Saving Seafood

Balancing the Needs of People and Marine Ecosystems: Saving Seafood Looks at Aquaculture Sustainability

June 12, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Leading aquaculture experts discuss what sustainability looks like in farmed fishing and how we achieve it in the latest episode of Saving Seafood’s video series, Aquaculture Today. 

“One thing that’s true is the aquaculture industry is here to stay, has a very bright and important future for food security on the planet,” says Corey Peet, Managing Director of the Asian Seafood Improvement Collaborative. “But that has to be grounded in an objective view of how do we develop it sustainably.”

According to the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s 2017 overview of reduction fisheries – fisheries used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil – just over 83 percent of global catch from reduction fisheries comes from stocks that are reasonably well managed or better. Only an estimated 17 percent of reduction catch comes from poorly managed fisheries.

“20 years ago we were obsessed by this issue of fishmeal sustainability and inputs,” says Dan Lee, Standards Coordinator for the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices Program. “We’ve pretty much solved that and it’s been through economic forces largely.”

According to Manuel Barange, Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the goal of sustainability should not be maintaining the status quo, but ensuring that aquaculture will be able to feed the world’s growing population while protecting marine ecosystems.

“Sustainability means to understand the needs of the people for this generation and in future generations, and therefore how to protect the marine environment and the freshwater environment so that they keep producing,” says Mr. Barange.

Experts also stressed the importance of more data to help fisheries managers make informed decisions about aquaculture, as well as the need for continued industry involvement.

“Fishery management is better the more data we can get, the more accurate modeling that we can get,” says Neil Auchterlonie, Technical Director at IFFO.

“Doing good science, having good industry participation, and recognizing that when there are challenging issues, that collaboration within the industry is probably one of the best ways to solve them,” says Tim Fitzgerald, Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Impact Division.

The video is the fourth and final in a series, Aquaculture Today, in which Saving Seafood interviews leading aquaculture experts about advances in farmed fishing and what the industry will look like in the future. Previous episodes of Aquaculture Today covered its role in feeding the world, its efficiency, and the nutritional benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.

Interviews for Aquaculture Today were conducted by Saving Seafood at the 2017 SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Seattle, Washington.

 

‘Extracting Value from the Right Amount of Fish’: Saving Seafood Looks at Aquaculture Efficiency

June 6, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Through new techniques and technologies, farming fish is becoming increasingly efficient, leading aquaculture experts tell Saving Seafood in a new video.

“With a whole range of factors – improved nutritional knowledge, better management techniques of feeding on the farm, and all of that – [the fish in–fish out] ratio has gone down,” says Andrew Jackson, Chairman of IFFO RS.

“For every 0.7 kilos of fish in, you get a kilo of fish out,” says Dan Lee, Standards Coordinator for the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices Program. “So that’s becoming very favorable towards aquaculture productivity.”

In the case of salmon farming, nutritionists are using alternative ingredients, including plant proteins like soy, and mixing canola and other vegetable oils in with pure fish oil. This has helped lowered the percentage of marine ingredients in fish feed to about 25 percent of farmed salmon diets, and projections are that this will drop below 10 percent by 2025.

“They’ve figured out that the key to being successful and profitable and sustainable is not necessarily to catch more fish, it’s to extract as much value as possible out of the right amount of fish,” says Tim Fitzgerald, Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Impact Division.

These improvements have made farming fish one of the most sustainable forms of protein production, experts tell Saving Seafood.

“When you’re growing chickens or pigs or cattle, the transformation between the feed and the [farmed product] is much more inefficient than with fish,” says Manuel Barange, Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “So if we have to feed any animal for us to eat, it makes sense to do that with fish. It’s more efficient.”

The video is the second in a series, Aquaculture Today, in which Saving Seafood interviews leading aquaculture experts on the latest advances in farmed fish, and its role in the world. Saving Seafood released a video yesterday on aquaculture’s role in feeding the world’s growing population.

In addition to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Barange, the video also features Julien Stevens, Researcher at Kampachi Farms, and Neil Auchterlonie, Technical Director at IFFO.

Interviews for Aquaculture Today were conducted by Saving Seafood at the 2017 SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Seattle, Washington.

 

IFFO responds to “unjustified and damaging” criticism of aquaculture’s fishmeal, fish oil use

February 15, 2018 — Fishmeal and fish oil are and will continue to be efficient and sustainable aquaculture feed components if they are responsibly sourced and used strategically, while not using them could compromise fish health and lead to unnecessary waste, IFFO, The Marine Ingredients Organisation has stressed.

