Aquaculture Magazine June-July 2023 Vol. 49 No. 3

32

EDITOR´S COMMENTS

52

INDUSTRY NEWS

GREENHOUSES AND POND LINERS

The fate of probiotic species applied in intensive grow-out ponds in rearing water and intestinal tracts of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei.

Toward an environmentally responsible offshore aquaculture industry in the United States: Ecological risks, remedies, and knowledge gaps.

ARTICLE

Adaptation of an anti-fouling strainer on our plastic OPTOD sensor dedicated to fish farming.

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

Contributing Editor Marco Linné Unzueta

Editorial Coordinator Karelys Osta edicion@dpinternationalinc.com

Editorial Design Perla Neri design@design-publications.com

Sales & Marketing Coordinator crm@dpinternationalinc.com

Non-invasive methods for assessing the welfare of farmed white-leg shrimp (Penaeus vannamei).

ARTICLE ARTICLE

Effect of HUFA in enriched Artemia on growth performance features of Penaeus vannamei postlarvae from Ecuador.

UPCOMING EVENTS

ADVERTISERS INDEX

Sales Support Expert sse@dpinternationalinc.com

Operations Coordination Johana Freire opm@dpinternationalinc.com

Business Operations Manager Adriana Zayas administracion@design-publications.com

Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com

Design Publications International Inc. 401 E Sonterra Blvd. Sté. 375 San Antonio, TX. 78258 info@dpintertnatinonalinc.com

Office: +210 5043642

Office in Mexico: (+52) (33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578

Aquaculture Magazine (ISSN 0199-1388) is published bimontly, by Design Publications International Inc. All rights reserved. www.aquaculturemag.com

Follow us:

COLUMNS

40

CARPE DIEM

Further professionalization of the aquaculture sector is essential.

By Antonio Garza de Yta, Ph.D.*

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

By Stephen G. Newman Ph.D. * President and CEO AquaInTech Inc.

46 THE FISHMONGER

“Technification” and its role in intensification.

Rough ride ahead.

Marco Linné Unzueta Associate Editor

World population is estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050, and this expansion will result in increased global food demand in the first half of this century (FAO, 2022). The ability to maximize efficiency and sustainability of production methods will determine the ability to sustain food supplies for a growing and expectant population. According to projections, the global climate change will have a negative impact on these supplies.

A review of a large amount of information published around the world indicates that the most notable and significant changes associated with climate change are the gradual increase in global average temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations. Discussions and controversies concern the magnitude of the changes in the main components, such as global temperature, sea level rise, and the extent of the precipitation effects we are experiencing. However, the effects of climate change could manifest itself directly or indirectly, and not all of them will translate into consequences for aquaculture.

As with any agricultural practice, aquaculture practices are defined in space, time and scope and are quite manageable. Moreover, aquaculture production is concentrated in certain climatic regions and on certain continents, with a well-defined set of

Climate change implications for aquaculture

sectoral practices. However, it must be recognized that the expansion of aquaculture in different regions may indeed be modified by climate change, particularly in areas and regions where aquaculture itself may provide adaptation opportunities for other sectors.

At present, the contribution of aquaculture to the supply of fishery products for human consumption is reflected in the growing share of fisheries in the gross domestic product (GDP) of some of the major producing countries. Given the growing human population and the stagnating growth of capture fisheries, it is expected that the supply of food from aquaculture will have to increase to meet future demand.

Aquaculture is a predominant activity in tropical and subtropical climatic regions, and in order to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change in these regions, it has been necessary, for the time being, to adopt an approach focused on the development of adaptation strategies, especially if the aim is to reduce the gap between fish supply and demand through aquaculture. However, the potential for aquaculture growth in other regions cannot be ignored.

Based on the development potential of aquaculture and the potential impact of climate change, it can be assumed that fisheries are one of the most important sources of inputs, providing food and, to a lesser extent, seeds, and that the changes resulting from global climate change will be felt in aquaculture systems. It is particularly important to note that the identification of the different areas suitable for farming will be affected,

both in terms of space and seasonality, but also in terms of the availability and prices of resources such as fish protein for food production.

There is a great deal of information available on this subject, but the following aspects of the impact of climate change in aquaculture should be assessed:

9 Disease impacts, which may affect the selection of different features of the biological cycle and affect the transmission of parasites and possibly their virulence.

9 Social impacts, in particular changes in migratory routes and the biogeography of populations and their impact on fishing efforts.

Therefore, taking into account resilience and adaptability as well as the diversity of species or species groups cultivated, aquaculture can respond positively to climate impacts. For this to be possible, appropriate policies and socio-economic changes must be in place, supported and complemented by appropriate technological developments. A holistic, bottomup approach is preferred, rather than the other way around. The latter is crucial because the majority of aquaculture activities are small-scale, farmer-owned, farmer-operated and farmer-managed, especially in Asia, the epicenter of global aquaculture. Adaptive changes can only be implemented effectively and in a timely manner if local knowledge is incorporated and grassroots cooperation is ensured.

Atarraya launches an e-commerce website to sell its locally produced shrimp from Indianapolis-based Shrimpboxes

As it continues its search for partners, startup Atarraya is preparing an e-commerce website from which to offer consumers sustainably produced shrimp from its Indianapolis facility. There, Indianapolis customers will be able to purchase locally produced shrimp directly from the company.

Atarraya is building an e-commerce website for its products, where shrimp is available in 41-50 units/ pound and 21-25 units/pound sizes. Products can be picked up twice a week at Atarraya ’s shrimp farm, where consumers can even visit the facilities and see where the shrimp they take home have been produced.

Atarraya ’s Indianapolis facility has been open for a few months now, and is serving the public, and its products are also being sold to different food service customers in the local community, who can now buy shrimp raised within a few miles of their homes, rather than thousands of miles away, said Daniel Russek, CEO and founder of the company.

The goal, 400 Shrimpboxes in the US

Indeed, Atarraya was conceived with the goal of producing shrimp locally and sustainably anywhere in the world. In this sense, the company continues to search for new partners with whom to achieve its goal of having 400 Shrimpboxes in operation in the United States (USA) by the end of 2024.

Atarraya , which intends to transfer its technology to its partners in the coming years, has around 150 people who want to become Shrimpbox producers, who have participated in its webinar and who are in its sales pipeline. In addition, among other

potential partners interested in bringing Shrimpboxes to their local communities, Atarraya was approached by a Japanese conglomerate to bring them to Southeast Asia, Russek said.

We are looking for the first two partners that we are going to support in building their own Shrimpbox farms with hardware, inputs, remote monitoring and software. And if they need support in getting them to market, we will also support them.”

Facilitating local production

“The company’s mission is to facilitate local, sustainable shrimp production anywhere in the world. It’s a different perspective on how technology can help us achieve a more sustainable food system. We basically focus on a product that the market already wants, but whose supply chain is very problematic,” Russek said.

The basis of Atarraya ’s business is the use of cargo containers that become Shrimpboxes, i.e. containers equipped with the necessary technology to grow shrimp inside them. This technology makes it possible to control water quality, regulate temperature and oxygenation, and feed the shrimp.

And since the entire shrimp farming and harvesting process takes place in these containers, Shrimpboxes can be installed in all types of urban spaces, offering a local alternative to frozen or fresh shrimp shipped from other parts of the world, often thousands of miles away, that was unimaginable until now.

Shrimpbox Spring Harvest

The company run by Russek organized the highly successful Shrimpbox Spring Harvest event in a few days ago, opening its doors to the people of Indianapolis. “Connecting with you and witnessing your enthusiasm made the event an exceptional experience,” they said this in a statement.

“We enjoyed giving you a tour of our farm, showcasing our sustainable production process, and highlighting the remarkable moment when our biofloc waste generated its first biogas flame! It was an opportunity to share our passion for sustainable practices and demonstrate how we contribute to a greener future,” they said.

During the event, Daniel Russek spoke about Shrimpbox and Atarraya ’s commitment to the local production of fresh shrimp in the United States through its trademark, AguaBlanca Seafood.

“We are cultivating a community that values sustainability and transparency. Let’s continue to make a positive impact and create a brighter, more sustainable future for all,” they added.

ADM presents its integrated water solutions at Brazil’s Aquishow 2023

ADM will be present at Aquishow 2023, the industry exhibition in São José do Rio Preto (São Paulo, Brazil), where it will showcase its sciencebacked solutions to address the challenges currently facing the aquaculture industry, always following key pillars, including sustainability, performance and profitability, reported the Chicagobased company in the United States. At the ADM booth, aquatic nutrition experts will present offerings focused on the key growth pillars of aquaculture.

The leader in global nutrition, which creates and combines ingredients and flavors for food and beverages, supplements, animal feed, and more, will show at Aquishow its expertise and science-backed solutions from its global portfolio to address the challenges currently facing the aquaculture industry.

Sustainability, performance and profitability

The company, which has offices in the US, Brazil, France and China, among other topics, will inform visitors about sustainability and its holistic approach to meeting the needs of a growing population and reducing environmental impact. “ADM supports the health and nutritional requirements of aquatic species by focusing specifically on sustainable solutions and practices that improve aquaculture production,” they said in a press release.

ADM will also provide information on performance and its nutritional solutions, which cover early life stages through harvest: applying precision nutrition methods to meet the specific needs of species at different stages optimizes growth, physiology and animal health, in addition to improving overall performance and efficiency.

Furthermore, according to ADM members, profitability is key for commercial fish farms of all sizes: it is directly related to feed efficiency, including digestibility and feed conversion ratio, which promote improved growth, size and weight, fillet quality and more.

Tilapia and other fish production

Specifically, ADM will showcase a range of nutritional solutions for tilapia and other fish production, including Presence’s Nutripiscis line of tilapia feeds, precise formulations from Bernaqua’s Socil and Laguna and the WeaN Prime range. Aqua experts will also showcase Aqua Immune One, focused on health and sustainability, which reduces the need for antibiotics while promoting healthy growth.

At the event, customers and interested parties will be able to talk with Eduardo Urbinati, the company’s Aquaculture Products Manager in Brazil, and Ricardo Khatchadourian, ADM’s Director of Animal Nutrition.

Strategic Development Agreement

Some days ago, ADM and Air Protein, a pioneer in air-based nutritional protein that requires no agriculture or farmland, decoupling protein production from traditional supply chain risks, announced that they had entered into a Strategic Development Agreement (SDA) to collaborate on research and development to further advance new and novel proteins for nutrition.

The SDA would combine ADM’s broad nutrition, formulation and re-

search expertise with Air Protein’s unique landless agriculture platform to identify ways to scale cost-effective ingredients that enable meat substitutes to deliver on their cost, nutrition, flavor and texture targets. It also provides for the mutually exclusive rights for ADM and Air Protein to collaborate to build and operate the world’s first commercial scale Air Protein plant.

From the seed of the idea to the outcome of the solution

ADM is a premier global human and animal nutrition company, delivering solutions today with an eye to the future. They assure me that they are blazing new trails in health and well-being as their scientists develop groundbreaking products to support healthier living.

“We’re a cutting-edge innovator leading the way to a new future of plant-based consumer and industrial solutions to replace petroleum-based products. We’re an unmatched agricultural supply chain manager and processor, providing food security by connecting local needs with global capabilities. And we’re a leader in sustainability, scaling across the entire value chains to help decarbonize our industry and safeguard our planet. From the seed of the idea to the outcome of the solution, we give customers an edge in solving the nutritional and sustainability challenges of today and tomorrow,” they said.

eFishery becomes Indonesia’s latest unicorn with 108 million in Series D funding

Indonesian aquatic technology company eFishery has become its country’s latest unicorn after raising SGD 108 million in a Series D funding round led by the United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based G42 Global Expansion Fund (42XFund). According to regulatory filings, eFishery could even raise up to USD 200 million in additional funding.

42XFund contributed SGD 1 million to the round, while SoftBank Vision Fund II contributed nearly SGD 5 million, according to documents filed by eFishery with Singapore’s Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). Meanwhile, Northstar Group, a leading Southeast Asian private equity fund, invested SGD 3 million.

The company, which aims to have one million fish farmers as members of its “digital cooperative” by 2025, has more than 6,000 fish and shrimp farmers from 250 cities in Indonesia in its portfolio. According to eFishery’s latest impact report, its platform can increase fish farmers’ income by up to 45% and the total carbon footprint of their production is 92% lower than that of the meat industry.

The term unicorn refers to a private startup company with a value of more than USD 1 billion. It is commonly used in the venture capital industry. The term was first popularized by Aileen Lee (founder of Cowboy Ventures in Palo Alto) in 2013.

Innovations in aquaculture

Founded in 2013, eFishery is Asia’s first aquaculture technology startup developing innovations in the field of aquaculture. As explained by the company, eFishery has disrupted traditional fish farming methods and provides cutting-edge solutions in the aquaculture ecosystem by offering a onestop platform that provides access to feed, finance and markets to fish and shrimp farmers.

eFishery aims to build an aquaculture ecosystem in Indonesia that is not only profitable, but also sustainable for fish farmers, buyers and all stakeholders, according to its management.

Since its inception in 2013, when it launched its digitally controlled “smart feeder” for fish and shrimp farmers, eFishery has expanded its offering to include an “end-to-end” digital system for managing fish and shrimp farming operations, as well as an online marketplace and access to financial services.

Linking producers directly to buyers

The services offered by eFishery aim to help fish farmers increase their productivity and, at the same time, create more sustainable practices for both the environment and the farmers themselves. Specifically, eFishery seeks to link more fish and shrimp farmers directly with buyers, giving them more competitive options when it comes to selling their products.

