2 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
»
1
INDEX
Aquaculture Magazine Volume 46 Number 2 April - May 2020
4
EDITOR´S COMMENTS
6
INDUSTRY NEWS
14 ARTICLE
The aqua feed sector could be the biggest factor and driver towards a shift to a more sustainable aquaculture.
18 ARTICLE
Suppression of white feces syndrome in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, using hen egg white lysozyme.
26 ARTICLE
on the
cover FAO publishes information on how COVID-19 is affecting aquaculture food systems
48
Bacterial Community Dynamics During Nursery Rearing of Pacific White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Revealed via High-Throughput Sequencing. Volume 46 Number 2 April - May 2020
32
ARTICLE
Feasible options to restore genetic variation in hatchery stocks of the globally important farmed shrimp species, Litopenaeus vannamei.
40 ARTICLE
Aligning the management of capture fisheries and marine aquaculture for the future.
Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com
Editorial Assistant Lucía Araiza editorial@dpinternationalinc.com
Editorial Design Francisco Cibrián
Designer Perla Neri design@design-publications.com
Sales & Marketing Coordinator Juan Carlos Elizalde crm@dpinternationalinc.com
56 LATIN AMERICA REPORT Recent News and Events.
Sales Support Expert Claudia Marín sse@dpinternationalinc.com
Business Operations Manager Adriana Zayas administracion@design-publications.com
80 URNER BARRY
TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH. SHRIMP.
Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA 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:
EVENTS 84 UPCOMING ADVERTISERS INDEX 2 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
COLUMNS
60
OUT AND ABOUT
An increase in global consumption of farmed seafood is expected over the next 10 years. By: Salvador Meza *
62
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
68
AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING
Science-deniers and the global ecological crisis. By Neil Anthony Sims
Is Developing a Brand Worth the Time and Money for your Aquaculture Business? By: Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatics LLC*
72
THE SHELLFISH CORNER
76
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
Controlling Biofouling on Shellfish and Gear. By Michael A. Rice
Does pseudoscience negatively impact aquaculture sustainability? By: Ph.D Stephen G. Newman*
APRIL - MAY 2020
»
3
Changes in our editorial staff:
thanks Greg Lutz! By: Aquaculture Magazine Staff*
With recent changes in our editorial staff alignment, we want to dedicate this editorial review to the valuable contributions that our former Editor in Chief and friend Greg Lutz had during these lasts six years of hard work for the publication. Ph.D. Greg Lutz is the author of the book Practical Genetics, a renowned professor and genetics specialist at the Agricultural Center of Louisiana State University.
I
n April 2010, Aquaculture Magazine was acquired by Design Publications International, Inc., a subsidiary of Design Publications, which publishes Panorama Acuícola Magazine, the leading aquaculture magazine in Latin America. It was not until 2013 when Design Publications International Inc., got in touch with Greg Lutz to discuss the possibility of having him on board as Editor in Chief. In February 2014, the work of Greg gave its first great results with a well-organized re-launch of Aquaculture Magazine that was coincident with the Aquaculture America Conference in Seattle, Washington, USA. Since then, an editorial team headed by Greg worked hard to develop a “new” magazine with relevant content for the North American Industry, but with an international perspective. 4 »
“Since then, we have been working hard to get the magazine back to where it was in its prior glory, and we seem to be making good progress.” wrote Greg in his first editor’s comments section in 2014. Greg was, for six consecutive years, and 37 continual bimonthly editions, the best Editor in Chief we could have had. Greg, as Editor-in-Chief, compiled a wide range of exciting themes and stories that reflect his openness to contributions that established very successful columns among our audience. Some of the most widely read columns were: Salmonids Aquaculture, Offshore Aquaculture, The Shellfish Corner, Port-harvest, Tech-guru, Genetics, Shrimp Aquaculture, and many other topics in the contemporary aquaculture industry.
Greg has undoubtedly created a stellar group of columnists. As of this issue (April-May 46.2), Greg Lutz ends his term as Editor-inChief of Aquaculture Magazine. He will be joining as a columnist, from time to time, according to his occupations. The entire team of Aquaculture Magazine, we want to thank Greg, all the patience, and the hard work he did during his performance as Editor in Chief. We had a teacher from whom we learned many more things than can be learned from a colleague at work. With his positive gaze, he always encouraged all of us to keep going, contributing ideas and knowledge. Thanks, Greg!
Current and future challenges There are new challenges in this fully APRIL - MAY 2020
A message from Greg Lutz:
Early in my career I was the Genetics and Breeding columnist for Aquaculture Magazine, but a series of events led to its apparent demise in the mid-2000’s. In July of 2013, however, I got an email from Salvador Meza, our Publisher, saying that the Magazine was going to be re-launched and inviting me to serve as Editor in Chief. Had I realized how much time it would require I might have thought twice before saying yes, but I immediately accepted. Over the past 6 years I have learned so many things about so many aspects of aquaculture, and been given the opportunity to express my opinions in the Editor’s Comments of every issue. It was worth every minute. I am proud of the Magazine we have built together. When I say we, I am referring to all of the columnists that have freely contributed their expertise and insight over the years, and especially the Editorial Assistants and our Designer. I also appreciate the participation of our readers. You make it all possible and validate our efforts. Most of our lives are currently impacted by factors far beyond our control. And although magazines don’t succumb to viruses there are often many unseen factors that can impact their survival as well. With luck, and the dedication of our staff in the home office, Aquaculture Magazine will continue to survive these challenges. For now, circumstances dictate that I will be leaving and I will be more focused on consulting work going forward. I will continue to contribute to the success of this publication to the extent possible; it has become an important information resource for so many of us. Please keep in touch, lutzaqua@att.net
digitalized new chapter we are undertaking with the magazine. From August 2019 on the edition went digital, so for the last five issues, the publication has only been distributed through digital platforms. Furthermore, the migration tendencies for the information in our industry are heading in that direction, so we are keeping up with the challenge and working hard to have a more substantial presence across digital platforms and social media. Meanwhile, we will continue to work hard in order to make this magazine a valuable publication and a content source for the aquaculture industry globally. We hope all of our readers enjoy the present edition in which we include a wide range of articles, columns, and sections mainly focused on offshore aquaculture, Shrimp production, and APRIL - MAY 2020
health, as well as the impacts and perspectives around the world concerning the COVID-19 outbreaks. We are always interested in themes and topics for articles and columns. We
welcome questions, comments, and suggestions from our readers and our social community in digital platforms. Feel free to contact us at any time. editorial@dpinternationalinc.com »
5
INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT
US lawmakers requested urgent financial assistance to fishermen and seafood processors impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Government responded Senators Edward J. Markey (DMass.) and Lisa Murkowski (RAlaska) joined by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) addressed the Senate leadership through a letter at the of March calling for urgent support for the fishing and seafood industries as they began to endure severe economic hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the vast amount of domestic seafood that is enjoyed in restaurants and exported to international markets, the closure of these markets due to the COVID-19 pandemic has caused fishermen and seafood processors to face uniquely drastic economic impacts. As part of the urgently needed support, the letter highlighted a variety of ways Congress could help the industry, including: establishing federal procurement programs for U.S. seafood products, federal fisheries disaster assistance funding, and the inclusion of support mechanisms for ves-
sel loan payments assistance in any economy-wide coronavirus response package. In response to this scenario the US Senate has set aside $300 million of its $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill for fisheries and aquaculture operators who are not otherwise covered by agricultural disaster assistance programmes. The bill is designed to stimulate the economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic that has led to widespread shutdowns intended to slow the spread of the virus.