In response to an article published by National Geographic, titled “Why salmon eating insects instead of fish is better for environment,” which discusses fishmeal and fish oil replacement in salmon feed, Andrew Mallison, director general of IFFO, said the total replacement of fishmeal and fish oil, as called for in the article, was unjustified and damaging to the fish farming industry.

Mallison said that while IFFO agreed with the need for additional feed options in aquaculture to ensure the growth of “this vital industry,” the article quoted information that was both out-of-date and incorrect.

The improvement in management of wild-capture fisheries has ensured that in recent years stocks are in fact steady and not declining, according to the FAO’s State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016, he said.

“While catches of some small pelagic species used to produce fishmeal and fish oil are volatile, this is due to environmental fluctuation with permitted catches being varied in line with biomass abundance to protect the stocks. These small pelagic species are often not as palatable, spoil quickly and are less popular compared to other local fish, but can be turned into highly nutritious feed,” Mallison said. “Further evidence of sustainability in the production of marine ingredients is that over 45 percent 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.”

Regarding the efficiency of the use of fishmeal and fish oil, Mallison highlighted that the latest FIFO (fish in: fish out ratios) using 2015 data showed a conversion rate of one kilogram of wild fish used in feed creates 1.22 kilograms of farmed salmon, demonstrating that farmed salmon now produce globally more consumable protein than is used in feed.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

IFFO’s Andrew Mallison responds to National Geographic article

February 9, 2018 — The following was released by the IFFO:

Following an article published this week in National Geographic, I would like to address a few points on behalf of IFFO, The Marine Ingredients Organisation. The article titled ‘Why Salmon Eating Insects Instead of Fish Is Better for Environment’, published on 5th February 2018, discusses fishmeal and fish oil replacement in salmon feed by a Netherlands based company but quotes information that is both out-of-date and incorrect. Although we agree with the need for additional feed options in aquaculture to ensure the growth of this vital industry, the total replacement of fishmeal and fish oil, as called for in this article, is unjustified and damaging to the fish farming industry.

The practice of feeding fish to fish is labelled as both inefficient and unsustainable in the article, but I would argue that responsibly sourced and used strategically, fishmeal and fish oil are both an efficient and sustainable feed choice. The growing management of wild capture fisheries has ensured that in recent years stocks are in fact steady and not declining (UN FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016). While catches of some small pelagic species used to produce fishmeal and fish oil are volatile, this is due to environmental fluctuation with permitted catches being varied in line with biomass abundance to protect the stocks. These small pelagic species are often not as palatable, spoil quickly and are less popular compared to other local fish, but can be turned into highly nutritious feed. Further evidence of sustainability in the production of marine ingredients is 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.

Regarding the efficiency of the use of fishmeal and fish oil, our latest FIFO ((Fish In:Fish Out ratios) using 2015 data show a conversion rate of 1kg of wild fish used in feed creates 1.22kg of farmed salmon, demonstrating that farmed salmon now produce globally more consumable protein than is used in feed. This ratio is significantly lower than the out-of-date figures quoted in the article and shows how fishmeal and fish oil are now being more strategically used at key points in aquaculture production cycles with a trend towards optimising their nutritional contributions. In fact, looking at the FIFO ratio misses the rationale for the inclusion of fishmeal and fish oil in feeds as their contribution to growth and health of farmed fish goes well beyond the supply of mere protein and energy.

Many fed farmed fish species have evolved to digest fish protein and much of the modern fish farming industry has been built on feeds using fish based ingredients. An increasing amount (currently 35%) of fishmeal is produced from recycled by-product and waste from fish processing.  Fishmeal and fish oil are rich in many of the micronutrients that are required for health, many of which are classed as essential. Even reducing levels of fishmeal in feeds has resulted in feed companies having to supplement with specific materials that are both costly produce, and carry their own environmental impacts. Removing fishmeal as an ingredient to feed could therefore compromise the health of the fish and close an environmentally friendly way of recycling waste products. Production of marine ingredients like fishmeal and fish oil do not require the same levels of fresh water for irrigation, treatment with agricultural chemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides, or use land needed to grow crops. While insect meal may be a theoretical alternative, the production of the millions of tonnes needed to replace fishmeal is currently not viable. When it is clear that the amount of fishmeal and fish oil is not sufficient to meet the growing demand for feed manufacture and, in the best interests of the fish farming industry, the raw material sources for feed should be maximised, it makes little sense to exclude these valuable, responsibly sourced and highly effective ingredients. Although not such a punchy selling message, the reality is that there is an opportunity for alternative ingredients like insect meal without needing to displace fishmeal.