Indonesia is one of the world’s largest aquaculture producers. However, the country’s aquaculture industry has historically been linked to mangrove deforestation and inadequate waste management practices, among other problems.

US

Innovasea, the global leader in technological advanced aquatic solutions for aquaculture and fish tracking, announced that it has successfully helped Petros secures government approval for a 3,000 ton open ocean fish farm 8 kilometers off the southwest coast of Aruba.

“We’re thrilled to be partnering with Petros to create Aruba’s first ocean-based fish farm,” said Langley Gace, Innovasea’s senior vice president of business development. “This is an important project for the country and the region and we’re confident that our open ocean expertise and our proven egg-to-harvest approach to fish farming will help ensure its success.”

Innovasea performed extensive consulting and site selection work for Petros, which plans to use Innovasea’s submersible SeaStations and other technologies to raise Northern Red Snapper.

Future growth will target 9,000 metric tons

Built over three phases, the farm will produce its fish in a sustainable, secure and traceable manner. Once complete, it will feature 16 SeaStations and a land-based hatchery and employ close to 100 local team members. Future growth will target 9,000 metric tons of biomass, with goals to diversify species and expand into seaweed cultivation.

“We are fortunate to have a strong partner in Innovasea, an industry leader in open ocean farming with proven experience with warm water species such as Red Snapper” said Gunnar Bracelly, Petros’ founder and president. “Being able to rely on Innovasea’s full-service capabilities enable our team to focus on implementing the bold vision of diversifying the Aruban economy and becoming the catalyst for an aquaculture revolution throughout the Caribbean region.”

SeaStations fit perfectly on the island

Creating a vibrant aquaculture industry will help Aruba diversify its economy, which relies heavily on tourism, and strengthen its food security profile. The submersible SeaStation is ideal because it is invisible to tourists when submerged.

“SeaStations spend most of their time fully submerged, so they’re a great fit for a place like Aruba where it’s important to preserve beautiful views for vacationers,” said Gace.

Northern red snapper is a high value species with strong demand in the United States (US), but a limited and seasonal supply that comes entirely from the fishing industry.

Petros will also market its fish to the many cruise ships that dock in Aruba. This will support the cruise industry’s effort to reduce its carbon footprint by sourcing fresh seafood from local sources.

Passion for research and development

As they say, Innovasea is a company fueled by leading-edge technology and a passion for research and development.

“Innovasea is revolutionizing aquaculture and advancing the science of fish tracking to make our oceans and freshwater ecosystems sustainable for future generations.”

With more than 275 employees worldwide, they provide full end-toend solutions for fish farming and aquatic species research, including quality equipment that’s efficient and built to last, expert consulting services, and innovative platforms and products that deliver unrivaled data, information and insights.

“From land to the open ocean,” Innovasea provides aquatic solutions that hold up in the most challenging conditions. They assure me that this requires more than just delivering the world’s most advanced aquatic technologies: “It means continuously applying knowledge in science and engineering, fish tracking and farm operations to develop the ideal systems for each site. It means working shoulder-to-shoulder with customers to cultivate and protect fish populations. And it means consciously designing products and services to give back more to nature than we take. Day in and day out, we are driven by a commitment to make our ocean and freshwater ecosystems sustainable for future generations.”

Looking for additional investors

Petros reported that is looking for additional investors for the project and is open to both equity and debt financing for the initial stage. For more information, is possible to contact Gunnar Bracelly at gunnar@sustimar.com.

Innovasea collaborates with Petros to obtain approval for Aruba’s first ocean fish farm, which will produce 3,000 tons of red snapper for the Caribbean and the

On June 12, representatives Kat Cammack, Ed Case and Mike Ezell reintroduced in the 118th Congress of the United States (US), the bipartisan Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act in a new attempt to obtain its approval. The platform Stronger America Through Seafood (SATS) “commends Representatives for helping educate other Members of Congress about the need for federal legislation to establish a federal permitting process for offshore aquaculture in the US,” said Drue Banta Winters, Campaign Manager of the organization. The House bill is companion legislation to the AQUAA Act introduced by US Senators Roger Wicker and Brian Schatz last week. Earlier this year, the White House issued its Ocean Climate Action Plan, which calls for the expansion of sustainable US aquaculture production.

As the platform SATS reported, the bicameral AQUAA Act would establish National Standards for offshore aquaculture and clarify a regulatory system for the farming of fish in the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The bill would also establish a research and technology grant program to fund innovative research and extension services focused on improving and advancing sustainable domestic aquaculture. “Establishing a robust American aquaculture industry would help address many of the pressing issues we face today,” said Banta Winters. “From strengthening the seafood supply chain, to creating new jobs in American communities, and helping grow more sustainable protein here at home as climate change threatens wild stocks, offshore aquaculture would provide many benefits for our nation.” For her part, Cammack assured that “aquaculture should be one of our priorities as we grow our focus on food security. In Florida, we’ve seen the benefits of aquaculture firsthand— breeding, raising, and harvesting shellfish, fish, and aquatic plants in our

waters. We’ve demonstrated that it’s possible to provide healthy, fresh food that’s produced sustainably at home to support our growing population,” said Cammack.

US ranks only 17th in aquaculture production

According to SATS, due to inefficient federal permitting processes, the US ranks only 17th in aquaculture production and imports up to 80% of the seafood we consume from overseas. Until federal legislation is passed, the growth of the American offshore aquaculture industry will continue to be hindered due to a lack of regulatory certainty for investors. An expanded aquaculture industry in the US would create a plethora of jobs in the farming states that grow the fish feed; in coastal states with working waterfronts; in labs and research facilities; and in retail. Locally grown seafood would feed a growing population that is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030.

A confusing and often contradicting regulatory scheme

The member of the US House of Representatives from Florida added that her colleagues share the same enthusiasm “for growing our domestic aquaculture industries and improving our infrastructure to feed the American population.”

In that sense, Case, the Member of the US House of Representatives from Hawaii said: “For decades, we have pursued the promise of open ocean

aquaculture as part of our larger goal of sustainable management of our marine resources. States like Hawai’i have led the way in developing sustainable and safe aquaculture in state waters, but development in federal waters throughout our exclusive economic zone has been hampered by a confusing and often contradicting regulatory scheme that does not sufficiently protect our marine environment”. “Our bipartisan, bicameral AQUAA Act would provide a consistent, efficient regulatory umbrella to help fully unlock the potential of open ocean aquaculture in a sustainable, environmentally sensitive and science-based way and grow economies for coastal states and food security for the nation,” he added.

AQUAA Act will create blue economy jobs

Finally, Ezell, Member of the US House of Representatives from Mississippi, said: “In order to meet the demand for fresh, American seafood, we must find ways to increase aquaculture production across our coastal states and communities. “I’m proud to cosponsor the AQUAA Act that will create blue economy jobs along the Gulf Coast while protecting our most precious resources.”

It’s important to remember that Stronger America Through Seafood advocates for federal policies and regulations that help secure a stronger America through increased US production of healthful, sustainable, and affordable seafood.

Reintroduced in the US Congress is the Bipartisan Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture, AQUAA Act.

Toward an environmentally responsible offshore aquaculture industry in the United States: Ecological risks, remedies, and knowledge gaps

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

There is growing interest in cultivating fish, shellfish, and seaweeds in offshore waters. Existing pilot and commercial facilities demonstrate that offshore aquaculture is technically feasible, and that it can improve growing conditions and farmed animal health under some conditions. Many of the advances that have improved the ecological outcomes of nearshore aquaculture is likely to apply to offshore facilities as well. However, some ecological risks will likely to persist in the near term. The vulnerability of offshore farm site infrastructure to weather events and vessel collisions could be similar to nearshore sites and result in escape events, and the farming of finfish will likely require feeds that include fishmeal and fish oil, ingredients derived from finite marine resources, and terrestrial-origin ingredients whose embodied carbon footprint may be high. Moreover, because offshore aquaculture occurs in ecological contexts that differ significantly from nearshore contexts, different kinds of ecological risks may also arise as the sector grows.

Due to the fact that offshore aquaculture occurs in ecological contexts that differ significantly from nearshore contexts, different kinds of ecological risks may also arise as the sector grows. Here we present a synthesis of information on the ecological risks posed by offshore aquaculture and how to mitigate them.

Here is a synthesis of available information on the ecological risks posed by offshore aquaculture, its main potential ecological risk categories, and ways to reduce these risks.

Major types of offshore production infrastructure

As interest in offshore aquaculture has grown, several approaches to facility design have emerged. These approaches can be categorized as either open-pen design or closed containment, each with several sub-categories of design within them.

Open-pen designs are those that use only mesh-style barriers to contain the farmed population, allowing free, three-dimensional exchange between the ‘internal’ farm environment and the ‘external’ ambient en-

vironment. Ocean currents continuously deliver water to and through the pens, and farm wastes, such as unconsumed feed, solid and soluble metabolites, are discharged to the environment without capture or treatment. Similarly, pathogens and parasites may be both introduced to and discharged from the farm environment.

The most common open-pen designs are surface structures, which suspend mesh fish containment barriers from floating infrastructure, are moored to the seafloor by a series of strategically placed anchors, and have tensioned lines to maintain the shape of the net pen as currents act upon it. Flexible surface structures, have typified nearshore finfish culture for decades and utilize high density poly-

ethylene (HDPE) to construct the circular pen collars, including a walkway for farm workers. These structures are designed to flex in response to wave action. Rigid surface structures, which typically employ steel to provide the pen superstructure, resist wave action but are otherwise similar to flexible surface structures in that the farmed animals have constant access to the water’s surface.

In contrast to open-pen designs, closed containment designs physically separate the ‘internal’ farm environment from the ‘external’ ambient environment. Physical separation allows the isolation of the farm population from potentially harmful ambient risks like pathogens, parasites, and algae blooms, as well as the opportunity to remove or treat farm waste products. However, this eliminates natural subsidies afforded by open pen designs, introducing the need to intake, circulate, and discharge water, as well as maintain its quality to support fish health and growth. The deployment of closed containment designs currently lags behind openpen designs.

In terms of diversity in species and scale, aside from finfish, farms can be designed to produce a variety of seaweed and shellfish species (Tables 1 and 2). Seaweeds can be grown on a diversity of structures, including long-lines, gridlines, rope attachments, nets, lattice mooring, and other marine infrastructure (Tables 1 and 2) hellfish and seaweed often require the same kind of infrastructure, which often includes buoyancy control devices. Shellfish and seaweed can also be grown together, potentially lowering the environmental footprint for growing and harvesting the crops.

Offshore aquaculture farms also vary significantly in scale (Table 1). They range from small systems, like Santa Barbara Mariculture Company or Aquafort, with 20 MT annual production intended for local distribution, to those like Nippon and

Existing pilot and commercial facilities demonstrate that offshore aquaculture is technically feasible, and that it can improve growing conditions and farmed animal health under some conditions.

Salmar’s Ocean Farm 1 that are operating on an industrial commercial scale with 50 times more capacity in deep waters (Table 2) and to commercial salmon farms that commonly produce greater than 1000 tons of fish per production cycle.

International offshore aquaculture status

It was found that information describing 33 offshore aquaculture operations, 15 of which are research or demonstration projects; 18 are commercial operations. These operations use different types of infrastructure to grow at least 15 species of fish and shellfish (Tables 1 and 2). The diversity of species grown in offshore aquaculture facilities is only likely to grow in the future due to active inno-

vation. Ecological impacts vary with the type of species cultivated (shellfish, seaweed, or finfish), the type of infrastructure used, farm operation practices, siting and site aggregation, and oceanographic conditions, among other factors.

Offshore aquaculture in U.S. waters

There has been increasing interest in growing finfish, shellfish, and seaweed in U.S. offshore waters during the past decade, resulting in greater investment and the development of support and research programs. Offshore operations can be complicated to regulate under existing legal frameworks because of stakeholder conflict, maritime jurisdictional issues, and understudied environmen-

tal impacts. U.S. policymakers have pursued a variety of approaches to regulate offshore aquaculture, including (1) asserting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has the authority to govern aquaculture in the EEZ under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (2) issuing Executive Order 13921, which seeks to streamline permitting with a prominent role for NOAA; and (3) introducing new legislation to authorize NOAA to permit aquaculture, including finfish farming (S. 3100, H.R. 6258, the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act - AQUAA).

The lack of aquaculture-specific federal policy for offshore facilities in the U.S. has driven most offshore

aquaculture initiatives to operate in state waters (or in other countries) that offer similar conditions and degrees of exposure to what is expected from sites in federal waters (Table 2).

Ecological risks, mitigation strategies, and knowledge gaps

Many of the practices that have improved nearshore aquaculture outcomes over the past 20 years will likely to be employed in offshore aquaculture.

To develop a sound policy that can facilitate the development of the offshore aquaculture industry in U.S. federal waters without compromising the health of ocean ecosystems, it will be necessary to understand the main risks that offshore aquaculture poses to marine ecosystems and wildlife, which risks can be mitigated using current approaches, and which risks will require new or precautionary approaches. In the following sections, we describe the main ecological risks associated with offshore aquaculture related to siting, infrastructure, stocking, feed, metabolic waste, parasites,

disease, and escapes. We also describe mitigation strategies and knowledge gaps for each risk category.

