2 »
»
1
2 »
»
3
4 »
WORLD AQUACULTURE TRADE SHOW 15 - 18 OCTOBER CONVENTION CENTER
REGISTER CONFERENCES REGISTRATION FEES
10% DISCOUNTS Group of 10 or more registries
REGISTRATION UNTIL AUGUST 31
CNA MEMBER INDIVIDUAL
USD 250 USD 300
USD 225 USD 270
REGISTRATION SINCE SEPTEMBER 3
CNA MEMBER INDIVIDUAL
USD 300 USD 350
USD 270 USD 315
Registration after September 28, the material is not guaranteed
For more information, please contact: - kzuniga@cna-ecuador.com - dmonteverde@cna-ecuador.com
For more information on the event, please contact: Ana Carolina Jáuregui (04) 2683 017 cjauregui@cna-ecuador.com For more information on the trade show, please contact: Niza Cely - (09) 9960 4204 ncely@cna-ecuador.com
Organizer:
www.cna-ecuador.com @cnaecuador
»
5
6 »
»
7
Photo: ZOETIS China.
8 »
»
9
10 »
» 11
12 »
GSI 2017 Sustainability Report
Leading the way to a more sustainable future—providing the world with a healthy and sustainable source of protein.
Sustainable Salmon Farming Plays an Important Role in Feeding the World
50%
Demand for protein is set to double by
2050
1
3.2 million tonnes
of seafood is currently farmed. Aquaculture is needed to support wild fish stocks2
of farmed salmon is produced globally per year3
Farmed fish is the most resource-efficient animal protein on the planet4
Farmed fish, like salmon, is a healthy choice— high in Omega-3 fatty acids, protein and nutrients6,7,8
Feed Conversion Ratio5
1.2-1.5*
1.7-2
2.7-5
6-10
1
2,000
3,500
2,500
9.8*
42.3
57.6
337.2
Fresh Water4
Gallon
Carbon Footprint5
(t of CO2-equivalent per t of edible protein)
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
*Figures reflect feed conversion ratio and carbon footprint of farmed Atlantic salmon
Global Salmon Initiative
17 members
8
8 countries
associate members
Key principles of 1. SUSTAINABILITY 2. TRANSPARENCY 3. COOPERATION
GSI Sustainability Report
5 years’ worth of data
14
All data for 2016 and 2017 have been independently audited
indicators based on ASC standard
9 environmental
+
5 social
Report highlights progress being seen in sustainability Salmon farming is a positive contributor to local communities: • GSI members employ over 20,000 individuals worldwide • Ongoing commitment to often remote communities through engagement in local activities ranging from sports clubs, to recycling initiatives, to educational activities
Key sustainability highlights from report: • Over 40% of farmed salmon produced by GSI members is ASC certified • An average rate of almost 40% reduction in the use of sea lice treatments over 5 year period, combined with a marked increase in the use of holistic approaches to sea lice
Through focusing on its four #PathwaysToTheFuture— responsibility, transparency, collaboration and innovation —the GSI believes it can drive significant improvements in the sustainability performance of the aquaculture sector, making farmed salmon a healthy and sustainable solution to feed a growing population.
management and on-going sharing of best-practices • Significant decreases in the amount of marine ingredients used in feed due to ongoing innovations into new alternative sources, and improvements in conversion ratios
REFERENCES 1 Marine Harvest. Salmon Farming Industry Handbook 2017. 2017. Available from http://marineharvest.com/globalassets/investors/handbook/salmon-industry-handbook-2017.pdf. Accessed April 2018. 2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. 2016. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf. Accessed April 2018. 3 FAO of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Department – Fishery Statistical Collections. 2016. Available from http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/en. Accessed April 2018. 4 Andy Sharpless. The Perfect Protein. 2015. 5 Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) Sustainability Report. Available from http://globalsalmoninitiative.org/sustainability-report. Accessed April 2018. 6 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA Provides Advice on the Safety and Nutritional Contribution of Wild and Farmed Fish. 2005. Available from https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/contam050704. Accessed April 2018. 7 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. Eighth edition. 2015. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed April 2018. 8 American Heart Association (AHA). Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Available at: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/HealthyDietGoals/Fish-and-Omega-3-Fatty-Acids_UCM_303248_Article.jsp#.WPXz7Wnyu71. Accessed April 2018.