The funding will be made available to: “Tribes, persons, fishing communities, aquaculture businesses not otherwise eligible for assistance under part 1416 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations for losses related to COVID–19, processors, or other fishery-related businesses, who have incurred, as a direct or indirect result of the coronavirus pandemic, economic revenue losses greater than 35 percent as compared to the prior 5-year average revenue.” The funding is likely to remain available until 30 September 2021.
North American fish farmers to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency with specialty aquafeed Global animal nutrition company Alltech has announced its latest aquaculture partnership with aquafeed nutrition company Corey Nutrition to provide producers across North America with a new range of feed products. This exciting collaboration will ensure aqua producers across America have access to innovative feed solutions that allow for maximum productivity and efficiency. Together, Alltech and Corey Nutrition are committed to bringing quality and innovative products to the aquaculture market. Customers will gain from Alltech’s 40 years of research and development in novel nutritional technologies, combined with the 6 »
aquatic expertise of Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre (ACAC) in formulating specialty fish feed. This, coupled with Corey Nutrition’s 38-year history in producing aquafeed for optimal nutrition and a quality manufacturing process, will ensure the American aquaculture producers have access to advanced nutritional solutions, backed by science.
Together with Corey Nutrition, Alltech looks forward to producing new specialized aquafeeds to help producers in North America achieve high-performing results. Working with a local partner that understands what Alltech is trying to achieve is a significant step forward, and together they will ensure that they are providing benefit to customers. APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
»
7
INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT
Introducing Two Hands: an Australian start-up born out of our growing need to understand our food origins
In 2009 the swine flu pandemic responsible for more than 17,000 deaths worldwide was found to have originated in pigs from Central America. In 2013, bird flu was transmitted from chickens at a wet poultry market to humans. Now, in 2020, we are faced with COVID-19 which is said to have originated at a seafood market in Wuhan, China. It seems our food origins storytelling has also become lost along the way. Farmers and fishers who were once the lifeblood of every community have now become faceless suppliers. The connection to our food source has been lost; their regions are invisible and the supply chain unknown. This lack of transparency, along with food chain supply inefficiencies, costs the global economy over USD$100bn annually. Introducing, Two Hands, an Australian start-up born out of a desire to change the way people connect with 8 »
food. Its mission is to restore trust and closeness between fishers, farmers, chefs, and consumers, to build the same trust we once saw in local communities on a global scale. Two Hands is a digital marketplace, an Airbnb-type disruptor that has reinvented the food supply chain in a bid to create a connection and humanize cutting edge food technology. The marketplace is based on blockchain and smart tagging technology. Two Hands is one of the first companies globally to monetize blockchain. The Two Hands marketplace starts at the ‘Source of Truth’, the producer. Each product is tagged and the location, weight, and quality recorded. Orders are placed directly from chefs, aggregated and sent directly to restaurants, avoiding numerous middlemen in the traditional supply chain, including fish markets in China. The blockchain technology validates the source and the product
journey, providing full transparency. Each smart tag is unique and customized, enabling the chefs and consumers alike to see videos of the specific producer, the region in which it was harvested, sustainability and finally how it came to be on the consumer’s fork at their chosen restaurant. Two Hands customers already include internationally recognized hotel chain Waldorf Astoria in Shanghai with an additional 15 hotels to be included in the coming months. Two Hands prides itself on avoiding fish markets and dealing directly with the farmers. It is through this strategy the company is well-placed to capitalize on safe Australia-China food trade after COVID-19, to mitigate future outbreaks through food handling. More information about this initiative: www.twohands.world
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
»
9
INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT
The European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA) publishes a market analysis on organic salmon Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) ranks third among the most consumed fish species within the European Union, with an overall market estimated about 920.000 tonnes GWE (Gross Weight Equivalent) in 2017. The EU market is mostly supplied by imports from Northern European countries: mainly Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, however the EU self-sufficiency rate for salmon was 16% in 2016, with 175.000 tonnes almost exclusively produced by Scottish and Irish farms. Linked to the trend for responsibly produced food, the production of organic salmon in Norway, Ireland, and Scotland grew by 43% between 2014 and 2017, with Irish production increasing twofold in volume. In 2017, almost all salmon production in Ireland was organic.
The Irish market Ireland, the main EU country in terms of production for organic
10 Âť
salmon, ranks third in the EU for salmon consumption, with a rate of 4,7 kg per capita in 2017. In the same year, almost half of the organic salmon farmed in Ireland was consumed in the domestic market. The volume exported has increased by 500% since 2012, due to growing demand in the EU market.
The French market France, one of the two biggest markets for salmon products within the EU, is the main importer of Irish salmon. However, consumption has decreased by more than 5.000 tonnes from 2013 to 2016, to a level of around 21.000 tonnes in 2017. The German market Germany, the other biggest market for salmon products within the EU, is also both the largest market for organic food and the second largest market for organic fish. The demand for convenience salmon products (portioned, pre-packed,
ready to cook etc.) has been growing rapidly since 2013, and purchases of fresh, pre-packed salmon products boomed by +875% in 2016.