Siting

Selecting appropriate sites for offshore aquaculture presents several challenges, which together create a risk of cumulative impacts. The U.S. offshore marine environment is more crowded than it would appear to be at first glance. As a result, offshore aquaculture facilities have limited possible sites due to a high number of preestablished claims on space and other factors. For example, NOAA’s choices for siting Ocean Era’s proposed offshore aquaculture operation in the Gulf of Mexico were limited because a number of criteria had to be met simultaneously: proximity to a commercial port; water depths of at least 130 feet to allow net pen submersion and maximize mooring scope; areas consisting of unconsolidated sediments for positioning the anchors; and avoidance of hard bottom habitats, artificial reefs, marine protected areas (MPAs), reserves, and Habitats

of Particular Concern (HAPCs). Additional considerations for site selection included, but were not limited, vessel traffic routes, oil and gas zones, military zones, fisheries and tourism zones, dredging sites, and the presence of habitat for endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species. Some knowledge Gaps:

9 What is the long-term risk that commercial offshore aquaculture operations would aggregate given the need for favorable growing and operating conditions and existing claims on marine space?

9 Are the existing regulatory tools appropriate for regulating offshore industry development, or should sector-wide development plans, underpinned by carrying capacity modeling, be used to prevent adverse cumulative impacts?

9 How can technology best be leveraged to improve siting and monitoring?

9 How can negative impacts on other sectors and stakeholders be prevented or minimized?

9 How are the limitations of the ETP species distribution models, like building cost effective and targeted survey efforts, best addressed?

Infrastructure and interactions with marine wildlife

The production and installation of infrastructure (e.g., cages, pens, moorings) capable of containing farmed species in high-energy offshore environments pose a great technical challenge. Offshore aquaculture infrastructure and equipment must withstand or be resilient to strong offshore waves, winds, and currents as well as resist corrosion and fouling. Plans to use pre-existing infrastructure like decommissioned oil rigs or marine wind farms have been considered globally, including examples such as Belgium’s Wier and Wind project and Germany’s offshore mussel and wind turbine sites. Some knowledge Gaps:

9 How can the risk that aquaculture infrastructure will be lost or damaged during transport and deployment be mitigated?

9 While fishing pressure could be addressed with existing management frameworks, what are the most effective strategies for mitigating other risks associated with fish and wildlife interactions with offshore aquaculture infrastructure, like disease transmission or entanglement?

9 What are risks associated with decommissioning an offshore aquaculture facility?

Stocking

With few exceptions (e.g. tuna ranching operations), stock for growing at offshore finfish farms is expected to come from hatchery production. The environmental impacts of land-based brooding and rearing systems include habitat modification for facility construction, operational energy and water consumption, and metabolic waste disposal. Some knowledge Gaps:

9 What data are necessary to collect to determine optimal stocking densities for a specific species in a given locale? How should the optimum be defined?

9 What are the most efficient strategies to produce sufficient stock for each of the species being considered for offshore production and how can the constraints on their production be overcome?

9 How can the carbon footprint of hatcheries and pre-stocking rearing operations for offshore farms be further reduced?

Feed

Feed generally represents 50–80% of the production costs of fed aquaculture and is typically the most significant contributor to fed aquaculture’s

greenhouse gas emissions. A major ecological and production risk of feed use in offshore aquaculture is the reliance on marine ingredients. While progress has been made in decreasing feed conversion ratios and substituting marine ingredients with other sources of protein and fatty acids, the nutritional qualities of marine ingredients make them difficult to substitute, so feeds still include considerable amounts of fishmeal and fish oil. The primary mitigation strategies being explored for feed impacts are optimization of feed use and the use of alternative ingredients. Some knowledge Gaps:

9 What are the most feasible ways to continue to incentivize the efficient use of fishmeal and fish oil content in aquaculture feeds?

9 How can robust and consistent understanding of the ecological and social implications of feed use and manufacturing be achieved?

9 How can technological, policy, and market developments accelerate the process of improving feed conversion ratios and feed formulations?

Parasites, pathogens, & escapes

Aquaculture facilities pose some risks associated with concentrating and amplifying pathogens and parasites, which can then escape and impact wild populations and ecosystems. The farming of non-native species may create some risk of invasivity, in which the escaped species dominate

the local ecosystem, resulting in biodiversity loss and other adverse ecological impacts. However, the extent to which offshore aquaculture would reduce or increase ecological risks associated with parasites, pathogens, and escapes remains understudied and largely unknown.

Conclusions

Although offshore aquaculture is a nascent industry globally, many pilots and several commercial operations have demonstrated that it is technically and perhaps economically feasible, and many lessons can be learned from them.

Interest in developing U.S. offshore aquaculture is increasing among industry leaders, investors,

Offshore aquaculture infrastructure and equipment must withstand or be resilient to strong offshore waves, winds, and currents as well as resist corrosion and fouling.

and policymakers. However, many of the risks described, such as those related to the performance of feed in fed aquaculture, are not yet clearly addressed by current or proposed regulation.

U.S. aquaculture facilities operating within a strong and well enforced regulatory system could potentially produce seafood with relatively fewer environmental impacts compared to seafood grown and harvested in contexts with weaker regulation, or in areas that are farther from major markets.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “TOWARD AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES: ECOLOGICAL RISKS, REMEDIES, AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS” developed by: Rod Fujita - Environmental Defense Fund, Poppy Brittingham - Stanford University, Ling Cao - Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Halley Froehlich - University of California, Matt Thompson - Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, Taylor Voorhees - Monterey Bay Aquarium and Cargill Aqua Nutrition. The original article was published on NOVEMBER, 2022, through MARINE POLICY. The full version, including tables and figures, can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105351

The fate of probiotic species applied

in intensive grow-out ponds in rearing water and intestinal tracts of white shrimp, Litopenaeus

vannamei

Probiotics have been commonly practiced in commercial shrimp farms to increase pond production. However, these possibilities were based on the results of in vitro studies or laboratory in vivo trials. Here are the results of research that traced the composition and abundance of commercial probiotic species applied to commercial shrimp farms in an intensive aquaculture system using high-throughput sequencing.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Probiotics have been considered an eco-friendly approach to increase the yield of aquaculture production through several mechanisms, including maintaining water quality, growth performance, or the survival rate of aquatic organisms. For example, studies have confirmed that probiotics application has enabled us to significantly reduce antibiotic use in aquaculture industries and avoid the occurrence of antibiotic resistance genes in microbes. Some probiotics have been documented to produce digestive enzymes such as protease, amylase, lipase, alginate lyase, and cellulase which help animal hosts to digest ingested diets. Probiotic strains were documented to produce antimicrobial compounds active against bacterial pathogens. Also, some probiotic species have the capacity to degrade and prevent the accumulation of aquaculture waste in culture ponds, including solid organic waste or soluble toxic chemicals such as ion amonia (NH4+ ) or nitrite (NO2-).

Despite the benefits of the use of probiotics in aquaculture, most of these studies were based on in vitro studies or in vivo laboratory trials in very small-scale rearing systems where environmental conditions were easily controlled. Some studies have con-

Despite the benefits of the usage of probiotics in aquaculture, most of these studies were based on in vitro studies or in vivo laboratory trials, and some studies confirmed that the results of in vitro and in vivo studies are frequently uncorrelated.

firmed that the results of in vitro and in vivo studies are frequently uncorrelated. Therefore, there is a question of whether probiotic strains can survive and significantly contribute to the quality of rearing water, digestibility, or disease resistance, as reported by many in vitro or laboratory-scale studies. To address this question, here are the results of the research that traced the composition and abundance of commercial probiotics species applied in commercial shrimp farms (ponds and the intestinal tract of white shrimps) in an intensive aquaculture system using high-throughput sequencing.

Materials and methods

Four commercial probiotic species (Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus fermentum, Bacillus subtilis, and Pseudomonas putida) were applied to the commercial White shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei ponds (@800 m2 area of high-density polyethene ponds) in the morning at a dose of 5 ppm once every 2 days in the first month, and once a week from the second month onward. The pond consisted of three plots with an area of 800 m2 and a stocking population of 220,000 individuals. Feeding of shrimps were done manually 1–5 times a day, according to the shrimp sizes.

Water samples were collected from six ponds using a long pole sampling

device and a 20 mL sterile plastic cup. The collected water was stored in a 50 mL falcon tube that had previously been filled with 30 mL of absolute ethanol for DNA preservation. Samples were kept on ice until processed in the laboratory within the next 8 h. A total of 30 healthy shrimps showing no symptoms of the disease were collected from 3 shrimp ponds (10 shrimps per pond) on day 47. Then, the presence of the probiotic species was traced by collecting the rearing water and shrimp’s intestines on day of culture (DOC) 47 to monitor their composition and abundance using high-throughput sequencing.

Results

Profiles of probiotic species in grow-out ponds

The results showed that the number of bacteria classified as Ordo Lactobacillales was quite abundant in the three ponds. A total of 4,704 bacterial sequences, or 5% of the total bacteria detected in pond 1, were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales, of which 4,375 sequences (93%) were identified as genus Lactobacillus and belonged to 12 bacterial species (Table 1). From pond 2, a total of 4,572 bacterial sequences (5% of the total identified bacteria in pond 2) were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales, of which 3,795 sequences (83%) were classified as the genus Lactobacillus and belonged to 12 bacte-

There is a question of whether probiotic strains can survive and significantly contribute to the quality of rearing water, digestibility, or disease resistance as being reported by many in vitro or laboratory-scale studies.

rial species (Table 1). Both pond 1 and pond 2 appeared to be very similar in terms of Lactobacillales proportions (5%) and the number of Lactobacillus species (12 species).

From pond 3, a total of 2,986 sequences or 3% of the total identified bacteria in pond 3 were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales, of which 65 sequences (2% of Lactobacillales) were identified as the genus Lactobacillus and belonged to three bacterial species, which are Lactobacillus sp (2 sequences), L. salivarius (60 sequences), and L. ruminis (3 sequences).

However, none of the Lactobacillus species identified in the three ponds showed to be the introduced probiotic species, which were L. plantarum and L. fermentum.

A member of the genus Bacillus was not found in ponds 2 and 3, but was found only in pond 1. A total of 441 bacterial sequences or 0.4% of the total detected bacterial sequences, were assigned to Ordo Bacillales. Of which 395 sequences or 99% were classified as Bacillus sp (OTU_160).

Other NGS results showed that Pseudomonas spp were detected only in two ponds with very low abundance. A total of 39 bacterial sequences or 0.04% of total bacterial sequences detected from the rearing water of pond 1 were assigned to the Ordo Pseudomonadales, but none of them belonged to Pseudomonas spp. In pond 2, 35 bacterial sequences were assigned

to Ordo Pseudomonadales, and only one sequence was identified as Pseudomonas azotoformans. The highest abundance sequences of Ordo Pseudomonadales were detected from pond 3 which contained 6,325 bacterial sequences, of which 303 sequences belonged to the genus Pseudomonas and were as-

signed to 3 species: Pseudomonas psychrotolerans, Pseudomonas azotoformans, and Pseudomonas sp.

These results indicated that Pseudomonas putida which came from commercial probiotics had difficulties adapting and proliferating in the rearing water of shrimp ponds. Based

on NGS results, the most abundant species was P. psychrotolerans (213 sequences) followed by Pseudomonas azotoformans (81 sequences) and Pseudomonas sp with 9 sequences.

Profile of probiotic strains in intestinal trats

From the shrimp intestines collected in pond 1, a total of 172 bacterial sequences or 0.2% of the total identified bacteria, were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales. Of these sequences, 90 sequences (52% of Lactobacillales) belonged to the genus Streptococcus, 33 sequences (19% of Lactobacillales) belonged to the genus Enterococcus, 17 sequences (10% of Lactobacillales) belonged to the genus Lactobacillus, 9% (16 OTUs) belonged to the genus Weisella, 5% (9 sequences) belonged to the genus Lactococcus, and 4% (7 sequences) belonged to the genus Leuconostoc. The 17 sequences of the genus Lactobacillus were identified as 3 species: L. ruminis (12 sequences), L. aviaries (4 sequences), and Lactobacillus sp (1 sequence) (Table 2).

From the shrimp intestines collected in pond 2, a total of 1,669 bac-

terial sequences, or 2% of the total identified bacteria, were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales. 1,569 sequences (94% of Lactobacillales) belonged to the genus Lactobacillus, 84 sequences (5% of Lactobacillales) belonged to Streptococcus, 11 sequences (0.7% of Lactobacillales) belonged to Enterococcus, and one sequence belonged to Weisella. 1,569 Lactobacillus were identified as 12 species and the three most abundant species were Lactobacillus sp (469 sequences), followed by L. pentosus (339 sequences), and L. reuteri (287 sequences). While the species with the lowest abundance were L. agilis and L. acidipiscis with a single sequence each.

Furthermore, a total of 1,265 bacterial sequences were assigned to Ordo Lactobacillales from the shrimp intestines collected from pond 3. Of these sequences, 945 (75% of Lactobacillales) were identified as belonging to the genus Lactobacillus. Lower taxonomic annotation indicated that the sequences were classified into 12 bacterial species. The three most abundant species were Lactobacillus sp (216 sequences), followed by L. pentosus (209 sequences) and L. reuteri (101 sequences).

From the shrimp intestines collected in pond 1, 48 sequences or 0.05% of the total identified bacteria, were classified as Bacillaceae. Of the sequence, 18 sequences were identified as Bacillus badius, 24 sequences as Bacillus sp, and 6 sequences were identified as B. thermoamylovorans (Figure 1). From the shrimp intestines collected in pond 2, 43 sequences or 0.05% of the total identified bacteria, were assigned to Bacillaceae (Figure 1). Of these, 36 sequences (84% of Bacillaceae) belonged to the genus Oceano bacillus. Six sequences (14% of Bacillaceae) belonged to genus Bacillus, and were identified as four species, which were B. thermoamylovorans (2 sequences), B. badius (2 sequences), Bacillus coagulans (1 sequence), and Bacillus sp (1 sequence).