Read the release at IFFO here

 

SFP report: Better management happening for reduction fisheries

October 30, 2017 — Sustainable Fisheries Partnership has released its annual sustainability overview of reduction fisheries for 2017, showing an overall improvement in their management.

The report, “Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2017,” reviewed 20 of the most significant fisheries used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil, concluding that 81 percent of the total catch volume out of those fisheries came from stocks that are “reasonably well managed or better.”

“This compares to 57.4 percent last year – a very large improvement,” according to an SFP press release.

An estimated 1.7 million metric tonnes –  or 17 percent – of the total catch used for reduction purposes came from poorly managed fisheries, “a significant drop compared to 42.6 percent last year,” according to SFP.

Of the 20 stocks used for the survey, 10 have fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, 19 have fisheries that are covered by the IFFO Responsible Sourcing certification, and three are covered by fishery improvement projects. According to the SFP, more than two-thirds of the production covered in its study comes from fisheries that are MSC-certified or under full assessment (25 percent), or in a FIP (44 percent). Those include the newly launched FIPs for Peruvian anchovy (north-central stock) and Mauritanian small pelagic species.

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

What factors play a role in analyzing forage fish fishing regulation?

July 7, 2017 — The interaction of predators, fishing and forage fish is more complicated than previously thought and that several factors must be considered, says researcher.

The group of researchers was evaluating the interaction after results from an earlier report found that fishing of forage species had a large effect on predator population, said the Marine Ingredients Organization (IFFO). Those harvested fish are used in several areas including as feed ingredients.

The new study was initiated because there were some questions regarding the methods used in the initial project, said Ray Hilborn, with the school of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington and corresponding author.

“When the original Lenfest [Forage Fish Task Force] report came out, a few of us said it seemed that the methods they were using were not up to the questions they were asking,” he told FeedNavigator. The report also offered several policy recommendations, he added.

“It was on our radar screen,” he said. “And one of the things I’ve been interested in looking at is the intensity of natural fluctuation in populations, and forage fish are notable for how much they vary naturally.”

The interaction between forage fish populations and predators is more complicated than may have been suggested by earlier studies tracking that relationship, and several factors need to be considered when analyzing the role that fishing plays on that relationship, he said. “The key point isn’t that there isn’t an impact, but that you have to argue case-by-case,” he added.

Several factors need to be considered when assessing the interaction among predators, forage species, and fishing of those forage species, the researchers said in their study. “We show that taking account of these factors generally tends to make the impact of fishing forage fish on their predators less than estimated from trophic models,” they added.

Read the full story at Feed Navigator

GAA and IFFO join forces to improve responsible fishmeal supplies in SE Asia

June 5, 2017 — The following was released by The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and IFFO, the Marine Ingredients Organisation: 

The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and IFFO, the Marine Ingredients Organisation, have joined forces and funding on a project to improve the understanding of the fisheries of South East Asia supplying raw material for fishmeal production. The study will look at the issues from the perspective of social, economic and environmental sustainability with the aim of identifying where improvements can be prioritised and targeted to enable increasingly responsible supplies of fishmeal. This will support change in fisheries management in the region, driving the adoption of certification in the supply chain, which will ultimately support the development of best practice in aquaculture. A variety of relevant and critical stakeholders from NGOs to Governments and feed companies to standards holders will be invited to participate. Duncan Leadbitter (Fish Matter Pty) has been retained to lead the project on behalf of the two organisations. The project will begin in July 2017 and is expected to run for 18 months.

“Although the raw material supply for fishmeal production globally comes in the main from well managed fisheries and byproduct, it is recognised that there are some environmental and social challenges with the sourcing of raw material in South East Asia. As demand for responsibly produced fishmeal in this region is increasing, IFFO welcomes the opportunity to work with the GAA in addressing where the constraints to responsible production lie, and look at how these may be addressed to promote change in the region” noted Andrew Mallison, IFFO’s Director General.