The UK market The United Kingdom was the second largest producer of organic salmon in the EU, with Scottish aquaculture production of around 3.000 tonnes in 2017. The country was also the most significant market for organic fish with consumption growth of +40% between 2013 and 2017. * The analyses reported in this study were carried out in the first semester of 2019, when the UK was still a Member State of the European Union. Full analysis and further information from EUMOFA are available at: https://www.eumofa.eu/en/
APRIL - MAY 2020
Aquasend Beacon Installed at Global Organic Farm, Inc.
Global Organic Farm, Inc., an aquaculture farm in Desert Center, CA, owned and operated by Gwan Thio, recently deployed an Aquasend Beacon. The initial deployment consisted of one buoy in one pond. In cases where more than one buoy is deployed, all units can be mesh networked and connected to the cloud. Each buoy is solar and battery-powered, equipped with GPS positioning and radio and phone connectivity. An anti-fouling wiper prevents the growth of algae and other organisms on the unit, ensuring continued, accurate operation. Bird spikes prevent unwanted landings. The buoy was deployed with default settings: a 10-minute sample rate, 4 hours between wipes, alarm at APRIL - MAY 2020
3 mg/L, 15 second fresh pump time. Shortly after deployment, the wiper was changed from every four hours to every hour, in response to pond conditions. Later, the interval was decreased to every 30 minutes, again in response to local conditions. Thio was excited about the realtime data and control enabled by the buoy. “The Aquasend Beacon is a must-have equipment for fish farmers who want to have the most current data of their ponds’ water quality. This device will notify the farm manager when the oxygen or temperature is below the set threshold, saving the farm thousands of dollars’ loss from a full pond of dead fish.” Further information about the product and brand, available at: https://www.aquasend.com/ Aquaculture Magazine
» 11
INDUSTRY RESEARCHNEWS REPORT
Swedish startup woos investors with “algae tech” for aquaculture The proliferation of algae isn’t typically a good sign, environmentally speaking. Algae blooms, which are worsening with climate change, strangle other freshwater organisms and marine life. But Sofie Allert and Angela Wuff have a vision of how algae can be used to have a positive environmental impact. They are co-founders of Gothenburg-based Swedish Algae Factory, which is using algae to convert effluent water from the aquaculture sector into such value-adding products. Swedish Algae Factory says it has developed the first economically-viable, circular water treatment facility to grow high-value algae from recirculating aquaculture systems, or RAS. RAS facilities are already waterefficient, compared to other types of aquaculture. But they still discharge water regularly, which can be hazardous to local environments, even when solid waste, nitrogen and phosphorus have been filtered out. Swedish Algae Factory grows algae to clean RAS facilities’ wastewater, absorb carbon dioxide, and then generate nutrient-rich organic biomass that can be used for fish feed or fertilizer.
The company also produces nanoporous silica shells from a group of single-cell algae called diatoms. It says the extract has exceptional light-altering properties, on top its ability to absorb or release particles depending on the surrounding environment. The startup has just raised an undisclosed amount of funding to ramp up production. The round was led by impact-focused aquaculture venture capital firm Aqua-Spark.
She adds that she expects interest to increase as research into the application of extracts from diatoms’ silica shells. In universities, the applications under investigation are “expansive,” she says, “everything from solar energy, personal care, battery, drug delivery, and sensor applications.” More information about the company and its products can be found at: https://swedishalgaefactory.com/
Bühler invites to virtual interpack tradeshow during May The interpack tradeshow in Düsseldorf, Germany, is an important milestone for the consumer foods industry, taking place every three years. As is the case with many events and tradeshows lately, interpack has been postponed in order to mitigate the risk of spreading the coronavirus. The show was originally scheduled from May 7-13, 2020. Customers should keep the dates May 11-15, 2020, in their schedule, as Bühler will invite to a virtual interpack under the motto “Creating food sensations” with digital showrooms, chats, and webinars to present its latest technologies and solutions. Further information available at: www.buhlergroup.com 12 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
F3 Challenge: Carnivore Edition. Registration extended
Due to the fast-changing situation with COVID-19, the F3 Team has made the decision to extend the registration period for the F3 Challenge – Carnivore Edition. Companies may continue to register until a new deadline is announced. A new contest timeline and dates for informational webinars will be shared at that time. The contest is open to companies that sell or aim to sell a fish-free feed for shrimp, salmonid, or other carnivorous species, as described in Product Criteria outlined in the challenge rules. These sales can be directly to end customers in aquaculture or indirectly through distribution channels during the contest period The goal of this challenge is to reduce aquaculture’s demand for forage fish by advancing substitute feeds for the industry’s biggest consumers of forage fish. If progress can be made towards finding sus-
APRIL - MAY 2020
tainable, fish-free feeds for these species, then substantial progress can be made towards increasing forage fish populations worldwide. Further information, contest rules and registration are available at: https://carnivore.f3challenge. org/
Aquaculture Magazine
» 13
ARTICLE
The aqua feed sector
could be the biggest factor and driver towards a shift to a more sustainable aquaculture Recently RaboResearch which is the research division of the Dutch banking group Rabobank published a report titled “How to Succeed in Aqua Feed – The Feed Industry Should be the Driver of Change in Aquaculture.” This analysis is mainly aimed at potential investors, as well as feed manufacturers for the sector and the fish and shellfish farming industry. This article presents for our readers a review of the By: Aquaculture Magazine staff *
main bullets included in this before mentioned analysis.
A
quaculture is a rapidly evolving industry, with significant changes occurring in the short and medium term. The industry is embarking on a transformation, driven by multiple technological developments that are all moving from the start–up or laboratory phase to a commercial scale in the next five years. This is an opportunity for aqua feed companies to once again become more than just feed suppliers. According Gorjan Nikolik, author of this analysis and Seafood Senior Analyst at RaboResearch, “aqua feed companies can respond to the maturing fish-farming industry by combining feed with a range of complementary inputs, such as genetics, animal health products, data analysis solutions, hardware, and farm management software, in order to extract previously unobtainable synergies.” The author highlights that “Moreover, aqua feed players are well-positioned to act as investors in a number of rapidly evolving aquaculture technologies, ranging from novel ingredients to new farming techniques, such 14 »
as recirculating aquaculture systems or offshore aquaculture,” continues Nikolik. “By (partially) transforming into aqua-technology suppliers or aqua-venture capitalists, feed companies may be able to enter the higher-growth and higher-profitability
segments of the aquaculture inputs industry and drive the growth of the entire aquaculture industry.” This analysis comes at a time when the aquaculture feed industry, after years of continuous growth, is experiencing for the first time a slowAPRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 15
ARTICLE
down and a prevalent overcapacity in virtually all key markets around the world. Although in reality this is not a novelty or surprise for feed manufacturers. For almost a decade, institutions such as FAO and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States (NOAA) have promoted the search for alternative ingredients in aquaculture feed manufacturing to reduce the impacts on marine ecosystems and the unsustainable pressure exerted by most fisheries. By developing these alternatives, the benefits of great importance to human health that derive from aquaculture products could be maintained.
