Saving Seafood

SBTi releases new guide on emission-reduction targets for seafood sector

April 4, 2022 — The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) has released a new guide for companies in the seafood sector that are interested in setting emissions reductions targets.

SBTi is an initiative designed to encourage companies to meet specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and one of the We Mean Business Coalitions commitments.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

New study finds aquaculture could help counter drivers of climate change

January 27, 2022 — A joint study recently released by the University of Adelaide and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), titled “Climate-Friendly Seafood: The Potential for Emissions Reduction and Carbon Capture in Marine Aquaculture,” reveals aquaculture done right could actively reduce the drivers of climate change.

The study assessed greenhouse gas emissions for marine aquaculture of fed-finfish, macroalgae, and bivalves. According to the study, mariculture generates 37.5 percent of all aquaculture products and 97 percent of the world’s seafood harvest. Though mariculture already has a lower greenhouse gas emission footprint than terrestrial products, further low-emissions strategies must be implemented as production continues to scale up to meet future global demand.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

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

Choice matters: The environmental costs of producing meat, seafood

June 11, 2018 — Which food type is more environmentally costly to produce—livestock, farmed seafood, or wild-caught fish?

The answer is, it depends. But in general, industrial beef production and farmed catfish are the most taxing on the environment, while small, wild-caught fish and farmed mollusks like oysters, mussels and scallops have the lowest environmental impact, according to a new analysis.

The study will appear online June 11 in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, and its authors believe it is the most comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of different types of animal protein production.

“From the consumer’s standpoint, choice matters,” said lead author Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. “If you’re an environmentalist, what you eat makes a difference. We found there are obvious good choices, and really obvious bad choices.”

The study is based on nearly a decade of analysis, in which the co-authors reviewed hundreds of published life-cycle assessments for various types of animal protein production. Also called a “cradle-to-grave” analysis, these assessments look at environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product’s life.

Of the more than 300 such assessments that exist for animal production, the authors selected 148 that were comprehensive and not considered too “boutique,” or specialized, to inform their new study.

As decisions are made about how food production expands through agricultural policies, trade agreements and environmental regulations, the authors note a “pressing need” for systematic comparisons of environmental costs across animal food types.

“I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done,” Hilborn said. “Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.'”

Broadly, the study uses four metrics as a way to compare environmental impacts across the many different types of animal food production, including farm-raised seafood (called aquaculture), livestock farming and seafood caught in the wild. The four measures are: energy use, emissions, potential to contribute excess nutrients—such as fertilizer—to the environment, and the potential to emit substances that contribute to acid rain.

The researchers compared environmental impacts across food types by using a standard amount of 40 grams of protein—roughly the size of an average hamburger patty, and the daily recommended protein serving. For example, they calculated how much greenhouse gas was produced per 40 grams of protein across all food types, where data were available.

Read the full story at PHYS.org

Richard Nelson: Maine’s balking at new greenhouse gas cap threatens seafood industry

A stellar regional program limiting emissions needs support for stronger goals that will save our fisheries.

August 14, 2017 — As a lobsterman for more than 30 years, I have a direct connection to the ocean and its abundance. It’s how I make my living, and I’ve seen it shape my way of life and the people around me. Fishing and seafood are an inextricable part of Maine’s heritage and culture, and it’s thanks to good conservation practices in the lobster fishery that we enjoy the bounty reflected in our record landings of late.

But keeping this way of life requires a continuation of good decision-making now — not only for the health of our ocean, but also for the health of Mainers and our economy. Cutting carbon emissions is an imperative element of that, and we can’t settle for either the status quo or a return to the times and policies that paid little heed to the environment around us.

One program on the state and regional level that has shown great success already, but now faces an imminent decision on its future, is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. After a 20-month review, a choice must be made on the amount of carbon reduction required — which directly translates into protecting Maine’s people and resources.

Read the full opinion piece at Central Maine

NOAA: Dungeness crab in peril from acidification

May 19, 2016 — The Dungeness crab fishery could decline West Coastwide, a new study has found, threatening a fishing industry worth nearly a quarter-billion dollars a year.

Scientists at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle found that pH levels likely in West Coast waters by 2100 at current rates of greenhouse-gas pollution would hurt the survivability of crab larvae.

Increasing ocean acidification is predicted to harm a wide range of sea life unable to properly form calcium carbonate shells as the pH drops. Now scientists at the NOAA’s Northwest Fishery Science Center of Seattle also have learned that animals with chitin shells — specifically Dungeness crabs — are affected, because the change in water chemistry affects their metabolism.

Carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, is pumped into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Levels of atmospheric C02 have been steadily rising since the Industrial Revolution in 1750 and today are higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years — and predicted to go higher.

When carbon dioxide mixes with ocean water it lowers the pH. By simulating the conditions in tanks of seawater at pH levels likely to occur in West Coast waters with rising greenhouse gas pollution, scientists were able to detect both a slower hatch of crab larvae, and poorer survival by the year 2100.

Read the full story at the Seattle Times

Cleaner fuels for fishing boats could backfire on the climate

February 5, 2016 — Fish is better than pork and beef—not just for your body, but for the planet. That’s long been the thinking, anyway. But a new study has uncovered a hidden climate impact of the fishing industry—one that, ironically, will get worse as boats switch to cleaner fuels. In some cases, the effect could make fishing for tuna as hard on the climate as raising pork, and trawling for shrimp about half as bad as raising beef.

Hogs and cattle get a bad rap because they—and their manure—emit a lot of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. But the fishing industry also contributes to climate change: mostly from the carbon dioxide (CO2) from burned diesel fuel that persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The boats produce other short-lived pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon, which have cooling and warming effects, respectively. But they have typically been neglected as unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

The new study may change that. Elliott Campbell and Brandi McKuin, environmental engineers at the University of California (UC), Merced, estimated fishing industry emissions by combining fisheries catch records with the amount of fuel typically needed to catch various species. Given the total burned fuel, they estimated the amounts of the pollutants, using information about engine types and fuel types. Black carbon, a form of soot that arises from incomplete combustion, has been underestimated by an order of magnitude in previous studies, the team reports in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Read the full story from Science Magazine