GSI_Salmon www.globalsalmoninitiative.org
» 13
14 »
» 15
16 »
Table 1 Diets Biometric parameters Fish weight (g) Fish length (mm) Whole spawn weight (g) Ova weight (mg) Reproduction and survival performance Gonadosomatic index (%) Absolute fecundity (ova female-1) Eyed stage survival (%) Hatching survival (% of eyed) Swim-up fry survival (% of hatched)
C
Year-2 spawning V p-value
C
Year-3 spawning V p-value
1185 ± 253 1446 ± 205 <0.05 395 ± 45 406 ± 20 ns 224 ± 45 222 ± 43 ns 53 ± 7 44 ± 7 <0.05
3453 ± 727 570 ± 51 495 ± 140 65 ± 9
18.9 ± 2 15.3 ± 1.4 4243 ± 589 5113 ± 994 91 ± 4 69 ± 30 90 ± 5 56 ± 29 85 ± 5 50 ± 32
14.3 ± 2.3 11.1 ± 2.4 7680 ± 2538 6334 ± 1700 90 ± 7 84 ± 12 87 ± 10 82 ± 14 84 ± 7 78 ± 13
<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
3166 ± 539 558 ± 43 349 ± 84 57 ± 6
3ns ns <0.05 <0.05
<0.05 ns ns ns ns
» 17
Table 2 Diets Fatty acid Saturated MUFA Σ n-6 18:2 N-6 (LA) 20:2 n-6 20:3 n-6 20:4 n-6 (ARA) 22:2 n-6 22:4 n-6 Σ n-3 18:3 n-3 (ALA) 18:4 n-3 20:3 n-3 20:4 n-3 20-5 n-3 (EPA) 22:4 n-3 22:5 n-3 22:6 n-3
18 »
C1
C2
V
23.7 22.5 8.1 5.7 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.1 36.3 1.5 2.5 0.1 0.9 17.6 0.3 1.9 11.5
25.8 38.3 10.0 8.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 nd 20.2 2.7 1.9 0.2 0.7 6.9 nd 1.1 6.4
16.1 39.8 21.9 21.7 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 20.1 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
» 19
Table 3 Diets Ingredients (g/Kg) Fish meal* Corn gluten Soybean meal Wheat meal Durum wheat White lupin Dehulled peas Fish oil** Soybean oil Rapeseed oil Linseed oil Palm oil Soy lechithin L-lysine L-arginine CaHPO2.2H2O (18%P) Binder Min.-Vit. Premix Composition (%DM) Crude protein Crude fat Energy kJ/g DM
C
V
434 0 163 0 100 0 86 105 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
0 170 200 250 49.8 57.2 30 0 0 62 37 24 20 15 10 35 20 20
40 28 24.5
44.8 23.3 23.6
60 40 0
20
Survival rate (%)
80
100
Fig. 1
Eyed
Hatching Resorption Swim-up fry Eyed
Hatching Resorption Swim-up fry
C-fed offspring (left) vs V-fed offspring (right) at 2-year spawning.
20 »
» 21
22 »
» 23
24 »
» 25
ARTICLE
Fig 2A. Similarities and differences among Norwegian (NB, NO, NI, NG), Swedish (SS) and Danish (DA) Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) populations visualized by Chords distance in a Principal Coordinate analysis (a and c) and Neighbour Joining tree plot (b and d). Based on all sampled locations (a and b), and for all locations except location NB (c and d), to explore and visualize the genetic distances without location NB that act as an outlier in the data set.
26 Âť
Fig 2B. Simulation of larval dispersal. The spatial distribution of the 369 landed Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) larvae in Swedish and Norwegian coastal waters in total for the simulated years (1990, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2010), summed per coastal grid cell (50x50 km). Number of landed larvae (super-individuals) per grid cell is shown (see legend). The location and names of the sampled DNA stations in this study are indicated. Reprinted from Rinde et al. 2016 under a CC BY license, with permission from NIVA, original copyright 2016.
Adapted from: Marc B. Anglès d’Auriac1, Eli Rinde1*, Pia Norling1¤, Sylvie Lapègue2, Andre Staalstrøm1, Dag Ø. Hjermann1, Jens Thaulow1 (2017) Rapid expansion of the invasive oyster Crassostrea gigas at its northern distribution limit in Europe: Naturally dispersed or introduced? PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177481 Norwegian Institute of Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway, 2 French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (Ifremer), SG2M-LGPMM, Laboratoire de GeÂneÂtique et Pathologie des Mollusques Marins, La Tremblade, France 1
» 27
28 »
Table 1 Summary of the consequences of genetic improvement in TGC (thermal growth coefficient) and FCR (feed conversion ratio) on technical performances of a sea cage farm constrained by different quota (M. Besson et al., 2017). Quota type Qprod Qannual_feed Qstock Qdaily_feed
Improving TGC none none Production Production
Improving FCR Production efficiency Production + Production efficiency Production efficiency Production + Production efficiency
Âť 29
Qprod Qannual_feed Qstock Qdaily_feed
none none Production Production
Production efficiency Production + Production efficiency Production efficiency Production + Production efficiency
Table 2 Effect of different values of Thermal Growth Coefficient (TGC) and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) on fish production parameters in different quota scenarios (M. Besson et al., 2017).