Aqua feed producers are well-
positioned to act as investors in a number of rapidly evolving aquaculture technologies, ranging from novel ingredients to new farming techniques, such as recirculating aquaculture systems or offshore aquaculture.
16 »
As stated in the study titled “The Future of Aquaculture “ published in 2011 by NOOA and USD, although production of fishmeal and fish oil has been relatively constant for decades, fisheries around the world are limited and they cannot support the increased demand from a growing aquaculture industry. Finding alternatives is critical to the long-term sustainable growth of aquaculture to meet projected increases in consumer demand for safe, high-quality farmed aquatic food. Even if the recent analysis published by RaboResearch recognizes that there is already some movement in this direction thanks to the initiative of some aquaculture feed manufacturers, this is not yet widespread. So one of the main objectives of publishing the before mentioned study is to guide feed producer companies in the next steps to take, as well as inspire other companies to adopt such measures and changes in their production. Not only to promote the sustainability of the sector, but also to strengthen the economy of this part of the value chain in aquaculture, by proposing the search of sustainable and profitable alternatives for aqua feeds. Rabobank proposes the following four strategic directions to advance in this more sustainable direction for the aqua feed sector:
1. Accelerate the adoption of technologies Throughout the development of partnerships for R&D programs as well as investment in other innovative companies, projects and products. The analysis suggests incorporating to current productions the already existing and functional technology advances such as: software for information management and production data, such as block chain technologies that can strengthen and benefit the financial results of an aqua feed production company. 2. Develop a series of aqua feed complementary products According to this analysis, in the aquaculture industry this strategy can translate into the development of a wide range of complementary products to feed and diets that allow the development of new synergies previously impossible to carry out. This combination of feed with other inputs (such as equipment, products for genetic and animal health management, related data processing hardware and software, etc.) can be a very powerful way to create value for aquaculture producers and for increasing the profitability of input providers. APRIL - MAY 2020
3. Development of novel feed ingredients The third strategy mentioned in the analysis addresses investment in the development and manufacturing of alternative ingredients, such as algae fermentation technology to produce high-quality protein to replace fishmeal and soybean meal in aquaculture feeds. 4. Involvement and investment in state of the art production systems Finally, as a fourth strategy, the study proposes to the aquaculture industry to start thinking beyond the current limits and frontiers, through innovative production techniques such as Recirculation Systems (RAS), offshore aquaculture and the commercialization of new species. This analysis emphasizes the possibility that these companies have to become the technology for the aquaculture sector, which in turn would give them a direct pass to the highest growth and profitability results in this market, further promoting general production increases and better results for all actors involved in the value chain. It seems that the wave of innovation and growth that can trigger the development of truly sustainable aquaculture could start through the good practices of aqua feed manufacturing companies. This definitely turns around the role they play in this market, placing them in a compromised situation in the face of the current reserves and restrictions of the world’s fishing resources, but at the same time facing a wide area of opportunity to be the engine and propeller of changes that benefit the entire industry and final consumers of the aquaculture products around the world. *This article is based in the recent publication of Rabobak and its RaboResearch program of the analysis titled “How to Succeed in Aqua Feed – The Feed Industry Should be the Driver of Change in Aquaculture”, by Gorjan Nikolik. Original publication and further information are available at: https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/sectors/ animalprotein/how_to_succeed_in_aquafeed.html
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 17
ARTICLE
Suppression of white feces syndrome in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei,
using hen egg white lysozyme Lysozyme supplementation to alleviate infectious diseases had not been elucidated in shrimp until this study performed in Thailand. But it has been demonstrated that lysozyme supplementation lowered the number of pathogen colonization and infection
By: Weerapong Woraprayotea, Laphaslada Pumpuanga, Surapun Tepaamorndecha, Kallaya Sritunyalucksanab, Metavee Phromsonb, Waraporn Jangsutthivorawatb, Saharuetai Jeamsripongc, Wonnop Visessanguana*
Introduction Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, is the most cultivated penaeid in the world. Infection diseases like white feces syndrome (WFS) have deteriorated shrimp cultivation. WFS outbreaks are responsible for a 10 to 15% loss in shrimp production; the disease can be detected by the presence of white stringy feces. Infected shrimp exhibit loose exoskeleton and pale hepatopancreas and intestine. Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP), a microsporidian parasite in shrimp hepatopancreas, has been proposed as the cause of WFS. WFS shrimp collected from the 18 Âť
in animals. Lysozyme also showed immune-stimulant activity. This study aimed to determine the effect of HEWL supplementation on vibrio abundances, and expression of genes involved in immune and antioxidant system in Pacific white shrimp. Results suggested that HEWL supplementation was an effective method to avoid antibiotic treatment in aquaculture and suppress WFS in Pacific white shrimp.
fields largely showed EHP infection. Nevertheless, experimentally infected with EHP, shrimp failed to demonstrate WFS symptoms. An elevation in vibrio richness was also reported in WFS shrimp, including V. vulnificus, V. fluvialis, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, V. minicus, V. cholera and V. damselae in haemolymph and intestine, two-fold higher than that of healthy shrimp. Vibrio infection may contribute to WFS development. To control WFS in shrimp farms, organic acid salt supplementation has been traditionally applied to eliminate an unknown WFS patho-
gen when the presence of the white fecal strings was observed. An additive with broad bactericidal activity against Vibrio, Photobacterium, Flavobacterium, and Tenacibaculum could decline the severity of WFS outbreaks. Lysozyme is considered as a potential alternative of the antibiotics. The enzyme shows the lytic activity which hydrolyzes β-(1, 4) linkages between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine of peptidoglycan in Gram-positive bacteria. Lysozyme is found in a wide range of the biological fluids and tissues. Hen egg white lysozyme (HEWL) APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 19
ARTICLE
has been used in food and feed due to its broad antimicrobial activity. It has been demonstrated that lysozyme supplementation lowered the number of pathogen colonization and infection in animals. Lysozyme also showed the immune-stimulant activity. Lysozyme supplementation to alleviate infectious diseases has not been elucidated in shrimp. The present study aimed to determine the effect of HEWL supplementation on vibrio abundances, and expression of genes involved in immune and antioxidant system in Pacific white shrimp.
