Saving Seafood

Study questions sustainability of plant-based aquafeed

April 9, 2019 — A new study by researchers at the University of Stirling’s Institute of Aquaculture concludes that there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift in the definition of sustainable shrimp feed.

The global farmed shrimp industry has an estimated production volume around four million metric tons (MT), and has become one of the biggest consumers of fishmeal in the aquaculture sector. This has put pressure on aquafeed manufacturers to find suitable alternative ingredients that do not affect the health or growth rates of the shrimp.

However, substituting in plant-based alternatives to fishmeal may not be the panacea that ecological campaigners are counting on, according to the recently published research.

“The Sustainability Conundrum of Fishmeal Substitution by Plant Ingredients in Shrimp Feeds,” by Wesley Malcorps, models the effects of decreasing the inclusion of fishmeal in commercial diets.

“As demand for shrimp feed increases, feed manufacturers are shifting towards crop-based ingredients, in a move that is mainly driven by economic incentives. This is evidenced by looking at the relative price of fishmeal compared to common plant ingredients such as soy protein concentrate, cereal, and wheat gluten. Some consider the move to be a sustainable transition, as it reduces the dependency on a finite marine resource,” Malcorps told SeafoodSource. “However, a change in ingredients would shift resource demand from the oceans onto the land and could affect the nutritional value of shrimp.”

His team set out to model incremental fishmeal substitution by plant ingredients in feed for giant tiger prawns (Penaeus monodon) and whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). The models were used to assess the consequent impact on marine and terrestrial resources such as fish, land, fresh water, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Fishmeal-free info deemed misleading and misguided

October 6, 2017 — A competition established to inspire the increased use of alternative ingredients to fishmeal in aquafeeds has been lambasted for “the organisers’ use of negative messaging, exaggeration and misinformation in relation to marine ingredients”.

The winners of the fishmeal-free feed (F3) challenge were announced in Dublin yesterday. However, a statement from IFFO, the marine ingredients organization, – while congratulating the winners – laments that: “Unfortunately, the F3 Challenge organisers have refused our offers to enter into dialogue or meet and provide up-to-date facts, instead choosing to seek publicity through a number of misleading or false statements.”

IFFO rubbishes claims that marine ingredients are not sustainable by pointing to the fact that “over 45% of the global production of fishmeal and fish oil is now independently certified as being safe and environmentally responsible, including in its sourcing of raw materials, a figure that far exceeds any other source of feed ingredient”.

Read the full story at The Fish Site

Aquaculture Exchange: Andrew Jackson, IFFO

November 12, 2015 — Despite great advances in aquafeed formulations aimed at lowering aquaculture’s dependence on wild-capture fishery resources, there is little doubt that fishmeal and fish oil still play a crucial role in the global seafood supply. The highly nutritious marine ingredients are chief components in the production of the world’s animal protein supply — some 20 percent of the global fishmeal supply goes to pig farmers, while high-quality fish oil remains in strong demand for direct human consumption as well.

The shape of the world’s reduction fisheries, therefore, has never been more important. Andrew Jackson, technical director at IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation), recently spoke with the Advocate about the latest in reduction fisheries, the ever-increasing part that processing byproducts has to play and why fishmeal is so hard to replace, even for fish considered to be largely herbivorous.

Jackson announced earlier this year that he would step down from his post as technical director at the end of 2015, after nearly a decade of service. He will, however, take up the reins as chairman of the IFFO RS (Responsible Supply Certification Program) independent standards board. “It is my hope and intention to keep serving,” he said of his upcoming two-year appointment.

WRIGHT: What is the difference between “mining” a resource like a forage or reduction fishery and “cropping” it?

JACKSON: People often associate fishing with removing a resource as you would with mining. Like with coal, once it’s taken out of the ground, that’s it, unless you’ve got several million years to wait. You’re not going to get anything back; it’s a one-use resource. You can look at fisheries as, we’ve got this valuable thing, not in the ground but swimming around in the sea, and we can go out there, and we can take it out and we call sell it all and it’s worth this much. You can look at it like that.

But how much better to crop it, as you would a sustainably managed forest. You take it out at a rate at which it can be replenished by nature. That’s what the best management does. And that is when you become truly sustainable. In my book, sustainable means you can keep doing the same thing over and over again, year after year, and it’s always there. That’s what we should be looking to do, in any fishery, whether we’re taking it out for direct or indirect human consumption.

Read the full story at The Advocate