Recently we have been having conversations with chefs and consumers about farmed seafood—Aquaculture. Unfortunately, the general perception of this practice is a negative one. Defined loosely aquaculture refers to the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of plants and animals in all types of water environments. Currently aquaculture is the fastest growing form of food production in the world. It is also a significant source of protein for people in many countries, including the United States. Globally, nearly half the fish consumed by humans is produced by fish farms (noaa). So why is it perceived as a 4 letter word here in the United States?
The best way to examine this issue is through the world of salmon farming. As the demand for salmon has essentially distended year after year, farms have been tapping waters everywhere. From Canada to Chile, Tasmania and Scotland, salmon farming has lapped wild salmon in output capacity. As is the case in any international commodity trade, there are good players, bad players, honest players and dishonest ones. Certain farms have been guilty of stocking their ponds beyond reasonable density, perpetuating the outbreak of sea lice, and ultimately allowing their diseased salmon to escape and spread amongst the wild population. At the same time however, there are salmon farmers who are producing a product that is healthy, respects the surrounding environment, and uses no chemicals as treatment for disease. Should these farmers be punished as well, or should they be applauded for their efforts to make a positive change in an industry that clearly is the future? By making all-inclusive statements like “farmed fish is bad” or “aquaculture is not the answer to overfishing” are we further closing the door on an opportunity to exhibit our marine stewardship, and thus take the pressure off wild fish?
It is a scientific guarantee that the supply of wild fish will NEVER meet the worldwide demand. So what is the answer? How can we continue to eat heart healthy fish at a rate of 2-3 times a week and not take into consideration alternatives once we have eaten our way through the ocean? America is behind in the world of aquaculture. As a result of the pessimism surrounding the notion of fish farming, and the millions of dollars spent painting farmed fish as evil, the government has been unable to establish the systems and regulations required to cultivate the aquaculture industry here in the United States. Recently, Obama was attacked for trying to increase spending on the study of viable aquaculture practices. Opponents critiqued that this would be the catalyst for the depletion of even more wild fish as they would be used in fish feed. What do you think wild fish eat in the ocean….tofu? No, they consumer the same fish, but at an inefficient rate. Farmed fish require less wild feed per pound of output than wild species.
America needs to set the (or a) standard for sustainable fish farming. As a scientifically rich nation, with forward thinking values committed to a sustainable platform, we can develop and homogenize a program that takes into consideration clean and healthy practices. Unfortunately this is not happening, and instead underdeveloped countries with minimal care for the marine environment are farming in a dangerous manner, while we sit around and split hairs about fishery management.
Don’t misinterpret this post as unequivocally supporting farmed fish. Quite the opposite rather. There are farms in Asia, Scotland, Chili, Canada…that are farming irresponsibly. They are producing in such a manner as to destroy communities, ecosystems and wild fish through irresponsible practices in an effort to maximize profits. But don’t we do the same thing through commercial fishing. How are we any more enlightened by trawling for wild shrimp, longlining for wild tuna, or allowing right whales to die in Maine lobster lines? Why is one better than the other? At what point is by-catch acceptable or for that matter, “sustainable”. It’s not a black and white issue, and it never will be. It makes me really uncomfortable to say only eat green species, or don’t eat farmed fish. Just because a species might be “green” doesn’t mean it’s not being over-fished. As consumers we can make a bigger difference by putting down the wallet cards and encouraging the consumption of responsibly farmed seafood here in the US. The solution resides in the point at which effective fishery management meets responsible aquaculture.
Below are some great products that are responsibly farmed and wonderful companies that recognize the need for responsible aquaculture:
A reasoned article about aquaculture? How can that happen?
Glad to see someone not go along with the anti-aquaculture images being sold to the public by commercial fishermen and many ENGO’s.
Thank you for the post, however I do have a few comments. Aquaculture certainly does need to be a part of meeting the seafood demand – but like you said, not all forms of fish farming are equal. The sustainability of operations such as Kona Blue – which you list as a sustainable venture – for example is questionable. Please see our report Fishy Farms: The Problems with Offshore Aquaculture at http://www.fwwatch.org/fish/fish-farming/fishy-farms
Other forms of aquaculture, such as recirculating inland systems could be reasonable, affordable alternatives which avoid the pitfalls of netpen and cage aquaculture that have been demonstrated by many salmon farms.
As one of the organizations that I believe you are referring to when you say “Recently, Obama was attacked for trying to increase spending on the study of viable aquaculture practices.” I believe our statement was taken out of context. We are concerned that money was allotted for a plan for offshore fish farming in the Gulf of Mexico – a plan that was highly contentious and has only been approved at a regional level so far. The plan still has to be approved through NOAA and the Department of Commerce. Allocating monies for the implementation of plan that has not even been approved yet seems wasteful. Please see our full press statement here: http://www.fwwatch.org/press/releases/federal-dollars-prematurely-slated-for-offshore-fish-farming20090511
Thank you again for bringing up this debate. Certainly we do need to find sustainable ways to get people the protein they need without harming our oceans and coastal communities.
@Christina: God knows we love fishermen and we support domestic fishing communities as much as possible. One of the best examples is American Tuna, a family-owned and operated albacore fishing company that produces extraordinary pole-caught Pacific albacore. There’s no bycatch and significantly lower levels of mercury with this fishing method, which targets smaller fish.
However, fishermen like those represented by Fish and Water Watch cannot win an argument over mismanaged money or natural resources. The amount of federal and state money required to pay for fisheries programs and subsidies is astronomical. This money is known as a “perverse” subsidy: one that the taxpayer must pay for out of pocket that also has a detrimental effect on community resources like the air and the ocean – and thus we will pay for it again later. The amount wasted natural resources in the form of bycatch and habitat damage from conventional fishing techniques is unacceptable. The greenhouse gas contribution of our vast fishing fleets is enormous.
Not to mention the fact that the only reason why there is a industry for farmed Atlantic salmon is because they have been fished to commercial extinction. There are no wild Atlantic salmon stocks to fish anymore.
We, too, welcome the debate – if only to move beyond it and recognize that the foreseeable future will have to include the best practices in both farming and fishing. I have said it before: the US imports more aquaculture products than all domestically produced seafood (wild caught or farmed). If we want to maintain a supply of healthy, safe seafood, we have to nurture domestic aquaculture and start to limit imported seafood. -DA