Materials and methods In vitro inhibition of HEWL against Vibrio spp. The inhibition of HEWL was in vitro evaluated against pathogenic vibrios. Vibrio spp. listed in Table 1. All the bacteria were previously isolated from infected shrimp. Growth inhibition was determined using broth microdilution assay. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was defined as the lowest concentration of the substance which prevents visible growth of the pathogen. MIC of HEWL was compared to those of the organic salts including sodium citrate.
To control WFS in shrimp farms, organic acid salt supplementation has been traditionally applied to eliminate an unknown WFS pathogen when the presence of the white fecal strings was observed. In the present study, those organic acid salts had no effect on all vibrio growth inhibition examined.
20 Âť
Table 1 Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of HEWL, sodium citrate, and sodium acetate against Vibrio spp. isolated from infected shrimp.
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 21
ARTICLE
Diets and HEWL supplementation A commercial diet containing 35% protein was used as a basal diet in this study. The protein source of the diet was fish and soybean meal. HEWL-supplemented diets were prepared by top coating the basal diet with HEWL at 0.005 (HEWL 0.005), 0.025 (HEWL 0.025), 0.125 (HEWL 0.125), and 0.625 (HEWL 0.625) g/kg diet. Shrimp and tissue collection Pacific white shrimp postlarvae (PL) 12 were acclimatized in two thousand liter fiberglass tanks. Twenty shrimp were randomly collected to screen for pathogen infection. White spot syndrome virus, yellow head virus, infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus, taura syndrome virus, and E. hepatopenaei were not detected in PL12 used in this study. Shrimp were randomly transferred into 5 groups fed CON, HEWL0.005, HEWL0.025, HEWL0.125, or HEWL0.625 (n = 4 aquariums/ group with 15 shrimp/aquarium). Water quality was monitored daily and maintained as follows: pH 7.5 to 8.5, DO>5 mg/l, temperature 28 to 30 °C, and salinity at 15 ppt. Shrimp were fed 4 times a day for 12 weeks. Feeding rate was 10% of total body weight. Shrimp were harvested at subadult and premolt stage. Growth performance was also measured during harvest. Shrimp were anaesthetized on ice before tissue collection. Gastrointestinal (GI) tract containing midgut and hindgut, and hepatopancreas were aseptically dissected. GI tract was immediately used or stored at -80 °C for vibrio abundance quantification and antimicrobial activity assay, respectively. Hepatopancreas was snap-frozen and kept at -80 °C for gene expression analysis.
22 »
Table 2 The antimicrobial activity in HEWL supplemented diet before and after incubation in shrimp cultivation water for 1 h.
Figure 1 Antimicrobial activity in shrimp GI tract. GI tract was collected from shrimp fed CON, HEWL0.005, HEWL0.025, HEWL0.125 or HEWL0.625 for 12 weeks, and homogenized in sterilized saline solution. (A) The antimicrobial activity in tissue lysates was determined based on the lytic activity t Micrococcus lysodeikticus ATCC 4695. The antimicrobial activity was expresses as U/g tissue. One unit of the enzyme was defined as a ΔA450 of 0.001/min. Data are the mean ± S.E., n = 5 per group. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences. (B) Vibrio abundance in shrimp GI tract. Tissue lysates were diluted and incubated on TCBS agar for vibrio culture. The presence of green and yellow colonies was recorded. Total vibrio colonies were the sum of the green and yellow colonies. Data are the mean ± S.E., n = 10 per group. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
APRIL - MAY 2020
Table 3 Growth performance and the survival rate (%) of shrimp fed CON, HEWL0.005, HEWL0.025, HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 for 12 weeks.
The antimicrobial activity of HEWL in diets and shrimp GI tract HEWL-supplemented and CON diet were mixed with the cultivation water. The sample was dried to obtain 10% moisture content. The diet was then pulverized and mixed with 0.3% (v/v) formic acid. The supplemental diets without water incubation were also used to determine the antimicrobial activity. Shrimp GI tract was homogenized in sterilized saline solution. The antimicrobial activity was reported as unit (U)/g diet or tissue. One unit of the enzyme was defined as a ΔA450 of 0.001/min at pH 6.25, 25 °C. The lyophilized culture of Micrococcus lysodeikticus ATCC 4695 was used as a substrate to determine the antimicrobial activity of HEWL.
gel electrophoresis. Expression of actin-β (Actb) was used as an internal control. The relative expression level of each target gene was calculated using a 2-ΔΔCT method.
Growth performance Growth performance including weight gain (WG), average daily weight gain (ADG), feed conversion ratio (FCR) and survival rate of the shrimp was recorded.
Experimental challenge using V. harveyi PL 12 shrimp were randomly distributed into 3 groups, CON, HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 (n = 3 aquariums/group with 15 shrimp/aquarium). After 4 weeks of feeding, shrimp from each group were partially collected and again analyzed for the expression level Vibrio abundance in shrimp GI of immune- and antioxidant-related genes. The remaining shrimp were tract Total vibrio abundances in shrimp transferred to a vibrio challenge GI tract were determined using the test. V. harveyi AQVH01 was culplate count method. Green and yel- tured, and later shrimps were imlow colonies found on TCBS agar mersed with the pathogen in the were recorded as the total vibrio cultivation water at 107 CFU/ml for abundance and expressed as log 24 h, transferred to the clear water CFU/g tissue. Positive sucrose vib- system, and fed CON twice a day. rios contain V. cholera and V. algi- The survival rate was recorded 5 nolyticus, while the negative sucrose days after challenged. strains are V. harveyi, V. parahaemoHEWL supplementation lyticus, and V. fischeri. on shrimp with WFS Immune- and antioxidant-relat- Shrimp were cultivated in earthen ponds at a density of 1.56 × 105 ed gene expression Hepatopancreas was homogenized shrimp/HA. Water was only filled into and cell lysate was used for RNA the ponds to replenish evaporation isolation. The purity and quality of loss. During the cultivation period, six the extracted RNA and the absence ponds showing white fecal string at 6 of DNA were verified using agarose weeks of culture were used to deterAPRIL - MAY 2020
mine the effect of HEWL0.125 on WFS. Shrimp ponds with WFS were randomly fed either HEWL0.125 or CON (n = 3). After fed for 5 days, if the signs of WFS remained and survival rate was lower than 50%, shrimp were harvested according to the general farm practices. However, shrimp were harvested at 12 weeks as fullterm cultivation when WFS was not observed. Incidence and recurrence of WFS were observed throughout the study. The survival rate and ADG of shrimp were recorded.