In addition, from the shrimp intestines collected in pond 3, 12 bacterial sequences or 0.01% of the total identified bacterial sequences, were assigned into Family Bacillaceae (Figure 1). Of these, 7 sequences (58%) were identified as B. thermoamylovorans, while the other 5 sequences (42% of Bacillaceae) were “unclassified.”

Pseudomonas spp also appeared to be in very low abundance in the intestinal tract of white shrimp reared in commercial ponds. In pond 1, a total of 106 sequences or 0.1% of the total identified bacterial sequences, were assigned to Ordo Psedomonadales, of which only 4 sequences (4% of Pseudomonadales) were identified as Pseduomonas sp. While in pond 2, 28 sequences or 0.03% of total bacterial sequences, were assigned to Ordo Pseudomonadales

Seven sequences (25% of Pseudomonadales) belonged to genus Pseudomonas, five sequences of P. geniculata and two sequences of Pseudomonas sp. Furthermore, 13 sequences were assigned to Ordo Psedomonadales but none belonged to Pseudomonas spp in pond 3.

Discussion

The application of probiotics has been considered the eco-friendliest method to boost aquaculture production through several mechanisms, including maintaining water quality, improving growth rates, and enhancing

disease resistance. However, positive results from probiotic applications are mostly based on in vitro studies or small-scale in vivo trials in which all environmental conditions are easily managed and controlled. Meanwhile, the application of probiotics on large scales, such as commercial shrimp farms are still less investigated. Thus, questions such as whether introduced probiotics could cope with or compete with native bacteria and contribute to the culture of organisms in commercial farms remained to be answered. The objective of the presented study was to trace and identifies four commercial probiotic species (L. plantarum, L. fermentum, B. subtilis, and P. putida) that were applied in three commercial shrimp ponds.

The result of the study indicated that none of the four commercial probiotics was able to be detected in the shrimp ponds or the intestinal tracts of white shrimp sampled on DOC 47. Each shrimp pond appeared to develop specific microbial communities in both the rearing water and the shrimp intestines. Ponds

1 and 2, for instance, had 12 Lactobacillus species and the most dominant species was L. aviarius, but pond 3 had only two species of Lactobacillus and was dominated by L. salivarius Similarly, the genus Bacillus that developed in rearing water was different from commercial bacillus. A similar result was reported by Huerta-Rábago et al. (2019), where three commercial probiotics (Bacillus sp, Lactobacillus sp, and Saccharomyces sp) introduced into white shrimp ponds at nursery stages could not be detected on DOC 7, 21, and 42.

These results may suggest that the introduced probiotics were unable to cope with their new environments and failed to proliferate and grow in the target sites (the intestinal tracts of white shrimps or rearing water). Based on previous studies, there were several possibilities as to why the commercial bacteria were unable to survive. First, the probiotic species were isolated from significantly different environmental conditions and therefore had difficulty adapting to the environmental condition

in the shrimp ponds or intestines of shrimps. A large loss of viability has been frequently attributed to the high acid and bile salt concentrations in the stomach and intestines. Conditions of rearing water that are different from conditions in culture, including dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, and nutrient sources, will affect the growth rate of probiotic bacteria and total cell yields. Another possibility is that native bacteria outcompete the introduced probiotics for the same organic substrate, such as carbon. This result might explain the inconsistent results concerning the efficacy of probiotic treatments on the survival and growth performance of white shrimps.

Since introducing probiotics were not viable in the target sites, a question to be answered is “are these commercial probiotics able to contribute to the aquaculture species?

According to Chauhan and Singh (2019), probiotic viability is a very important factor in aquaculture species and serves as one of the prerequisites in screening probiotics for

aquaculture. Less viable probiotics may not contribute well because the commercial probiotics are not viable in the target sites; thus, they may not contribute to shrimp farms. This might be the reason why do studies report that the probiotic application does not have a significant effect on production yields. A study by Huerta-Rábago et al. (2019) reported that the addition of commercial probiotics did not affect the dominant bacteria in both phyla and genus levels in rearing ponds.

All these facts suggest that methods and strategies for applying probiotics to aquaculture species should still be carefully restudied in order to increase their efficacy.

Then, what is the effect of probiotics in the present study on microbial composition in general? The results of the present study showed that probiotic supplementation appeared not to change the structure of microbial compositions in the GITs of shrimps, as indicated by no significant difference in the top three bacterial phyla in both the pro-

biotic treatment and the controls, which were Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Planctomycetes .

Acknowledging these issues, the probiotic application in commercial outdoor shrimp farms should be evaluated. More studies are still required in order to develop more effective strategies, especially in the commercial outdoor system. Applying probiotics directly, as practiced in the present study, should be avoided. Some factors such as time and frequency of administration, probiotic species, administration (encapsulation) method, and supplementation of prebiotics to support the nutrient requirements for probiotic species should be considered.

Conclusion

Four commercial probiotic species applied in the commercial grow-out shrimp ponds could not be detected in the rearing water or intestinal tracts of the white shrimps. These facts might explain why commercial ponds applying probiotics had high yield variations. The characteristics of probiotic species and environmental conditions on commercial outdoor farms may explain these results.

Thus, more studies on selecting proper probiotic strains with good tolerance in a wide range of environmental conditions or strategies on how probiotics are applied in commercial outdoor farms should be done in the future in order to increase the probiotic efficacy in white shrimp production.

This article is sponsored by: REEF INDUSTRIES INC.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “THE FATE OF PROBIOTIC SPECIES APPLIED IN INTENSIVE GROW-OUT PONDS IN REARING WATER AND INTESTINALTRACTS OFWHITE SHRIMP,LITOPENAEUSVANNAMEI”developed by:MuhamadAmin,Yoga Pramujisunu,Mirni Lamid,andYudi Cahyoko- Universitas Airlangga; OlumideA.Odeyemi - University ofTasmania; MuhamadAli - University of Mataram;Awik P.D.Nurhayati - InstitutTeknologi Sepuluh Nopember. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on NOVEMBER, 2022, through OPEN AGRICULTURE. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https:// doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0152

Adaptation of an anti-fouling strainer on our plastic OPTOD sensor dedicated to fish farming

By: Aqualabo*

We have decided to test several solutions to limit the clogging of the sensors and facilitate their cleaning following our discussions with users to better assist you in the maintenance constraints related to the field of aquaculture.

In order to study the performance of this new sensor, we compared the performance of a Titanium OPTOD and a plastic OPTOD on which an anti-fouling adaptation was installed. The two sensors were then installed in a port in Lorient (France-Morbihan 56), in the heart of the ocean racing center, in seawater immersion for two measurement campaigns lasting about 40 days (Figure 1).

First measurement campaign from August 28 to October 10, 2022.

The first measurement campaign took place from August 28 to October 10 without any maintenance during the 43 days. The sensors were associated with an ODEON (portable multi-parameter) and the temperature and dissolved oxygen data were recorded continuously with an acquisition time of 2 minutes. After 43 days of immersion, the bodies of both sensors are colonized by algae and the head of the OPTOD Titanium sensor is covered with biofilm and algae.

Although the body of the plastic OPTOD sensor is also covered with algae, the anti-fouling strainer, and in particular the active pellet, are in very satisfactory condition. There is no biofilm present, which has allowed the sensor to continue to measure reliable oxygen levels.

Aqualabo has been a major player in the field of aquaculture for many years, in particular by proposing, for more than 20 years, portable oximeters for the control of dissolved oxygen levels in fish farms. Based on our experience and our proximity to our customers, we have been offering a plastic version of the oxygen sensor (OPTOD plastic) for almost a year now, at a more suitable cost.

However, for more than half of the test period, temperatures were above 20°C, which created favorable conditions for biofilm and algae growth.

Although the body of the plastic OPTOD sensor is also covered with algae, the anti-biofouling strainer and especially the active pellet are in a very

satisfactory state, free of biofilm allowing the sensor to continue to measure reliable oxygen levels.

At the end of this first test period, the OPTOD Titanium sensor (blue curve) started to show shifts in measurement while the OPTOD plastic sensor, with the anti-fouling strainer (yellow

curve), continued to deliver consistent measurements. After this period of immersion, the dissolved oxygen measurement delivered by the Titanium sensor, without anti-fouling protection, deviates significantly from the measurements delivered by the plastic OPTOD sensor making the operation much less reliable.

The day/night cycles corresponding to the photosynthesis/respiration processes are still remarkable for both sensors; however, the data measured by the plastic OPTOD sensor with anti-fouling protection reflect the dynamics of the environment more accurately.

Second measurement campaign from October 10 to November 29, 2022.

After cleaning, the two sensors are reintroduced into the sea water for a 49-day test campaign under the same conditions as the first test period.

At the end of this second test period, the OPTOD Titanium sensor’s strainer and DOdisk are completely covered with biofilm and the measurements delivered by the sensor cannot be meaningful. The anti-fouling strainer, which is fitted to the OPTOD Plastic sensor, is very satisfactory condition after almost 50 days of maintenance-free immersion. Cleaning the anti-fouling strainer is very easy to perform, whereas cleaning the OPTOD Titanium strainer is more difficult, more invasive and could damage the DOdisk.

In addition, the %Sat dissolved oxygen measurement delivered by the Titanium sensor (blue curve) drops out completely and is no longer reliable. The plastic OPTOD sensor equipped with the anti-fouling strainer continues to function correctly.

Conclusion

The anti-fouling strainer is very effective in limiting the formation of biofouling on the plastic OPTOD sensor. Indeed, it protects the membrane and ensures the continuity of dissolved oxygen measurements after almost 50 days of maintenance-free immersion. The anti-fouling strainer thus allows optimize the manual cleaning frequencies of the DOdisk while preserving it from aggressive maintenance that could deteriorate it.

Non-Invasive Methods for Assessing the Welfare of Farmed

White-Leg Shrimp

(Penaeus vannamei)

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

The welfare of decapod crustaceans, the group with the most farmed animals on the planet, is becoming an increasingly important issue for researchers and society, and this debate will soon reach shrimp labs and farms. This article presents protocols specifically designed to measure the welfare of Penaeus vannamei at all stages of their production cycle, from reproduction through larval rearing and postlarval transport to juvenile rearing in earthen ponds.

The shrimp farming production chain is considered one of the world’s most controversial agri-food systems for animal protein production. The evolution of shrimp farming practices is currently taking place on several fronts. For example, there is a trend towards intensification of production systems for better utilization of resources; the pursuit of certifications and regulations to adapt shrimp production to the new demands of the market and society in general; genetic improvement of animals; improvement of shrimp feeding and nutrition; and increased efforts towards hygienic-sanitary controls and biosecurity in shrimp farms, to name a few.

This scenario of change, based on the scientific and technological development of the sector, in turn helps to understand why the global production of a single species, the white-leg shrimp Penaeus vannamei , has increased by almost 53% in 5 years. However, it is human nature that, despite all this progress, it is often a temptation to cling to traditional production methods and concepts that seemed to work satisfactorily in the past, even though they certainly no longer work in the same way or are no longer acceptable under present and future conditions. Perhaps this is a challenge to overcome regarding welfare in shrimp farming.

The welfare of an organism is inseparable from the degree of suffering and the positive states that this individual experiences at a certain point in time. Sentience, thus, refers to the ability of an animal to consciously perceive what is happening to it and what surrounds it, consciously perceive through the senses, and consciously feel or subjectively experience. The lack of studies specifically aimed at assessing the sentience of decapod crustaceans should, therefore, not be confused with the absence of sentience in these organisms.

Even if the question of sentience of the Penaeidea has not yet been settled among researchers, it is a fact that it is no longer possible to treat shrimps as simple “production machines”—they are not. Whether due to scientific findings or ethical reasons, several countries have already started to enact regulations for the species-appropriate and humane slaughter of crustaceans.

This article presents a paper that proposes protocols consisting of the indicators, respective references values and scores for assessing the welfare of P. vannamei in the phases of reproduction, larval rearing, transport, and growth in earthen ponds, and discusses, based on a literature review, the processes and perspectives related to the development and application of shrimp welfare protocols.

Materials and Methods

The indicators selected to assess the welfare of P. vannamei at the different stages of the production process (reproduction, larval rearing, transport, and grow-out) in earthen ponds (Figure 1) were established following the same logic already used for farmed fish species such as Atlantic salmon, Nile tilapia, and grass carp. These indicators were grouped according to four of the five domains:

(1) environmental, (2) sanitary, (3) nutritional, and (4) behavioral. The indicators related to psychological

freedom were not considered a separate category, as the other proposed indicators assessed this freedom indirectly.

The environmental, health, nutritional, and behavioral domains associated with P. vannamei and the indicators and their respective reference values during the reproductive, larval rearing, transport, and growout phases were identified based on a literature search using Google Scholar as the research platform. Books, technical and scientific articles, case studies, manuals, and handouts developed by international institutions, theses, and dissertations were sought. The search period covered 1976 to 2023.

Based on the information available in the literature, three scores were assigned (1, 2, and 3). Score 1 can be interpreted as covering the ideal variation limits for the target species. Score 2 refers to variations within the limits that animals usually tolerate. Score 3 refers to reference levels that affect the animals’ physiological, health, and behavioral status to an unacceptable degree, so their welfare and survival are at risk.