The fisheries of South East Asia provide a large volume of raw material for fishmeal and fish oil production, which is a primary ingredient supplied into the aquafeed markets in the region for manufacture of feed for the aquaculture industry. End users of aquaculture are increasingly recognising the need to ensure fish is produced responsibly. The development of certification standards for aquaculture and aquafeeds has placed additional emphasis on the importance of sourcing responsibly-produced feed ingredients. If aquaculture facilities are to be able to meet the market demands, then improvements need to be made in this region in order to fill the gap between available, certifiable, fish feed inputs and demand.

The focus of effort will be on the countries of Thailand and Vietnam given their importance in fishmeal and fish oil manufacture and supply. A knowledge base will be established covering issues, actors, data pertaining to economic, environmental and social sustainability through the supply chain, allowing for the identification of priorities and recommendations for further work.

“It is critical we better understand where to target improvement efforts and how best to support the region in meeting the increasing demand for fish meal inputs; both the welfare of the fisheries and the associated communities, as well as the development of responsible aquaculture to meet global demand, relies upon truly sustainable supplies – this is the juxta position between wild and farmed seafood” commented Melanie Siggs, Director of Strategic Engagement, GAA.

Vulnerability and the level of risk associated with farmed and wild seafood in the region will be reduced over time as additional information feeds into a process that facilitates change. This will be the first phase of work to build a base of information for further projects. Progress is likely to occur continually over time as information is provided.

For further information contact GAA: Steven Hedlund E: steven.hedlund@aquaculturealliance.org T: +1-603-317-5085

IFFO: Dr Neil Auchterlonie, Technical Director E: secretariat@iffo.net T: +44 (0)2030 539 195

About IFFO

IFFO represents the marine ingredients industry worldwide. IFFO’s members reside in more than 50 countries, account for over 50% of world production and 75% of the fishmeal and fish oil traded worldwide. Approximately 5 million tonnes of fishmeal are produced each year globally, together with 1 million tonnes of fish oil. IFFO’s headquarters are located in London in the United Kingdom and it also has offices in Lima, Peru, and in Beijing, China. IFFO is an accredited Observer to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). To find out more, visit www.iffo.net.

About GAA

The Global Aquaculture Alliance is an international, non-profit trade association dedicated to advancing environmentally and socially responsible aquaculture. Through the development of its Best Aquaculture Practices certification standards, GAA has become the leading standards-setting organization for aquaculture seafood.

Read the full release here 

Hilborn-led study: Predators less affected by catch of prey fish than thought

April 3, 2017 — Stocks of predatory fish may be less affected by the catching of their prey species than has previously been thought, according to new research published on April 3.

The study – published in journal Fisheries Research and led by well-known University of Washington professor Ray Hilborn – suggests previous studies on this topic overlooked key factors when recommending lower catches of “forage fish”.

Said forage fish include small pelagic species, such as anchovies, herring and menhaden.

The team of seven fisheries scientists found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force at that time argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by up to 80%.

For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (the Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Ray Hilborn study disputes previous findings on forage fish

April 3, 2017 — A new study has been published today by a scientific group led by University of Washington fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn that disputes previous findings on the impact of human and natural predation on forage fish such as anchovies, sardines and herring.

The study, published in the scientific journal Fisheries Research, found that human fishing for forage fish does not have as great an impact on the food chain as previously thought, given that humans typically catch fish of much larger size than those typically hunted and eaten by non-human species. The study also decouples the link between the size of forage fish populations and the populations of species that predate on forage fish.

“What we found is that there is essentially no relationship between how many forage fish there are in the ocean and how well predators do in terms of whether the populations increase or decrease,” Hilborn said in a video explaining the study’s findings.

The study was co-authored by the University of Washington’s Ricardo O. Amoroso and Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen of Rutgers University, Ana M. Parma of the Centro Nacional Patagónico, Cody Szuwalski of the University of California Santa-Barbara and Carl J. Walters of the University of British Columbia. It was funded in part by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities and was supported by the IFFO, the marine ingredients trade group.

It takes particular fault with the methods used by a 2012 study on forage fish by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

“The Lenfest conclusion that predators rise and fall with their prey populations is simply not true. It’s not empirically true,” Walters, one of the authors of the original Lenfest study, said. “One of the things we did in this study was collect together a lot of time-series patterns of predator abundances and forage-fish abundances, and we just didn’t see the correlation, nor have other scientists who have looked at this objectively.”

Predators “have developed some strategy of how to cope with the natural variability” of forage fish populations, according to Amoroso, the study’s second author.

Read the full story at Seafood Source