Results Vibrio growth inhibition of HEWL MIC of HEWL against V. alginolyticus, V. harveyi, and V. parahaemolyticus was observed from 0.40 to 3.12 mg/ml (Table 1). The representatives of the organic acid salts used in shrimp farms, sodium citrate and sodium acetate, had no effect on all vibrio growth inhibition examined in this study. To ensure the stability of HEWL mixed with a diet which were usually fed under water, the antimicrobial activity in the HEWL supplement diets before and after incubated with cultivation water was determined. The antimicrobial activity of HEWL0.005 and HEWL0.025 was not significantly different to that of CON in both pre- and post-incubation with water. However, the activity of HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 was substantially higher than that of CON in both conditions (Table 2). HEWL0.625 showed the higher in vitro activity than others. No significant differences were observed in pre- and post-incubation with » 23
ARTICLE
water. These results suggested that HEWL exhibited in vitro antivibrio activity and HEWL supplementation ≼0.125 g/kg diet exhibited the antimicrobial activity independent on exposure to cultivation water.
In vivo antimicrobial activity of HEWL in Pacific white shrimp It was important to determine the presence of HEWL activity during transition in shrimp GI tract. We first examined the antimicrobial activity of HEWL after the supplemental diets were ingested into GI tract. As shown in Fig. 1A, the antimicrobial activity in GI tract of shrimp fed HEWL0.005 and HEWL0.025 was similar to that of CON. In contrast, shrimp fed HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 showed the activity in GI tract at 2160 and 3880 U/g tissue, respectively. The activity found in HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 was significantly higher than that of CON. Moreover, vibrio abundances in shrimp GI tract were quantified using TCBS plate counts. The results demonstrated a significant decrease in total vibrio number in GI tract of shrimp fed HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 compared to CON (Fig. 1B). The inhibitory degree against vibrio abundances of HEWL0.125 was 24 Âť
Effect of HEWL supplementation on shrimp growth performance Our results provided evidence that HEWL supplementation showed no significant changes in the survival rate and any parameters in growth performance including WG, ADG and FCR among groups. We also observed that shrimp fed HEWL supEffect of HEWL on immune- and plementation had no signs of gross antioxidant-related gene expres- abnormalities suggesting no adverse sion effects of HEWL on shrimp. Immune-related gene expression in hepatopancreas was investigated due Vibrio resistance in HEWL fed to the fact that hepatopancreas is in- shrimp volved in food digestion and nutrient As an increase in the number of vibabsorption in shrimp. HEWL0.125 rios was found in WFS shrimp, we considerably stimulated ppo and sp evaluated the effect of HEWL0.125 expression compared to others. The and HEWL0.625 on vibrio resistance mRNA expression of ppo and sp was in shrimp before an investigation in 5.88 and 17.33-fold upregulated, re- WFS shrimp. After vibrio challenge, spectively, in HEWL0.125 compared shrimp were luminescent indicating to CON. However, lgbp was not sig- a sign of vibrio infection. All the nificantly elevated by HEWL supple- groups had a decrease in the survival mentation. HEWL0.125 showed a rate after 5 days of challenge. The substantial increase in antioxidant survival rate of HEWL0.125 and related gene expression. Sod, trx, and HEWL0.625 (66.67% both) was sigfer expression were 5.16-, 3.30-, and nificantly higher than that of CON 16.71-fold increased, respectively, in (16.67%). Although HEWL0.125 HEWL0.125 compared to CON. Our demonstrated the profound effect data indicated that HEWL0.125 sup- on immune and antioxidant gene plementation greatly enhanced shrimp stimulation, the survival rates were immune and antioxidant mechanisms not different in shrimp fed both diat the gene expression level. ets. comparable to that of HEWL0.625. We also observed that HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 both showed a decrease in green colony rather than yellow colony forming vibrios. These results suggested the effect of HEWL on suppression of sucrose negative vibrios in GI tract.
APRIL - MAY 2020
Effect of HEWL supplementation on WFS suppression As HEWL0.125 could significantly retained the antimicrobial activity when mixed with feed, suppressed the number of vibrios in shrimp GI tract, enhance immune- and antioxidant-related gene expression, and improve the survival rate against vibrio infection, we hypothesized that HEWL0.125 supplementation would contribute its beneficial effects against a WFS outbreak. HEWL0.125 and CON were introduced into earthen ponds at 6 weeks when white stringy feces was detected. After 5 day of feeding, the presence of white fecal matter remained present in shrimp fed CON. In contrast, HEWL0.125 supplementation showed no white fecal matter. The survival rate and ADG of shrimp fed HEWL0.125 were significantly greater than those of the control. Taken together, our data suggested that HEWL supplementation suppressed the appearance
APRIL - MAY 2020
of white fecal matter and increase the survival rate and ADG of WFS shrimp.
Discussion HEWL has been used to decrease pathogen colonization while enhance immune status in both livestock and aquaculture. This is the first report using HEWL as a feed supplement in shrimp. We found that HEWL exhibited the antivibrio activity and upregulated immune- and antioxidant-related gene expression in shrimp, and improve the survival rate of shrimp. During elimination of invading pathogens, reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced excessively. ROS must be removed by the antioxidant system. HEWL0.125 upregulated the expression of antioxidant-related genes including sod, trx, and fer. Our findings also demonstrated that HEWL0.125 and HEWL0.625 supplementation could promote resistance to vibriosis.