Quota
TGC
Qprod
2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25
Qannual_feed
Qstock
Qdaily_feed
Feed Days to Number of batch Production Production consumption Income reach at farm per farm (USD FCR harvest produced per batch (t) (t) (#) (t) x 1000) weight (d) 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64
2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64
573 528 573 573 528 573 573 528 573 573 528 573
30.87 35.64 30.87 31.22 36.43 28.97 32.02 34.49 32.02 31.12 35.06 29.34
30.87 35.64 30.87 31.22 36.43 28.97 32.02 34.49 32.02 31.12 35.06 29.34
32.4 28.1 32.4 32.0 27.4 42.5 31.2 30.6 31.2 32.1 20.5 39.6
32.4 28.1 32.4 32.0 27.4 42.5 31.2 30.6 31.2 32.1 20.5 39.6
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1232 1000 1055 1000 1000 1035 1162
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1232 1000 1055 1000 1000 1035 1162
2047 2047 1660 2047 2047 2047 2046 2160 1657 2046 2118 1929
2047 2047 1660 2047 2047 2047 2046 2160 1657 2046 2118 1929
6677 6677 6677 6676 6674 8230 6674 7042 6674 6676 6908 7760
6677 6677 6677 6676 6674 8230 6674 7042 6674 6676 6908 7760
Feed cost (USD x 1000)
Juveniles cost (USD x 1000)
Fixed cost (USD x1000)
Profit (USD x 1000)
3175 3175 2575 3174 3174 3174 3171 3350 2570 3173 3284 2991
825 825 825 825 825 1017 825 871 825 825 854 959
2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678 2678
-0.04 -622.45 5999828.21 -66.79 -621.52 1361259.52 0.55 143546.93 602017.47 0.70 92688.53 1132125.99
3175 3175 2575 3174 3174 3174 3171 3350 2570 3173 3284 2991
Table 3 Effect of different values of Thermal Growth Coefficient (TGC) and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) on annual emission of pollutants and environmental impacts in different quota scenarios (M. Besson et al., 2017).
Quota
TGC
Qprod
2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.25 2.48 2.25
Qannual t_feed
Qstock
Qdaily _feed
30 »
Climate change Eutrophication Acidification Production (kg SO2 (kg PO4 COD Phosphorus (kg CO2 Nitrogen per -eq/ton -eq/ton FCR emission emission emission -eq/ton farm of fish) of fish) (t) (t) (t) of fish) (t) 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64 2.02 2.02 1.64
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1232 1000 1055 1000 1000 1035 1162
114.92 11.98 88.29 114.87 114.93 108.84 114.79 121.2 88.11 114.86 118.94 102.59
2614.15 2616.06 1959.10 2613.11 2615.01 2414.94 2611.13 2757.49 1954.71 2612.80 2706.36 2276.24
16.44 16.45 12.18 16.43 16.45 15.02 16.42 17.34 12.16 16.43 17.02 14.16
3636.53 3636.53 2995.38 3636.02 3636.02 2949.75 3635.28 3622.52 2991.65 3635.76 3627.54 2960.63
168.62 168.73 127.90 168.59 168.69 127.66 168.51 168.57 127.68 168.58 168.67 127.67
21.77 21.77 18.33 21.76 21.76 17.66 21.76 21.57 18.31 21.76 21.64 17.83
EV EV TGC FCR (USD/kg) (USD/kg) 0
0.6
0
1.36
0.14
0.60
0.10
1.13
» 31
ARTICLE
114.92 11.98 88.29 114.87 114.93 108.84 114.79 121.2 88.11 114.86 118.94 102.59
Qprod
Qannual t_feed
Qstock
Qdaily _feed
2614.15 2616.06 1959.10 2613.11 2615.01 2414.94 2611.13 2757.49 1954.71 2612.80 2706.36 2276.24
16.44 16.45 12.18 16.43 16.45 15.02 16.42 17.34 12.16 16.43 17.02 14.16
3636.53 3636.53 2995.38 3636.02 3636.02 2949.75 3635.28 3622.52 2991.65 3635.76 3627.54 2960.63
168.62 168.73 127.90 168.59 168.69 127.66 168.51 168.57 127.68 168.58 168.67 127.67
21.77 21.77 18.33 21.76 21.76 17.66 21.76 21.57 18.31 21.76 21.64 17.83
Table 4 Environmental Value (ENV) of TGC (thermal growth coefficient) at fish and farm level in different quota. Between brackets is the percentage a change in environmental impacts. A negative sign means that the environmental impact considered increased after genetic change (M. Besson et al., 2017). ENV at farm level
ENV at fish level
Quota
TGC
Climate change Eutrophication Acidification Climate Change Eutrophication Acidification (kg PO4-eq) (kg SO2-eq) FCR (kg CO2-eq) (kg PO4-eq) (kg SO2-eq) (kg CO2-eq)
Qprod
2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48