The evolution of shrimp farming practices is currently taking place on several fronts.

Invasive procedures (especially removal of the eyestalk in females) are considered the most critical point in shrimp welfare at the reproduction stage of the production process and should be avoided.

RESULTS

Reproduction Stage

The reproductive stage ranges from the selection of animals for the formation of breeding banks to their care (in tanks or earthen ponds) to mating and spawning.

Eleven environmental indicators were selected to assess the welfare of shrimp-farmed breeders. In addition to the parameters commonly used to determine water quality in a farm (temperature, pH, alkalinity, ammonia, nitrite, and salinity), photoperiod (when this variable is controlled), absence of predators (terrestrial or aquatic), and stocking density were considered. The controlled presence of terrestrial predators means that the predators are physically present in the environment but do not have direct access to the shrimp. This is the case, for example, when protective fencing prevents birds from accessing ponds. In these cases, however, even indirect contact with the predator could be detrimental to the welfare of the shrimp, e.g., as a carrier of infectious diseases.

Health indicators of P. vannamei breeding animals can be primarily measured by direct visual observation of the anatomical features of the animals. Luminescence, on the

other hand, when observed in animals in dark environments, either in rearing facilities or in the laboratory, is indicative of the presence of bacteria of the genus Vibrio. Sexual maturity refers to the characteristics of animals that have already been selected for reproduction and spawning in the laboratory. Invasive procedures (especially removal of the eyestalk in females) are considered the most critical point in shrimp welfare at this stage of the production process and should be avoided. Mortality rates must be assessed cumulatively (from the beginning of this stage to the time of analysis or at the end of the reproductive process). Genetic selection means the application or non-appli-

cation of properly standardized protocols used by the laboratory in the selection and husbandry of farmed animals. Nutritional indicators of P. vannamei breeders include, in addition to a direct indicator (the filling of the digestive tract with food), some essential aspects of the feeding routine, such as the composition and type of feed offered, the proportion of crude protein in the breeders’ artificial diet, the amount fed (as a percentage of shrimp biomass), and the feeding frequency. Behavioral indicators refer to shrimp swimming, feeding behavior during management, and outcomes related to the use of stunning methods when invasive procedures are performed on the animals.

Larvae Rearing Phase

The environmental Indicators adopted for the larval rearing stage here are essentially those already used for livestock rearing, except for the presence of predators, which are unlikely to be present in the ponds used for larval rearing. The reference values are adjusted accordingly for this life stage of the shrimp.

The health indicators for the larvae and postlarvae of P. vannamei are pretty specific and concern issues related to the laboratory itself, the conditions in the larval rearing tanks (questions directly related to the health status of the larvae at the time of assessment, uniformity of larval stages present in the tank, presence of poorly formed larvae, presence of epibionts, muscle necrosis or melanization of the exo-

skeleton, presence of lipid droplets and staining of the hepatopancreas of the postlarvae); and finally, the observed cumulative mortality rate concerning the batch analyzed.

Postlarvae Transport

Although it is known that in some cases, transport of nauplii takes place (sold between laboratories doing reproduction and larval culture and others doing larval culture only), only transport of postlarvae (which takes place between laboratories and farms) was considered here. It is proposed to use 12 indicators for assessing the welfare of P. vannamei postlarvae to be evaluated when the postlarvae arrive at the farm, including six environmental, two health, two nutritional, and two behavioral indicators.

Grow-Out Stage

The growth phase begins with the transfer of postlarvae to nurseries (in the case of biphasic rearing) or grow-out facilities (in the case of monophasic rearing) and ends with the selection of animals for breeding banks or slaughter for marketing and consumption. The indicators proposed here and their respective reference values have been established based on rearing in earthen ponds and do not necessarily apply to other rearing systems such as bioflocs or raceways.

The environmental indicators are practically the same as those already described for the breeders, except for the photoperiod, because since the cultures are carried out in earthen ponds, the photoperiod is always the natural one. However, water transparency was included here, an indirect indicator of the number of planktonic organisms in the water. It can be observed that the reference values for parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and stocking density also differ between juveniles and breeders. The welfare degree of the young can be assessed by anatomical indicators that can be analyzed without invasive methods (Table 1). Mortality rates can be assessed through daily monitoring, removal, and counting of dead shrimp from the pond, assessment of feed intake, and accurate quantitative surveys after harvest.

The nutritional indicators used to assess the welfare of the juvenile are essentially indirect, except for the visual assessment of the filling of the digestive tract (Table 2). The aim is to ensure adequate feeding conditions and, thus, good nutrition for the animals.

Therefore, the reference values and corresponding scores for some of the indicators (size of feed, amount of initial feed, frequency of feeding in the ponds, percent-

age of crude protein in the feed, and apparent feed conversion ratio) were established based on four size classes in the production process: for shrimp below 0.9 g, for juveniles from 1 to 3.9 g, and in two size classes where they can already be marketed for consumption, from 4 to 8.9 g and from 9 to 15 g. The other three indicators are independent of the size of the animals. Two scenarios were considered for the distribution of the feed: the distribution of the feed over the pond surface and the use of feeding trays. The behavioral indicators are specific to the different stages of the production process on a shrimp farm. The more restless the animals become, the more they jump (escape behavior) and become stressed.

The ecological and biological variables are so dynamic and interactive that it is impossible to think

of standardized management techniques or control environmental variables in ponds and hatcheries for shrimp farming. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible, for example, to establish acceptable ranges of variation in environmental parameters, to ensure the supply of natural food to the animals, to offer pre- and probiotics as part of the shrimp diet; to stimulate the growth of beneficial microbial communities, to carry out regular tests on the health status of the farmed animals and to promote their stunning before slaughter. The presented protocols aim to help measure the impact of all these practices on the welfare of farmed P.

vannamei

Conclusions

This paper is the first attempt to propose indicators that encompass all stages of the production process of a shrimp species and, in this case, an essential shrimp species for global aquaculture. However, it is foreseeable that technologies for monitoring the welfare of farmed shrimp and those specifically targeting GAP will increasingly converge from now on. This development will typically take place through so-called “precision aquaculture” (Samocha et al., 2002), which will include technologies such as the use of biosensors, data loggers, and early warning sys-

tems (Albalat et al., 2022); computer vision for animal monitoring, sensor networks (wireless and long range), robotics, and decision support tools, such as algorithms, the Internet of Things, and decision support systems (Antonucci, 2020; Hung, 2016). Such technologies will, in turn, provide shrimp farmers with important information to manage feed supply with minimum waste and maximum feed efficiency; assess organic waste accumulation in ponds to optimize the water quality available to shrimp; improve management decisions related to animal health; and increasingly use animal behavioral signals as indicators of their welfare and the efficiency of management practices applied.

Most likely, these non-invasive methods of measuring shrimp welfare will soon become routine in farms and laboratories, and it will become increasingly challenging to produce shrimp without taking into account the welfare of the organisms that are farmed, slaughtered, and offered to consumers, whether due to scientific advances in decapod sensitivity, consumer market demand, or changes in international regulations governing shrimp production and marketing—or all of these factors combined. The best evidence that this is entirely plausible is that remote water quality monitoring

The health indicators for the larvae and postlarvae of P. vannamei are pretty specific and concern issues related to the laboratory itself: the conditions in the larval rearing tanks; questions directly related to the health status of the larvae at the time of assessment, and finally, the observed cumulative mortality rate concerning the batch analysed.

technologies are already a reality in several places worldwide (Simbeye, 2014; Capelo, 2021). Further evidence shows that large companies are already incorporating issues such as sustainability certification, organic farming, and animal welfare into their social responsibility programs (Alfnes et al., 2018; Alfnes et al., 2017). Although the possible technological revolution has the potential to facilitate the assessment of welfare indicators is, it will not render the use of these indicators is superfluous. On the contrary, as is already the case with remote water quality monitoring, there is a tendency to integrate it with this and other technological tools. However, until this happens, any shrimp farmer can already measure the welfare of P. vannamei during the different stages and breeding processes.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “NON-INVASIVE METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE WELFARE OF FARMED WHITE-LEG SHRIMP (PENAEUS VANNAMEI)” developed by: Ana Silvia Pedrazzani -Wai Ora; Nathieli Cozer - Wai Ora, Federal University of Paraná; Murilo Henrique Quintiliano - FAI Farms; Camila Prestes dos Santos Tavares - Wai Ora, Federal University of Paraná; Ubiratã de Assis Teixeira da Silva - Federal University of Paraná and Antonio Ostrensky -Wai Ora, Federal University of Paraná. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on FEBRUARY, 2023, through ANIMALS. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050807.

Effect of HUFA in enriched Artemia on growth performance features of Penaeus vannamei postlarvae from Ecuador

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Postlarvae quality is one of the most important factors in hatcheries, affecting the entire process of growing farmed shrimp. Artemia has been the main live prey supplied to PL because of its size, its great acceptance by PL, and its easy storage in the form of cysts. Therefore, the enrichment of Artemia has a fundamental role in the aquaculture shrimp industry for the nutritional improvement of the species, as demonstrated in this article.

The world production of white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) has grown from 2.7 million tons in 2010 to 5.8 million tons in 2020 with a value of 29,534 million dollars in the first sale, being the main global species in relation to production value, ahead of the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar . Ecuador is the largest shrimp producer in the world with more than 1.2 million tons of shrimp produced in 2022. The demand for Ecuadorian postlarvae continued to increase in recent years due to the high development rate of shrimp farms and the increasing demand for high-quality postlarvae; thus, technological investment is focused, to a large extent, on improving the quality of the postlarvae produced.

Postlarvae quality is one of the

most important factors in hatcheries, affecting the entire process of growing farmed shrimp. Some of the standard quality indicators of larvae include growth rate and size, nutritional status, general condition, biochemical composition of the body, and hepatopancreas status. During the early postlarvae (PL) stages, feeding with live prey is still necessary as it provides high digestibility and water quality stability and stimulates digestive enzymes. From the beginning of the development of world shrimp aquaculture to date, Artemia has been the main live prey supplied to PL because of its size, its great acceptance by PL, and its easy storage in the form of cysts.

One of the biggest challenges for the Ecuadorian white shrimp industry is to produce high-quality PL,

with high growth and production potential. PL with a high content of unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) and phospholipids, which improve resistance to stress and diseases, have been identified as those with the best quality. In this way, the enrichment Artemia has a fundamental role in the aquaculture shrimp industry for the nutritional improvement of the species, once enriched with HUFA-rich particles, Artemia contains the necessary nutrients for fish and marine crustacean larvae to improve growth, survival, and metamorphosis success.

Limited information is available at the histological level about the effects of HUFA on the hepatopancreatic status of PL shrimp. Therefore, the present study had the objective of investigating, during a 12-day trial, the

effects of Artemia enrichment with microalgal emulsions enriched with fatty acids on growth performance, biochemical profiles, fatty acid profiles, hepatopancreatic perimeter, and hepatopancreatic histological structure of a population of Penaeus vannamei postlarvae bred in an Ecuadorian commercial farm.

Materials and Methods

A 12-day experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of Artemia enrichment with two experimental microalgal emulsions (formulated with selected fatty acid contents) on P. vannamei PL. For this purpose, 405,000 PL (stage 1) were obtained from a commercial hatchery in Santa Elena, Ecuador, and distributed into nine fiberglass tanks. Postlarvae were fed for 12 days with three experimental diets (three tanks per treatment): treatment A (Artemia enriched with experimental microalgal emulsion A and dry diet), treatment B (Artemia enriched with experimental microalgal emulsion B and a dry diet), and nonenriched Artemia (Artemia with-

out enrichment and a dry diet). At the end of the experiment, length (mm), coefficient of variation of the population sizes, number of postlarvae in a gram of weight (PL-gram), biochemical composition, fatty acid profile, hepatopancreas perimeter, and histopathological hepatopancreas status of P. vannamei postlarvae (stage 12) were analyzed.

Results

Artemia Enrichment

Lipid and fatty acid profiles (TFA%) of Artemia enriched with both experimental emulsions were not present significant differences between treatments (TA and TB) (TFA%). Artemia fed with microalgae A (MA) presented 19.8% of lipids; Artemia fed with microalgae B (MB) showed 17.76% of lipids; and unenriched Artemia showed 17.3% of lipids. The docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) content in enriched Artemia increased from 0.61 to 3.15% TFA compared with unenriched Artemia. The DPA content in enriched Artemia increased from 0.23 to 0.65% compared with unen-

riched Artemia. The arachidonic acid (ARA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) contents were very similar in the three treatments.

Growth Performance

At the end of the trial, P. vannamei postlarvae mean total length, coefficient variation in population sizes and number of postlarvae in a gram of weight (PL-gram) did not present significant differences between the three treatments.

Biochemical Composition and Fatty Acid Profile

Postlarvae total lipid, ash, and protein content did not show significant differences between TA, TB, and the control diet (postlarvae fed with nonenriched Artemia) (Table 1).

In terms of the fatty acid profile, postlarvae DHA content was significantly superior to animals fed with Artemia enriched with MA and MB (9.80 ± 0.71% and 9.75 ± 0.44%, respectively) than those fed with unenriched Artemia (5.78 ± 0.68) (p < 0.05) (Table 1). Consequently,

Postlarvae with a high content of unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) and phospholipids, which improve resistance to stress and diseases, have been identified as those with the best quality.