In conclusion, HEWL supplementation exhibited the in vitro antimicrobial activity against pathogenic vibrios isolated from infected shrimp. The antimicrobial effect against vibrios was also observed in shrimp GI tract. We identified that HEWL0.125 was the most effective level to stimulate immune- and antioxidant-related gene expression in shrimp hepatopancreas. Supplementation of HEWL0.125 promoted resistance to vibrio infection and WFS. Those results suggested that HEWL supplementation was an effective method to avoid antibiotic treatment in aquaculture and suppress WFS in Pacific white shrimp. *This is a shortened version developed by Ph.D. Carlos Rangel Dávalos, researcher and professor at the University of Baja California Sur México. The original article on which is based is: “Suppression of white feces syndrome in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, using hen egg white lysozyme”, by: Weerapong Woraprayotea, Laphaslada Pumpuanga, Surapun Tepaamorndecha, Kallaya Sritunyalucksanab, Metavee Phromsonb, Waraporn Jangsutthivorawatb, Saharuetai Jeamsripongc, Wonnop Visessanguana. It was originally published on January 2020 through the Aquaculture Journal of Elsevier. We encourage our readers to Access the full article and deepen into this study through this link: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735025
» 25
ARTICLE
Bacterial Community Dynamics During Nursery Rearing of Pacific White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)
Revealed via HighThroughput Sequencing
By: Maocang Yan, Xiang Zhang, Lihua Hu, Xianke Huang, Qianjin Zhou, Guoquan Zeng, Jiongming Zhang, Guoqiang Xiao, Xueliang Chai, Jiong Chen*
Introduction Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) culture has been rapidly increasing for two decades, with an annual percentage of 8.1%, compared with 0.62% for capture fishery and 2.6% for meat production. The L. vannamei nursery phase (approximately 20 days after hatching) is a key step in the shrimp production cycle. Many infectious diseases preferentially affect larvae, resulting in high mortality, generally attributed to opportunistic pathogenic bacteria. These bacteria are common in the seawater and feed that are used in hatcheries and, during metamorphosis, shrimp are susceptible to pathogenic Vibrio. Shrimp larvae encounter the ambient bacterioplankton immediately after hatching. The nursery phase can be divided into two stages: metamorphosis (including Nauplius, Zoea, 26 Âť
Researchers from the Zhejiang Mariculture Research Institute and the Nigbo University recently published a study that originates from the knowledge that the morphological and physiological characteristics of L. vannamei change dramatically in early development, leading to high variability in nursery rearing. The dietary patterns of shrimp larvae also change with the different developmental stages. The hypothesis of the study is that these stages may have their own pattern of bacterial community composition in the nursery rearing environment. And the obtained results add to the current understanding of the relationship between environmental microbiota and the nursery stage of shrimp larvae in aquaculture using high throughput sequencing. and Mysis) and the postlarval stage. The morphological and physiological characteristics of L. vannamei change dramatically in early development, leading to high variability in nursery rearing. The dietary patterns of shrimp larvae also change with the different developmental stages. The microbiota associated with L. vannamei, such as gut and environmental microbiota, has been studied extensively. Previous studies have also supplied further understanding of the gut microbiome in postlarvae of the nursery period. However, most of the shrimp in these studies were postlarvae (age from Day 42 to Day 115) or older shrimp. The metamorphosis period (Day 0 to Day 20) has not received much research attention, and there is limited information about the bacterial community associated with L. vannamei larvae during the metamorphosis stage. Since the
ambient bacterial community influences aquatic animals, the characterization of environmental microbiota would be an initial step for improving shrimp production. Given that the aquaculture environment is closely associated with the different stages of metamorphosis of larval L. vannamei, we hypothesized that these stages may have their own pattern of bacterial community composition in the nursery rearing environment. To test this hypothesis, we explored the dynamics of bacterial communities during nursery rearing of L. vannamei larvae. In this study, we characterized the ambient microbial communities associated with the nursery phase of larval L. vannamei through high-throughput sequencing of the V4–V5 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene to characterize bacterial diversity and community structure. APRIL - MAY 2020
Materials and Methods Larval Rearing Males and females were maintained in broodstock pools until spawning. Larvae from the same spawning pool were transferred into two rearing pools with filtered seawater and food algae. The L. vannamei larvae were reared at approximately equal densities (2.5 x 105 individuals/m3) for a 20-day nursery stage. Sample Collection and Water Quality Testing Two adjacent cement pools of larval L. vannamei with similar genetic backgrounds were selected for sampling. Water samples were collected from the pools every 2 days during the rearing period; water samples were collected in the morning. Eighteen water samples were collected: L1–L9 (left pool) and R1–R9 (right pool). According to morphological APRIL - MAY 2020
observations, the samples were divided into four stages: nauplius (L1, R1), zoea (L2, L3, R2, R3), mysis (L4, L5, R4, R5), and postlarval (L6– L9, R6–R9) (Table S1). Water samples were filtered through a 0.22 µm polycarbonate membrane filter to collect bacterial cells. The membrane filters were transferred to a 50 mL sterile centrifuge tube and stored at -70°C until DNA extraction. Alkalinity, pH, and salinity were determined in situ with a multiple parameter. Ammonium nitrogen (NH4–N) was determined by indophenol blue spectrophotometry. Nitrite (NO2–N) was determined by naphthalene ethylenediamine spectrophotometry.
There were no marked changes
in microbiota observed during the postlarval stage, suggesting relatively stable bacterioplankton communities. This is likely because the postlarval diet does not change as it does during metamorphosis.
DNA Extraction and Sequencing Genomic DNA of the water samples was extracted from the membrane filters with a Water DNA Kit. » 27
ARTICLE
The bacterial communities in the rearing water were profiled by sequencing of the V4–V5 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene. The 16S rRNA gene was amplified using a universal primer pair, 515F (50- GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-30) and 909R (50-CCCCGYCAATTCMTTTRAGT-30), with a unique 12-digit barcode. Replicate PCRs of each sample were conducted, and the PCR products were combined and subjected to 1.0% agarose gel electrophoresis. The DNA band with the target size was excised, and then purified. The sequencing samples were prepared with NEB Next_ UltraTM DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina.
Data Processing and Bioinformatics Analysis The raw data from the sequencing were processed with QIIME Version 1.7.0. The aligned sequences were tested by chimera check with Gold database (Uchime algorithm), and then chimera sequences were excluded to obtain effective data. The effective sequences were clus-
tered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with the software Uparse (v7.0.1001, http://drive5. com/uparse/) with a 97% identity threshold. Taxonomic information of each OTU was assigned using the Ribosomal Database Project classifier (Version 2.2) and Green Gene. Redundancy analysis (RDA) was further performed to determine which environmental variables were most strongly related to community composition.