2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03
Qannual _feed Qstock Qdaily _feted
32 Âť
0 (0%) 0 (0%) -186.84 (-5.14%) -118.74 (-3.25%)
-0.11 (-0.06%) -0.11 (-0.06%) -9.35% (-5.55%) -5.97 -3.54%
0 (0%) 0 (0%) -1 (-4.61%) -0.63 (-2.91%)
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12.76 -0.35% 8.22 (-0.23%)
-0.11 -0.11 (-0.06%) -0.06 (-0.04%) -0.09 (-0.05)
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0.19 (-0.86%) 0.12 (-0.55%)
Table 5 Environmental Value (ENV) of FCR (feed conversion ratio) at fish and farm level in different quota. Between brackets is the percentage a change in environmental impacts. A positive value means that the environmental impact considered decreased after genetic change (M. Besson et al., 2017). ENV at farm level
ENV at fish level
Quota
TGC
Climate change Eutrophication Acidification Climate Change Eutrophication Acidification (kg PO4-eq) (kg SO2-eq) FCR (kg CO2-eq) (kg PO4-eq) (kg SO2-eq) (kg CO2-eq)
Qprod
2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48 2.25 2.48
2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.03
Qannual _feed Qstock Qdaily _feted
641.15 (17.63%) 0 (0%) 643.63 (17.71%) 194.12 (5.34%)
40.72 (24.15%) 11.23 (6.66%) 40.83% (24.24%) 20.16 (11.96%)
3.44 (15.80%) 0 0%) 3.45 (15.86%) 1.04 (4.79%)
641.15 (17.63%) 686.27 (18.87%) 643.63 (17.71%) 675.13 (18.57%)
40.72 (24.15%) 40.93 (24.28%) 40.83 (24.23%) 40.91 (24.27%)
3.44 (15.80%) 4.11 (18.87%) 3.45 (15.865) 3.94 (18.09%)
Adapted from: M. Besson1,2*, I. J. M. de Boer3, M. Vandeputte2,4, J. A. M. van Arendonk1, E. Quillet2, H. Komen1, J. Aubin5, (2017) Effect of production quotas on economic and environmental values of growth rate and feed efficiency in sea cage fish farming. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173131. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0173131 Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2 Genetique animale et biologie integrative, INRA, AgroParisTech, Universite Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France 3 Animal Production Systems group, Wagenin 4 IFREMER, Chemin de Maguelone, Palavas-les-Flots, France, 5 INRA, Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1069 Sol Agronomie Spatialisation, Rennes, France
1
Âť 33
34 »
» 35
Fig. 1 SOL AZUL A vertically integrated company • Controlled seed production in a hatchery located in La Paz, Baja California Sur, with an annual production of 30 million seed • A nursery located in Laguna de San Ignacio, Baja California Sur • Two production sites: -Laguna de San Ignacio – 160 ha -Laguna Manuela – 45 ha • Total concession area of 250 ha • A processing and packing plant in Laguna de San Ignacio with a monthly capacity of 80 thousand dozen oysters • A shipping plant in Ensenada, Baja California • A distribution and marketing department in San Diego, CA, United States
36 »
» 37
38 »
» 39
40 »
» 41
42 »
» 43
44 »
» 45
46 »
» 47
48 »
» 49
50 »
» 51
52 »
Fig. 1 Evolution of disease in wild populations (incl. salmon). MEANING
PATTERN SPORADIC INCIDENCE OF DISEASE
-infrequent and without discernable pattern
ENDEMIC INCIDENCE OF DISEASE
-predicable pattern
IMPLICATION -infrequent appearance of pathogen OR pathogen usually present and clinical disease results from effects of others factors -GOOD BALANCE -long term balance between pathogen and animal,the lower the level,the better the balance -BALANCE IS DYNAMIC
INCIDENCE OF DISEASE
EPIDEMIC
TIME
-level of disease is generally greater than 2 standard deviations above normal and this was not predictable
-GROSS IMBALANCE with agent having upper hand (e.g.: newly introduced EXOTIC)
» 53
Fig. 2
“FROM AN ECOLOGIC VIEWPOINT THE PRODUCTION OF DISEASE OR DEATH RARELY FAVORS PERPETUATIONOF THE AGENT... THUS NATURAL SELECTION FAVORS LESS PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS.” -Martin,Meek and willeberg,1987: Veterinary Epidemiology: Principles and Methods
It is in the best interest of a germ to not be noticed by the fish... and most of the time they aren´t.