DHA/EPA and DHA/ARA indexes were superior in postlarvae fed with enriched Artemia (TA and TB) (Table 1). Postlarvae (PL12) fed with Artemia enriched with MA and MB showed a higher concentration of arachidonic acid (ARA) (3.31 ± 0.20% and 3.19 ± 0.09%, respectively), than postlarvae fed with unenriched Artemia (2.73 ± 0.04%) (p < 0.05) (Table 1). Postlarval DPA content was significantly superior in the treatment with Artemia enriched with MA (0.81 ± 0.06%) and MB (0.86 ± 0.08%) in comparison with that observed in animals fed with unenriched Artemia (0.43 ± 0.02%) (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, postlarval EPA content did not present significant differences between treatments (p > 0.05) (Table 1).

Hepatopancreas Status

The hepatopancreas perimeter was significantly higher in postlarvae fed with enriched Artemia (TA and TB: 1960.13 μm ± 262.80 μm and 1934.87 μm ± 294.20 μm, respectively) than in postlarvae fed with unenriched Artemia (1664.93 μm ± 328.10 μm) (p < 0.05). The score between treatments for hepatopancreas status categorization was higher in postlarvae fed with enriched Artemia (TA and TB: 3.38 ± 0.92 and 3.33 ± 0.58, respectively) than those fed with unenriched Artemia (2.91 ± 0.77), although no significant differences were found (p > 0.05). According to the microscopic study of P. vannamei postlarvae, the hepatopancreas of PL in TA was apparently healthy and well struc -

tured. The hepatopancreatic tissue presented a large number of welldeveloped B cells; no degeneration of the tubule’s lumen was observed. Moreover, the central tube was dilated (Figure 1a). Hepatopancreatic tissue from the postlarvae of TB is shown in Figure 1b. The hepatopancreas is well developed, presenting many vesicles and B cells surrounding healthy tubules and a slight increase in lipid deposition in comparison with PL tissues from TA.

The hepatopancreas of P. vannamei postlarvae fed with Artemia without enrichment presented a large portion of degenerated tissues, mostly in layers surrounding the organ, as well as a lower number of B cells and few healthy tubules and vesicles (Figure 1c). Although

there were no significant differences between treatments in terms of the categorization score, there was an obvious distinction between treatments as regards the presence of B cells, vesicles, healthy and welldeveloped tubules, and degenerated tissue.

Discussion

Nutritional Value of Artemia . In the study, the proximate composition (%) and fatty acid profile of enriched Artemia reflected the values of the experimental emulsions (MA and MB) used in the Artemia enrichment process, especially in the content of essential fatty acids such as DHA and DPA. Generally, the fatty acid profile of Artemia enriched with experimental emulsions was similar to previously reported profiles obtained with commercial products such as Olio w-3®, Red pepper ®, Top Rich®, Culture Selco®, microalgae mix of Dunaliella salina ,

and Chlorella vulgaris (K. M. Eryalcin, 2018). Both experimental emulsions presented a similar fatty acid profile; therefore, no significant differences were detected in the profile of Artemia enriched for 18 h with each product.

Growth Performance. Other longer-term studies found significant differences in Penaeus spp postlarval growth parameters when fed with enriched Artemia (G. Immanuel, et al., 2007; A. Ahmadi, et al., 2019). In this study, no differences were observed in growth parameters (length, PL-gram, and coefficient of variation in population sizes), perhaps due to the short period of postlarvae culture (12 days).

Fatty Acid Profile. No information has been reported about the effect of enriched Artemia on the fatty acid profile of P. vannamei PL after just 12 days of experimentation, corresponding to the PL production time of commercial hatcheries.

During this experiment, PL quality improved significantly in terms of essential fatty acid contents (DHA, DPA, and ARA) when postlarvae were fed with enriched Artemia (TA and TB).

In the present study, DHA levels in both experimental emulsions (MA and MB) were elevated and showed a significant effect on the content of this fatty acid in PL fed with enriched Artemia compared with unenriched Artemia . Similarly, several previous reports supported that the DHA content in P. vannamei PL was higher when they were fed with Artemia enriched with commercial products such as Easy-DHA Selco after 15 days of experimentation (INVE Aquaculture, Dendermonde, Belgium) (A. Ahmadi, et al., 2019; M. Nafisi Bahabadi, et al., 2018). The DHA content in PL fed with enriched Artemia (TA and TB) was 1.7 times higher than that of PL fed with unenriched Artemia (NE).

Generally, the postlarvae are fatty acid profile reported in this study was similar to that reported by Ahmadi et al. (2019). No significant differences were found in PL for EPA content, and according to Ahmadi et al. (2019), the EPA content in P. vannamei PL was higher when fed with unenriched Artemia than with enriched Artemia . Highly unsaturated fatty acids HUFA such as EPA and DHA are important components of phospholipids in cell membranes and affect membrane fluidity, lipid development and metabolism, reproductive development, and various functions of the cell immune system in marine species.

Hepatopancreas Status. The quality of the early postlarvae stages in shrimp is difficult to evaluate using only parameters such as weight gain and survival; therefore, microscopic criteria need to be evaluated. In this respect, the hepatopancreas is one of the most important organs

in shrimp, synthesizing, transporting, and secreting digestive enzymes, storing lipids, glycogen, and minerals, and being where most enzymes are produced. Characteristics such as tubule formation, color (dark or pale), and hepatopancreas size can be used as indicators of nutritional quality in shrimp (S. M. Suita, et al., 2015; FAO, 2004). In the present study, the hepatopancreas status of P. vannamei PL wet samples were observed daily under light microscopy. The brown coloration observed in the hepatopancreas was an indication of good health parameters (H. Manan, et al., 2015).

As this organ is very sensitive to different diets, shrinkage in size easily indicates negative effects (H. Manan, et al., 2015). At the end of the trial, the hepatopancreas perimeter was significantly higher in PL fed with enriched Artemia than with unenriched Artemia . Therefore, it appears that feeding live prey en-

riched with HUFA to postlarvae was beneficial for PL health and was reflected in hepatopancreas size.

Little information on the histological effects of HUFA in the hepatopancreas of P. vannamei PL during the early stages have been reported, even though it is one of the indicators of the shrimp’s health status. In the present study, the hepatopancreas of PL fed with enriched Artemia with both experimental emulsions (TA and TB) seemed healthy and well structured, with a large number of well-developed B cells, dilated tubule, and a reduction in degradation tissue. These latter observations were due to an increase in hepatopancreas secretions and coincided with a higher content of unsaturated fatty acids such as DHA, DPA, and ARA. The hepatopancreas of P. vannamei PL fed with unenriched Artemia presented a large portion of degenerated tissue surrounding the organ and a lower number of B cells.

B cells are most abundant in hepatopancreas tissue, highly vacuolated, and involved in intracellular digestion and nutrient absorption. Moh et al. (2021) reported an increase in B cell number when supplementation with Morinda citrifolia fruit was incorporated into P. vannamei diets, which potentially improved the conversion of F cells to B cells, signifying higher intracellular digestion and nutrient absorption. However, Moh et al. (2021) did not report the PL fatty acid profile to establish a congruence between both quality criteria. In the present study, the DHA content of PL fed with enriched Artemia was three times higher than the ARA content; as a result, the DHA/ARA index was significantly higher.

HUFA deficiency can cause more lipid vacuoles and incomplete cells

in the hepatopancreas of P. vannamei early-stage juveniles, but an excess could cause damage (W. An, et al., 2020). Damage was not observed in the present study, signifying that the HUFA content in both experimental emulsions used to enrich Artemia diets was well adapted to postlarval requirements. These results highlighted the need for future studies to establish the specific influence of fatty acid composition on hepatopancreatic cell morphology and status in shrimp. It is important to determine the precise amount of HUFA that does not cause oxidative damage to the hepatopancreas since, according to W. An, et al. (2020), the content of MDA (malondialdehyde) in this organ, which indicates the degree of oxygen free radical damage in cells, increased with increasing dietary HUFA levels.

At the end of the trial, the hepatopancreas perimeter was significantly higher in PL fed with enriched Artemia than with unenriched Artemia Therefore, it appears that feeding live prey enriched with HUFA to postlarvae was beneficial for PL health and was reflected in hepatopancreas size.

Conclusion

In conclusion, twelve days of culture are sufficient to significantly increase the content of unsaturated fatty acids, such as DHA, DPA, and ARA, in Penaeus vannamei postlarvae by enriching Artemia with formulated microalgal emulsions to obtain higher-quality postlarvae. In addition, HUFA enrichment improves the hepatopancreas status and health of postlarvae with respect to size, number of B cells and vesicles, quantity of healthy tubules, dilatation of the central tube, and surface of degenerated tissue.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “EFFECT OF HUFA IN ENRICHED ARTEMIA ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE, BIOCHEMICAL AND FATTY ACID CONTENT, AND HEPATOPANCREATIC FEATURES OF PENAEUS VANNAMEI POSTLARVAE FROM A COMMERCIAL SHRIMP HATCHERY IN SANTA ELENA, ECUADOR” developed by: Marina Martínez Soler , Gercende Courtois de Vicose, and Javier Roo Filgueira - Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; José Zambrano Sánchez, Edwin Yugcha Oñate, Magaly Montachana Chimborazo, Walter Intriago Díaz, and Eduardo Reyes Abad - BIOGEMAR S.A. Company/PRODUMAR Company; Juan Manuel Afonso López - Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MARCH, 2023, through HINDAWI AQUACULTURE NUTRITION. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7343070

Further professionalization of the aquaculture sector is essential

By: Antonio Garza de Yta, Ph.D.* Vicepresident. CIDEEA / Senior Fisheries & Aquaculture Advisor, AWJ Innovation.

Lately, contrary to what might be thought, or should be the case, the professionalization of the sector is undervalued. Technical knowledge is not considered a priority and it is thought that aquaculture is not an activity directly interconnected with scientific development and that it is necessary to understand the fine details of the sector in order to identify problems and propose solutions.

Contrary to what one might think, or should think, the professionalization of the sector is undervalued. Technical knowledge is not considered a priority and it is thought that aquaculture is not an activity directly interconnected with scientific development and that it is necessary to understand the fine details of the sector in order to be able to identify problems and propose solutions.

I understood how overwhelming inexperienced people can feel at an aquaculture event when I recently attended a vertical farming trade show. It was all new to me and it all sounded fascinating. You would think that a venture into this activity would be a resounding success. This is obviously far from the truth. The difference between serious companies and those dedicated to charlatanism and selling little mirrors is something that only an

expert eye can tell. In the case of aquaculture companies, only an expert can tell the difference between those who are telling the truth and those who are lying in order to make a sale.

Experience and years in the industry also allow you to distinguish the professionals from the unprofessional and those who try to fool new investors with ideas that sound exciting but are unfounded. Recently, I saw one of the most beautiful reports I have

ever seen in my career. It was full of graphs, figures, and images, but unfortunately, it contained fundamental errors. All Excel projects are wonderful, and any project can look like a gold mine if we artificially change survival, growth rate, feed conversion, and/or biomass to harvest.

Aquaculture is part of the primary sector, and although it can be very good business, if done properly, it is a primary activity, and should not be promoted, evaluated or compared with other types of activities that are not comparable. Only an industry professional can identify the details that can make or break a project.

I have also recently sat on several boards where decisions are made on the basis of appearances, by a group of financial and/or political experts who have no experience in aquaculture, and who will most likely not be involved in it again once their commission is over. In general, the right decisions are not taken because the search is for immediate results, without understanding that, being a relatively new activity, it is still necessary to invest a lot in technological development, genetics, nutrition, disease control, capacity building, among others. It is also necessary to invest in aquaculture’s backbone before imagining pharaonic projects.

On the other side of the spectrum, sometimes, due to romanticism and a lack of knowledge of the sector and of a good economic model, very small-scale actions are promoted that unfortunately will not go very far and will end up being only good intentions. I believe that it is easier for an aquaculture expert, who has received financial training and has a political position, to take the reins of decisions than someone who is just passing through.

The history of bad decisions and a lack of vision in investments, companies and governments due to lack of experience in the sector speaks for itself. We must continue to push for the sector to become more professional and for professionals to be taken into account when making decisions. From the entrepreneur or investor, to the corporate or government council, the professional is indispensable to significantly increasing the probabilities of success. The effort and dedication of individuals should be respected and valued, and those who have acquired the necessary experience should be recognized. Let us continue to promote the professionalization of the sector and its importance for the future of global food. #AQUACULTURENOW.

Sometimes, very smallscale actions are promoted that unfortunately will not get very far and will end up being just good intentions.

WAS President 2021 - 2022. Antonio Garza de Yta, President, Aquaculture without Frontiers (AwF), a renowned international aquaculture professional, who holds a Masters degree and a Ph.D. in Aquaculture from the University of Auburn, USA. He is an aquaculture expert, FAO frequent consultant, as well as a specialist in strategic planning. Ex-director of Extension and International Training for the University of Auburn and creator of the Certification for Aquaculture Professionals in that academic institution.

“Technification” and its role in intensification

Many ask why Ecuador is able to produce so much shrimp and why are they able to produce them so inexpensively? While questions of this nature rarely have a single simple explanation, it is more than likely that most of them are the result of the adoption of technology. Some are using the term technification to describe this. Technification can lead to increases in productivity, although it has practical limits.

