait.

It’s the route that they all swim on their way to and from the wide Pacific — the salmon from the Elwha and all the rivers of Puget Sound, plus many salmon returning to Canada’s Fraser River, which are the main local food source for Puget Sound orcas and have always formed the bulk of Puget Sound’s commercial catch.

Now, Icicle Seafoods —  recently acquired by Canada’s Cooke Seafood — wants to raise Atlantic salmon in 9.7 acres of salmon net pens in the strait, just east of Port Angeles, Washington.

Although it has its critics, salmon aquaculture isn’t new in Puget Sound — and certainly not elsewhere. British Columbia aquaculture produces salmon worth nearly half a billion (Canadian) dollars a year. And B.C. is a minnow compared to the salmon-raising industries of Norway (where salmon aquaculture is booming) and Chile (where it’s not.)

Icicle already has eight salmon aquaculture operations in the Sound, including one at Port Angeles tucked in behind Ediz Hook. The company’s plan for putting pens out in the Strait has been driven by U.S. Navy plans to expand its base on Ediz Hook, which won’t physically displace the existing pens but will ruin the neighborhood for salmon. Pile driving for the Navy project, scheduled to begin late this year, would actually kill salmon in nearby pens. Icicle has decided to move its operation.

Under Icicle’s planned new development, 14 circular pens, each 126 feet in diameter, would be kept in place by a network of two-to- four-ton steel anchors. The new pens would produce 20 percent more salmon than the old. They would be the first anchored this far offshore in Washington waters.

Read the full story at Oregon Public Broadcasting

NFI Says Greenpeace to Issue Rank and Spank US Foodservice Listings as Early as Monday

August 22, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — According to NFI’s Gavin Gibbons, Greenpeace is close to announcing a major new campaign to fund-raise off of a rank and spank approach to US Foodservice companies.

Similar to its retail rankings, Greenpeace scores companies in a subjective manner on how ideologically close they are to the organization.

For example, their retail “red list” contains recommendations to avoid some of the most sustainable and certified seafood products on the planet, such as Alaska pollock.  There is no scientific basis for this.

In fact, Greenpeace is very explicit in their desire to halt commercial sales of these species.  They say on their website:

“A crucial component of a responsible seafood operation is stopping the sale of the most destructively caught or endangered species. Greenpeace’s Red List is a scientifically compiled list of 22 marine species that should not currently be made commercially available. ”

And what are these species that Greenpeace would like to see the Foodservice industry stop selling?

The species, by order of commercial importance, include warm water shrimp, Atlantic salmon, Alaska pollock, albacore and yellowfin tuna, Atlantic cod, Atlantic sea scallops, hoki, Atlantic halibut, monkfish, redfish, swordfish, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, Greenland halibut, bluefin tuna, red snapper, sharks and rays, grouper, big eye tuna, and ocean quahogs.

Of the 20 wild caught species targeted by Greenpeace, 15 are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

The two farmed species, shrimp and Atlantic salmon, are also certified by both GAA’s Best Aquaculture Practices and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

So, of the species that Greenpeace is planning to rank companies on because they believe they should not be commercially available, fully 82% of them are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or equivalent.

This suggests that the campaign is not about sustainability, but about positioning Greenpeace in opposition to the Marine Stewardship Council, and continuing to fundraise by telling supporters lies about seafood sustainability.

This practice is a very effective publicity and fundraising tool, known as rank and spank.

First Greenpeace creates its own criteria for rankings, not subject to outside review, and releases a report highlighting the malfeasance of companies that sell products Greenpeace wants proscribed.

Then Greenpeace agitates with the public and the publicity shy companies to make some concessions that raise their “score”, allowing Greenpeace to go to supporters and claim they are the tool forcing these companies to change practices.

Then, the cycle is repeated when companies that have complied with Greenpeace are called out again, if they don’t take ideological actions in support of the organization.

For example, Greenpeace called out retailers, and ranked them, by how strongly they pressed the North Pacific Council to close parts of the Bering Sea to protect Bering Sea Canyon habitat.  When the US government spent millions of dollars showing that the habitats in question did not have corals, and were not threatened by any fishing activity, the supermarket buyers who had sent letters looked foolish and manipulated.

Some of them took the honest step of withdrawing their letters, once they learned the facts.

As NFI says, “Foodservice companies are among the most dedicated to seafood sustainability and full supply chain sustainability. To target them, rather than laud them illustrates how out of touch Greenpeace is with real sustainability efforts.  While the group demands all seafood purchasing decisions be made based on Greenpeace’s arbitrary red list, foodservice providers work hard to ensure they understand the sustainability story of each species and the efforts underway to maintain those stocks.”

Many foodservice companies have committed to sustainable purchasing programs.  Some support fisheries improvement projects and virtually all of them now demand full traceability to ensure the integrity of their supply chain.

There is no need for Greenpeace to agitate in this environment.  The foodservice companies targeted in this list do not need to respond, except to show what they are already doing to promote sustainability, and to emphasize they were taking these actions long before Greenpeace’s rank and spank system ever came out.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.