54 »
» 55
Fig. 3 Criteria for listing an aquatic disease Disease proposed for listing should meet the relevant criteria as set out in A. Consequences, B. Spread and C. Diagnosis. Therefore, to be listed, a disease should have the following characteristics: 1 or 2 or 3; and 4 or 5; and 6; and 7; and 8. Such proposals should be accompanied by a case definition for the disease under consideration. No.
Criteria for listing
Explanatory notes A. Consequence
1
The disease has been shown to cause significant production losses at a national or multinational (zonal or regional) level.
There is a general pattern that the disease will lead to losses in susceptible species, and that morbidity or mortality are related primarily to the infectious agent and not management or environment factors. (Morbidity includes, for example, loss of production due to spawning failure). The direct economic impact of the disease is linked to its morbidity, mortality and effect on product quality. Wild aquatic animal populations can be populations that are commercially harvested (wild fisheries) and hence an economic asset. However, the asset could be ecological or environmental in nature, for example, if the population consists of an endangered species of aquatic animal or an aquatic animal potentially endangered by the disease.
2
Or
The disease has been shown to or scientific evidence indicates that it is likely to cause significant morbidity or mortality in wild aquatic animal populations.
3
Or
The agent is of public health concern. And B. Spread Infectious aetiology of the disease is proven.
4 5
Or
An infectious agent is strongly associated with the disease, but the aetiology is not yet known.
Infectious diseases of unknown aetiology can have equality high-risk implications as those diseases where the infectious aetiology is proven. Whilst disease occurrence data are gathered, research should be conducted to elucidate the aetiology of the disease and the results be made available within a reasonable period of time.
2015 OIE - Aquatic Animal Health Code - 16/07/2015
Fig. 4
HOST
DISEASE
GERM (pathogen: virus,bacteria or parasite)
56 Âť
ENVIRONMENT
Fig. 5
“Science will continue to be the victim of antiscience sophistry until the defenders of science learn to use rhetoric as skillfully” -Leah Ceccarelli
» 57
58 »
» 59
60 »
iQShrimp™ driven by iQuatic™ is the first analytics tool in the aquaculture industry to improve on farm decision making by centralizing multiple data sources on a single cloud based platform
Collect and manage data conveniently Make data-driven decisions Predictive analytics to improve farm economics
iQShrimp™ is much more than an app ! With iQShrimp™, farmers will be equipped with real time information to make the best decisions
Learn more at www.iquatic.com
» 61
62 »
» 63
64 »
» 65
66 »
» 67
68 »
» 69
70 »
» 71
72 »
» 73
74 »
» 75
76 »
Figure 1 Urner Barry White Shrimp Index. All Origins, Weighted 2016
2017
2018
$7.00
$ / lbs.
$6.50 $6.00 $5.50 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
» 77
78 »
Figure 1 2016
2017
2018
Urner Barry White Shrimp Index. All Origins, Weighted
$/lb.
$5.00 $4.75 $4.50 $4.25 $4.00
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
A
S
O
N
D
A
S
O
N
D
Figure 2 Urner Barry Black Tiger Shrimp Index. All Origins, Weighted
$/lb.
$9.00 $8.38 $7.75 $7.13 $6.50
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
Figure 3 Urner Barry Value Added Shrimp Index. All Origins, Weighted
$/lb.
$6.00 $5.00 $5.60 $5.40 $5.20
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
» 79
80 »