By: Ph.D. Stephen G. Newman*

Ecuador is the world’s leading exporter of farmed shrimp with exports in 2022 of over 1 million MTs. Through April 2023, the trend is increased exports. Ecuador appears to be set for a 1.2 - 1.3

million MT year, provided that the market continues to remain strong. Many ask why is Ecuador able to produce so much shrimp and why are they able to produce them so inexpensively? While questions of this nature rarely have a single

simple explanation, it is more than likely that most of them are the result of the adoption of technology. Some are using the term technification to describe this. Technification can lead to increases in productivity, although it has practical limits.

The historical production paradigm in Ecuador has been low stocking densities in large ponds with modest water exchange rates, little to no supplemental aeration and feeding by casting feed or the use of trays. Some microbial tools have been used to treat the sediments prior to stocking. Ecuador lost almost 2/3rds of their farmed shrimp production when the White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) first hit in 1999/2000. It took the better part of seven years after that before they were producing at their preWSSV production levels. Since then, the rate of production has increased year after year in small increments until around 2016, when the growth rate began to accelerate (Figure 1). This has made Ecuador the world’s largest exporter of farmed shrimp. What are some of the reasons for this growth and what are the risks?

The trendline for the data above, MTs per year of shrimp produced, shows slow but steady growth with a gradually increasing rate of expansion, with production more than doubling from 2018 to the present. Along with this growth, there has been a change in the production model.

At this point, it is relevant to discuss another aspect of the production in Ecuador. The standard in

terrestrial agriculture and indeed in most aquatic production is to prevent animals from being exposed to obligate pathogens. Opportunistic pathogens are unavoidable, and the use of best management practices is typically the best approach towards limiting their impact. Exclusion is part of this, where practical. The idea is to reduce the overall susceptibility of the population via genetics, density reduction, nutrition, and stress reduction. For shrimp it is challenging to get rid of many pathogens simply because of the nature of the aquatic environment. Disease is controlled by limiting exposure and minimizing the factors that determine susceptibility. Ecuador took a different approach. Seeing that shrimp are different than other farmed animals, many decided that it made more sense not to control the levels of pathogens in the environment but instead allow them to impact the population. The theory was that the survivors would be resistant or tolerant to obligate pathogens. This was done using the existing paradigm, which was relatively low density, borderline extensive grow out. Shrimp were stocked at around 10 (+/- 5) animals per square meter and 60% of these survived to harvest. The largest animals were selected and used as the source

Why are they able to produce them so inexpensively?

of the next generation´s animals. This was repeated year after year. In 2023, this stocking number might average twice this (20 +/- 5). Moving much further than this could be problematic.

Known as all pathogen exposure (APE), some attribute Ecuador’s current success to this. Yet if one takes these animals and exposes them to obligate pathogens under controlled conditions in the lab, they succumb. I have witnessed this in the field. Ecuador can get (relatively) cold and there are times and places where the temperatures are too low for the ideal production of farmed shrimp. The shrimp grow poorly and/or have other issues and challenges. A group of animals being cultured under a plastic roof were culled in order to reduce the density in the pond and placed into cooler water. They broke with WSSV, and all died. What APE has done is ensure that obligate pathogens are endemic. If there was a very cold period of weather the disease and the opportunistic bacteria that thrive when animals are weakened by it would likely wreak havoc. Not only that, because no effort has been made to keep any pathogens out of the system despite claims that no shrimp from outside of Ecuador have been brought in,

animals have found their way into Ecuador. Additionally wild animals are still being used to try and limit the inbing that is a result of their genetics programs. There are likely pathogens present in these shrimp that are not characterized and are impacting animals.

The vibrio that causes acute hepatopancreatic necrosis syndrome (AHPNS) is present as is Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) (these are ubiquitous with very few countries not having them) and possibly any number of viruses, including several uncharacterized noda viruses among others. There are no stable immortal cell lines that allow the culturing of viruses of shrimp. Primary cell lines that die out after a few passages are all that exist. Histopathology is the primary tool for determining whether uncharacterized viral pathogens are present. Viruses invade cells and cause changes

in the cells as the virus replicates. These are readily apparent using the right stains and looking at the targeted tissues.

All animals that are a part of thriving dynamic populations exchange microbial flora. Major sources of disease in farmed shrimp globally are pathogens that move from broodstock to the PLs and onto the farm. If Ecuador were strictly APE and no measures were taken to minimize this, some pathogens such as the vibrio that causes the toxicosis AHPNS would impact PLs and animals that are stocked would still be succumbing from this toxicosis or if the exposure is low and chronic, growth and overall animal fitness in grow out would be affected. Some proactive measures are probably being taken. When animal densities increase either as a result of higher stocking densities or simply due to animals growing to much

Ecuador may find it challenging to keep expanding low-cost production.

larger sizes than has been the historic norm, as a result of genetic selection, the levels of stress that the animals are under increase as well as the pathogen pressure. Higher levels of pathogens increase the probability of pathogens moving between animals. This increases the likelihood of acute disease. Opportunistic pathogens also come into play as in many instances what is killing the shrimp is not an obligate pathogen. They are merely setting the stage. There is compelling evidence that many shrimp that succumb to WSSV are dying from secondary infections. The virus weakens them, and secondary pathogens kill them.

So, what is the bottom line?

Ecuador’s success is the result of technification. While APE might play some role, it has left Ecuador exposed. The evolutionary success of shrimp is due to a variety of reasons. A property that is common to most eukaryotes is the ability to incorporate pieces of viral nucleic

acids into their genome and use it to create what is known as RNA interference (RNAi). This acts by blocking the ability of the specific virus to replicate. How long it lasts, how effective it is, what pathogens it works on, etc. remain to be determined. These sequences are thought to be passed to the next generation although it is likely more complex than this or we would already have animals that were immune to infection at high levels. The only way to actually determine if this is present in farmed stocks requires challenging animals in the lab along with appropriate controls. Survival in ponds can be due to many things. What about those viruses like WSSV that are essentially dormant until the temperatures drop? We know that WSSV can start a cascade that leads to death even in animals that have been part of the APE program since its inception.

It remains to be seen if this theory is correct. Ecuador may find

it challenging to keep expanding low-cost production if technification is being used to intensify it beyond a certain point. Performance in the field is of course impacted by many variables and consistency can be elusive. Technology that allows farms to produce 50 or more MTS per ha per year, while not the norm, nonetheless exists in SE Asia and sporadically in the Americas. These are in small ponds, rarely a ha in size. Most are lined and heavily aerated. Automatic feeders are in use although some hand feeding is also common. Survivals rates can be higher than 90% (based on accurate stocking numbers). Ecuador has never been about producing high yields. It has always been about having a huge amount of developed acreage where a few MTs a year per ha is profitable.

Shifting to a high-density production paradigm requires the right animals and a clean production environment. Keeping animals free of

The challenge is to find the sweet spot.

pathogens maximizes the likelihood that the environment will be largely free of them. Shrimp can grow without the pressure of pathogens impacting their growth rates allowing them to realize their genetic potential.

There are limits to the carrying capacity of given production environments. Exceeding the carrying capacity results in stress and invariably, if persistent, disease problems. This is the history of shrimp farming. Exactly what factors in the paradigm impact the carrying capacity is complex. Waves of deadly diseases move through the global industry regularly and the number one reason shrimp farmers lose money is disease. There is no indication that this is changing nor is there any real reason to believe that it will. While some efforts are made, such as restricting the flow of broodstock and imports of potential vectors, there are lots of loopholes. Plugging these in is not easy.

Recent studies have shown that there are likely many viruses present in the marine environment in other invertebrates such as crabs that can be in close contact with farmed shrimp and could mutate and infect shrimp. One cannot help but conclude that caution is warranted. If attempts to raise stocking densities are resulting in high mortality, even sporadically, these should be discouraged. Even in those SE Asian paradigms with small, lined ponds, over feeding can set off a cascade of production challenges. The risks are real. Most knowledgeable animal health professionals who understand this will tell you that it is not a matter of if but when. How hard it hurts could (much as with WSSV) determine the short-term future of the industry. It has shown itself to be resilient when many others have not. Production in Thailand, once the world’s leader, dropped post WSSV and never returned to earlier levels.

Ecuador can and will continue to produce more shrimp. Technification/intensification will ensure this. The use of automatic feeders has dropped feed conversion ratios, resulting in less waste and a lower cost of production. Aerators that ensure that dissolved oxygen levels are almost always in the near saturation range minimize stress. The use of bioremediation/bioaugmentation has reduced the presence of accumulated waste and the amount of anaerobic pond bottoms that are generating hydrogen sulfide and methane, which are both detrimental and stressful. The question remains as to whether the current trend is sustainable and what the impact of APE is on the carrying capacity at higher production densities. It is important to learn from our mistakes and those of others. There are practical limits to what the environment can tolerate before feedback damages our ability to continue in the same manner.

With intensification there are still practical limits. Long held experience shows that excess feed levels > 90 kg/ha/day can be detrimental. The challenge is to find the sweet spot. The amount of biomass that is sustainable at a given density will not set off a cascade of events that result in a disease outbreak. Ecuador is up for the challenge and one can expect that they will continue to increase production as long as the market for shrimp allows.

sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com

www.aqua-in-tech.com

www.bioremediationaquaculture.com

www.sustainablegreenaquaculture.com

Stephen G. Newman has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland in Conservation and Resource Management (ecology) and a Ph.D. from the University of Miami, in Marine Microbiology. He has over 40 years of experience working within a range of topics and approaches on aquaculture such as water quality, animal health, biosecurity with special focus on shrimp and salmonids. He founded Aquaintech in 1996 and continues to be CEO of this company to the present day. It is heavily focused on providing consulting services around the world on microbial technologies and biosecurity issues.

Rough ride ahead

Heading into the second part of the year, the pathway forward for seafood and other protein players through the entire supply chain is going to be one of continued challenges.

By: The Fishmonger*

Heading into the second part of the year, the pathway forward for seafood and other protein players through the entire supply chain is going to be one of the continued challenges. Rabobank, one of the leading agri-business specialists, says it will be a time of ongoing uncertainty and a time for re-thinking growth expectations and business plans.

Overall whilst, Rabobank expects global animal production to grow modestly, but higher costs and the inevitable swings in consumption patterns will cause continual change. Elevated biosecurity risks and increasing levels of statutory require-

ments will impact some countries as their governments get serious about sustainability targets and move into the action phase.

Over the last few weeks, the Fishmonger, has been speaking to lots of people engaged in many sectors of the value chain and the constant thread has been how companies and people are looking at how they can do things more efficiently as the cost of living prices soar through higher interest rates, higher wages and higher charges for energy and other necessary items soar. Globally, we are in an inflation driven economic downturn and this is biting into consumers spending.

Every business needs to be looking at how it will maximize their opportunities during this period. Challenges create opportunities, be positive as you can prosper during downturns, but you need to be well organized and plan well. Seafood consumers will be looking for value for money and will likely not be treating themselves to higher quality items as much as they have.

Rabobank’s Global Strategist for Animal Protein, Justin Sherrard, was the lead author of the “Global Animal Protein Outlook – Deciding How to Grow Amid Challenges and Opportunities” said that 2022 was a year like no other and that 2023 will

Shrimp Darwin Style.

see a continuation of the disruptions and strife.

Justin said “Slow growth is expected in China across all species groups, and ongoing growth is expected in Brazil and Southeast Asia. Oceania will experience slow growth, while North American and European production will contract.”

Importantly, he did add that Aquaculture leads global growth across the species groups, once again, and its continuing expansion is supported by its relative independence from agricommodities prices. Poultry is set to maintain its consistent growth pattern, wild catch is set to expand slightly, beef production will decline slightly, and pork will see a decline.

Specifically in relation to Aquaculture it was noted that the Outlook highlighted Fish Meal and Fish Oil – Prices of competing commodities support prices for both, which may ease slightly in 2023; Salmon –A strong retail presence will support prices in 2023, despite weakening macroeconomic fundamentals and Shrimp - Supply remains strong, despite lower

prices and higher costs. Ecuador and Latin America are expected to continue driving the farmed shrimp supply in 2023.

From a retailer’s perspective, the adoption of an innovation mindset is essential in these times to help adapt to changing market requirements but ensure you take your customers with you on the journey! Show them you care and that their business is essential to you – now is not the time to be losing customers!

A few years ago, there was a report The Fishmonger recalls that highlighted waste in the seafood industry. They highlighted that seafood is essential to food and nutritional security, providing over three billion people with nearly 20% of their animal protein and it is the main source of essential nutrients for many vulnerable communities around the world with little access to alternatives. We simply cannot afford to waste it!

The global population is increasing; seafood consumption has doubled in the last 50 years and is likely to double again by 2050. We have maxi-

mized wild fish harvests and approximately half of the seafood we eat is farmed and yet, they argue that around one third of seafood is either lost or wasted.

The report highlighted that in some regions, much seafood loss occurs during processing when a large proportion of the fish remains unused – the skin, bones and fish heads are often discarded. Known as by- or co-products, these parts can represent between 30 to 70% of the fish. They said that to maximize the nutrition and value of seafood for all, it is vital that 100% of the fish is utilized – and it is arguably an ethical imperative, not just an economic one.

Fish parts are discarded during processing are an important issue that all companies, associations and governments should be addressing. UN Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 looks to halve food loss and waste by 2030, and a new ocean action agenda put forward in 2020 by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy also identified reducing seafood loss and waste as a priority area.

Spicy Crocodile.

An important step is to understand the losses that take place in seafood processing.

All of us in the industry need a shared understanding of the importance of preventing seafood waste and loss – particularly in processing. This could positively impact nutritional needs and deliver greater value from each fish, and in turn reduce pressure on our aquatic ecosystems. A first critical step is to agree widely

on accepted definitions of loss and how it is measured, as ‘if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.’

Collecting and analyzing data seems to be a major gap because there is a lack of up-to-date data – or a lack of data altogether – around food loss and waste in general, according to reports. To tackle this issue, it’s essen-

tial to know where loss occurs, what types of loss (such as what parts of the fish) occur, and what the cause of loss is (for example lack of efficiency, lack of market, or difficulty maintaining quality).

An important step is to understand the losses that take place in seafood processing. Tools such as the Food Loss and Waste Protocol enable companies, countries, and cities to quantify and report on food loss and waste, providing a standardized methodology and best practices needed to close data gaps. Cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders are also needed to increase the value of data and offset collection costs.

Sharing data on seafood loss between sectors can help support research – from processors to research institutes, and civil society organizations to government agencies. If you know from the collected data what type of by-product and how much is being produced, as well as the value it could have, it can help actors build the business case for increased utilization of by-products.

To improve technical expertise on ways to reduce loss and repurpose the by-products of processing, lessons learned can be shared across stakeholders – as has been done by the Iceland Ocean Cluster’s 100%

Many consumers know for ultimate health they should be consuming seafood.

Atlantic Salmon.

Steamed Barramundi Fillet.

Fish initiative, which helps connect sectors including academia and startups. Iceland Ocean Cluster also leads the knowledge-sharing tool Ocean Cluster Network and demonstrates that sharing information and coideation across sectors can help innovate the non-food uses of seafood by-products.

Specific operational improvements are also key to reducing losses – whether you are a small-scale producer or a large company. Improvements can include increased processing efficiency and better cold chain management that maintains the quality of the seafood. A number of innovative solutions have also been developed by very small-scale producers, for example the solar-powered freezers used by rural women in the Solomon Islands.

In order to boost efficiency, fish processors must have the resources or capacity to upgrade their operations. This can be costly, but the investment pays off: Many companies in Europe and North America have already invested in improving operational efficiency, which often leads to a reduction in waste, and can

eventually lead to greater cost effectiveness. An analysis by the World Resources Institute on food loss and waste more broadly found a robust business case for companies, countries, and cities when food loss and waste were reduced.

There are environmental, social, and nutritional benefits to finding innovative ways to re-use seafood by-products discarded during processing. There could also be big economic gains too: One study on fish farming in Scotland showed that using by-products for human consumption and animal feed could generate an additional US$32 million a year.

For example, by-products can be made into fishmeal and fish oil and used in animal feed, fertilizers, and supplements to improve human health.

Circular economy thinking is also driving other innovative uses for byproducts, like fish skin wallets, sports drinks, cosmetics, and biofuel. Doctors have successfully used fish skins to treat burn wounds, as fish skin is rich in collagen and moist enough to be more effective than a bandage.

However, while by-product recovery and use are already common practices in some supply chains, they need upscaling, adapting and replicating to cover more seafood processors around the world. There also needs to be a market for it.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration can help increase demand for underutilized fish parts. Education programs about the dietary nutrition of seafood could help encourage less waste and increase the use of less popular fish parts, simply by explaining the nutritional value and ways to prepare these parts. The organization Fair Fishing, for example, helps mainstream the idea of using less popular fish parts as “best practice” for both consumers and companies in Somaliland, finding this could simultaneously reduce seafood waste and contribute to economic development.

To that end, The Fishmonger recommends combating ways to minimize food waste. A good example is maximizing the use of the whole fish where and when you can. Fish wings were something that was on menus in Darwin recently (see photo of Barramundi Spicy Wings) and they seemed to be an item people were prepared to try as an entrée. These were from Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) which is a high end species so rather than throwing out the wings after processing they have been turned into a product that has value. Retailers can sell the product and pass on ideas for preparation and cooking.

Many consumers know for ultimate health they should be consuming seafood, but few know that much about the species, preparation or cooking so consider creating some education programs for them. Retailers could create a partnership with health-nutrition professionals and build a relationship that benefits both parties with the ultimate aim of increasing seafood consumption. Additionally, you could engage a chef to

Barramundi Spicy Wings.

create simple recipes and have cooking session’s whit the local people. You could expand this to schools, as mentioned in the last magazine column.

This demand is already being built on a more popular level, with civil society organizations and social media influencers collaborating to promote dishes made with less conventional seafood. Creative chefs are seeking to use these underutilized, typically discarded parts, championing “fin-togill” eating and producing cookbooks dedicated to the topic.

Seafood loss is a cross-cutting issue, and solutions that aim to use all parts of the fish, can bring a wide range of benefits. Collaboration to connect the dots between losses and unmet nutritional needs may help reduce the pressure on fisheries while increasing the total value of the whole fish.

If you want to share ideas on how we can do this do not hesitate to contact The Fishmonger. There are no bad ideas, as it’s essential to collaborate to tackle seafood loss and use 100% of the seafood we harvest from the wild or farm.

John McFadden Update –Crowned World Food Champion

We have been following the World Food Championship Final Table event right through to the grand final held in Bentonville, Arkansas, USA from May 18th to 21st , 2023 and focusing on our World Food Champion -Seafood, John McFadden and we are chuffed to report that John won through! With the win he secured the US$100,000 check, the title of World’s Best Chef and the kudos of many!

You will recall that John worked solo right through the Competition and he continued this way in the grand final making his win even more remarkable. The odds were heavily stacked against him as competition rules allow teams to compete, disadvantaging Mr. McFadden in the three-round Final Table event. He was competing alone, a long way from home and had to source equipment and ingredients in unfamiliar territory.

Unlike the festival atmosphere of the World Food Championships held in Dallas, the Final Table event was restricted to participants and invited

guests, with the competition held under controlled conditions at the Brightwater Centre for the Study of Food, an imposing setting.

Having won the title of Best Seafood Chef at the World Food Championships last November in Dallas, Texas USA, Mr. McFadden secured his place in the top ten shootout at Brightwater. In the Final Table there were two elimination challenges. Five chefs went home after the first challenge, and from the second challenge, only three progressed to the final. All bar John were teams of three chefs.

In the final challenge, John McFadden scored a clear win with 95 points out of 100, more than ten points clear of his rivals saying that the two courses he had to cook in the final challenge ‘matched his style’ and confidently telling the judges they were the sort of dishes he would cook for his family.

“My last challenge was to cook two courses from a five course tasting menu. My dishes were a take on ‘surf and turf’. The first dish was prawns, scallops and chorizo, cauliflower purée, roast crab, and a prawn sauce. The second dish was seared lamb,

Circular economy thinking is also driving other innovative uses for by-products.

Smoked Atlantic Salmon.

roast heirloom carrots, spiced carrot purée, dukkha, salted yoghurt, and hazelnuts,” said the delighted McFadden.

Crowned World Food Champion, Mr. McFadden reportedly said: “Throughout the course of the challenges, I think the toughest one was the second knockout challenge set by Chef Rafael Rios. To be honest, I felt really comfortable going into the third challenge. It really suited my food style, and we all know you tend to do your best cooking when you’re in a groove. I’m astounded and tickled pink at the win.”

WELL DONE JOHN MCFADDEN….

References and sources consulted by the author on the elaboration of this article are available under previous request to our editorial staff.

The winning seafood dish - need to ack WFChampionships.

John McFadden.

Upcoming aquaculture events

JULY 2023

AQUAEXPO EL ORO

July 11-13, 2023

Machala, Ecuador

T: (+593) 99 597-2885

E: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com

W: www.aquaexpo.com.ec

AUGUST 2023

SHRIMP AQUACULTURE: REGENERATION

August 16-17, 2023

Bali, Indonesia

T: (65) 6327 8825/ F: (65) 6223 7314

E: conference@tarsaquaculture.com

W: http://tarsaquaculture.com

AQUA NOR

August 22-24, 2023

Trondheim, No.

T: +47 73 56 86 40

E: post@nor-fishing.no

W: https://aquanor.no

JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ANIMAL SCIENCE

Co-organized by the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), the World Association for Animal Production (WAAP) and Interbull.

Aug. 26 - Sept. 1th, 2023

Lyon, France

T: +33 (0)6 25 64 53 17

E: General information: infoeaap2023@wearemci.com

Registration: registrationeaap2023@wearemci.com Sponsorship and exhibition opportunities: jean-marc.perez0000@orange.fr

W: https://eaap2023.org/

SEPTEMBER 2023

GLOBAL SHRIMP FORUM

Sept. 5-7, 2023

Utrecht, Netherlands

W: https://www.shrimp-forum.com/

EXPOPESCA ACUIPERU/SEAFOOD LIMA

Sept. 6-8, 2023

Lima, Peru

T: (511) 989-177-352

E: thais@thaiscorp.com

W: https://www.seafoodlima.com/

SEAFOOD EXPO ASIA 2023

Sept. 11-13, 2023

Singapur

T: +1 207-842-5517

E: sales-asia@seafoodexpo.com

W: https://www.seafoodexpo.com/asia/

BALANCED DIVERSITY IN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT

Sept. 18-21, 2023

Vienna, Austria

T: +1 760 751 5003

E: worldaqua@was.org

W: www.aquaeas.org

WORLD SEAFOOD CONGRESS 2023

In association with International Conference on Molluscan Shellfish Safety

Sept. 25-27, 2023

Peniche, Portugal

E: president@iafi.net and susana.mendes@ipleiria.pt

W: https://www.wsc2023.com/

AQUACULTURE INNOVATION CONFERENCE, INNAQUA

CHILE 2023

Sept. 26-28, 2023

Puerto Varas, Chile

E: innaqua@clubinnovacionacuicola.cl

W: www.innaquaconference.cl

OCTOBER 2023

11º INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS CONXEMAR-FAO

October 2, 2023

Vigo, Spain

T: +34 986 433 351

E: conxemar@conxemar.com

W: https://www.conxemar.com/es/congreso-2023/

AQUAEXPO GUAYAQUIL

October 23-26, 2023

Guayaquil, Ecuador

T: (+593) 99 597-2885

E: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com

W: www.aquaexpo.com.ec

CHINA FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD EXPO

October 25-27, 2023

Hongdao, China

T: +86 10 58672620

E: info@seafarechina.com

W: www.chinaseafoodexpo.com

NOVEMBER 2023

BUSAN INTERNATIONAL SEAFOOD AND FISHERIES EXPO (BIFE)

Nov. 1-3, 2023

Busan Korea

T: +82-51-740-7518,7519

E: bisfe@bexco.co.kr

W: https://www.bisfe.com:456/eng/

AFRAQ AQUACULTURE AFRICA 2023

Nov. 13-16, 2023

Lusaka, Zambia

T: (+1) 760 751 5005

Fax: (+1) 760 751 5003

E: worldaqua@was.org

W: www.was.org

advertisers Index

AERATION EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, FILTERS AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, ETC

DELTA HYDRONICS LLC.................................................................7

T: 727 861 2421

www.deltahydro.com

ANTIBIOTICS, PROBIOTICS AND FEED ADDITIVES

SÓMA.............................................................................................9

24, Hanbul-ro 69 Beon-gil, Eumseong-eup, Eumseong-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do 27698, Korea

E-mail : somafeednadditive@gmail.com

T: 043-878-0591

www.ssoma.co.kr

EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS

AQUACULTURE AFRICA AFRAQ 2023............................................5

November, 13-16, 2023.

Mulungushi International Convention Centre (MICC). Lusaka, Zambia.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2024.....................................................5

February, 18-21, 2024.

San Antonio Marriot Rivercenter, San Antonio Texas.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUA 2024 BLUE FOOD / GREEN SOLUTION................................5

August 26 - 30, 2024.

Copenhagen, Denmark.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUA EXPO EL ORO 2023.............................................................1

July 11-13, 2023.

Oro Verde - Machala, Ecuador.

Tel: +593 99 597 2885

E-mail: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com

www.aquaexpo.com.ec

AQUA EXPO GUAYAQUIL 2023..................................INSIDE COVER

October 23-26, 2023.

Convention Center, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Tel: +593 99 597 2885

E-mail: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com www.aquaexpo.com.ec

ASIAN PACIFIC AQUACULTURE 2024.............................................5

June 11 -14, 2023.

Grand City, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

TANKS AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE

REEF INDUSTRIES.................................................BACK COVER

9209 Almeda Genoa Road Z.C. 7075, Houston, Texas, USA.

Contact: Gina Quevedo/Mark Young/ Jeff Garza.

T: Toll Free 1 (800) 231-6074

T: Local (713) 507-4250

E-mail: gquevedo@reefindustries.com / jgarza@reefindustries.com / myoung@reefindustries.com www.reefindustries.com

AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE..........................INSIDE BACK COVER

Design Publications International Inc.

401 E Sonterra Blvd. Sté. 375 San Antonio, TX. 78258, USA

Office: +210 504 3642

Office in Mexico: +52(33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578

Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com

Sales & Marketing Coordinator

crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392

Sales Support Expert sse@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell:+521 333 968 8515

PANORAMA ACUÍCOLA MAGAZINE

Empresarios No. #135 Int. Piso 7 Oficina 723

Col. Puerta de Hierro, C.P.45116 Zapopan, Jal. México

Office: +52 (33) 8000 0578

Contact 1: Subscriptions

E-mail: suscripciones@panoramaacuicola.com

Office: +52 (33) 8000 0629 y (33) 8000 0653

Contact 2: Sales & Marketing Coordinator. crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392

Contact 3: Sales Support Expert

E-mail: sse@dpinternationalinc.com www.panoramaacuicola.com