Results High-Throughput Sequencing Profile High-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA sequences was employed to determine bacterial community composition during the nursery phase of 18 water samples from two adjacent pools in the same facility. In total, 409,455 effective sequences were obtained, with 8218–40,332 sequences per sample (mean = 22,747.5); 23,641 OTUs were detected by clustering at a 97% identity threshold. The sequences were randomly resampled at the minimum
Compared to the healthy samples, the relative abundance of Gammaproteobacteria was higher in the diseased samples, which showed better adaptability to oligotrophic seawater environments, indicating that the diseased shrimp ponds with low nutrient level could be more adaptable for opportunistic pathogens.
Figure 1 Bacterial community structural dynamics at the class taxonomic level during the nursery phase of larval L. vannamei. L1–L9 and R1–R9 represent water samples collected successively every 2 days, and the classes with less than 1% relative abundance are not shown
28 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
Figure 2 Comparison of the dominant bacterial populations at genus level in the aquaculture environment during the nursery phase of L. vannamei larvae. The OTUs without genus-level information were clustered based on the lowest taxon information. Pie charts reflect the relative abundance of each dominant operational taxonomic unit (OTU) (relative abundance[1%) at two stages (blue represents the metamorphosis stage, Day 1 to Day 10; red represents the postlarval stage, Day 11 to Day 20); and the size of the pie chart reflects the total number of dominant OTUs in all samples
depth (8200 sequences per sample) among samples. To estimate the bacterial diversity in each sample, alpha diversity indices were calculated based on the OTUs. Bacterial diversity, estimated by the Shannon index, varied from 3.432 to 9.029 in the nursery phase. There was no significant difference in the Shannon index between the two pools (p>0.05, t test). APRIL - MAY 2020
Bacterial Community Composition and Beta Diversity Bacteroidetes (17–58%), Proteobacteria (20–54%), Cyanobacteria (0.01–41%), and Firmicutes (1–15%) were the dominant bacterial phyla (relative abundance >5%), accounting for more than 80.09% of the bacterial OTUs. At the class taxonomic level, we found that the abundance of Sphingobacteriia
and Alphaproteobacteria increased markedly in the late nursery phase, while the abundance of Flavobacteriia and Chloroplast decreased (Fig. 1). An unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) tree, using weighted UniFrac distances, revealed the similarity of water samples from the early development of L. vannamei larvae. The » 29
ARTICLE
results indicated a noticeable difference in the bacterial community between the metamorphosis and postlarval stages. The abundance of Cyanobacteria decreased significantly in the postlarval stage, while that of Bacteroidetes increased. Compared to the metamorphosis stage (Day 1–Day 10), the composition of the dominant bacterial populations (relative abundance >1%) changed in the postlarval stage of L. vannamei (Day 11–Day 20). Flavobacteriaceae, Bacillales, Rhodobacteraceae, and Alteromonadales were dominant in the metamorphosis stage. Saprosporaceae was the most dominant bacterial population among all samples (Fig. 2).
Relationship Between Bacterial Community Composition and Environmental Factors Several environmental factors were measured during the nursery phase: NH4–N (0.04–0.59 mg/L) and NO2–N (0.03–0.18 mg/L) increased markedly, while pH (8.25–7.91), sa30 »
linity (30–26.3), and total alkalinity (156–121) decreased slowly over time. RDA showed that planktonic bacterial community compositions were influenced by different environmental factors during nursery rearing. In the metamorphosis stage, bacterial composition was mainly correlated with salinity, alkalinity, and pH, whereas that in the postlarval stage was correlated with NH4– N and NO2–N. The RDA for the water quality indicators suggested that the bacterial community at different stages (metamorphosis versus postlarval) was positively correlated with different environmental factors.
Discussion Despite diverse bacterial populations associated with the rearing environment of L. vannamei larvae, the dominant bacteria were Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Cyanobacteria, and Firmicutes, representing more than 80.09% of the bacterial OTUs. Planktonic bacteria could be used as the indicator of shrimp health sta-
tus. Meanwhile, as a source of intestinal microbiota, it has an important effect on the shrimp microbiome. In addition, previous studies on the intestinal bacteria of shrimp, postlarvae, juveniles, and adults showed that the dominant bacteria were Proteobacteria, followed by Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. The nursery phase is the key step for farming L. vannamei. During the nursery phase, the larval diet changes over time. At the nauplius stage, the nutrient needs are provided by the yolk, resulting in similar bacterial flora between the eggs and ambient water. Since no plankton feeding occurs at this stage, there is little impact on bacterial community structure. When the shrimp larvae become zoeae on Day 3, they begin to eat unicellular algae and/ or plant debris. Then, they begin to eat zooplankton or animal debris when they become myses. Thus, this shift influences the microbial community, as shown by the temporal dynamics of the bacterioplankton community. The abundance of APRIL - MAY 2020
Cyanobacteria decreased noticeably after Day 3, while Flavobacteria abundance increased during the metamorphosis stage. At the start of the experiment, because of similar biotic backgrounds (same algae species and shrimp eggs from the same broodstock) and environmental conditions (same seawater, facility, and management), the results showed that bacterial communities in the two parallel pools were very similar at the beginning. Thereafter, bacterial community structure diverged in the subsequent days, leading to a high level of dissimilarity between the two parallel pools. Therefore, the bacterioplankton communities were strongly affected by the larval shrimp stage. In contrast, postlarval shrimp eat benthic or sedimentary organisms. However, there were no marked changes in microbiota observed during the postlarval stage, suggesting relatively stable bacterioplankton communities. This is likely because the postlarval diet does not change as it does during metamorphosis. APRIL - MAY 2020
Bacteroidetes and Flavobacteria may degrade various kinds of organic matter, thus providing available nutrients to Proteobacteria. Compared to the healthy samples, the relative abundance of Gammaproteobacteria was higher in the diseased samples, which showed better adaptability to oligotrophic seawater environments, indicating that the diseased shrimp ponds with low nutrient level could be more adaptable for opportunistic pathogens. In mariculture of shrimp postlarvae, the developmental stage is a crucial biological factor affecting the gut microbial composition. Development can be divided into three stages depicting varied gut microbial community. Compared to the microbiome in the water environment, the gut microbiomes of adult shrimp among different locations were more similar, indicating the stability of the gut microbiome in adults. Compared to the postlarval stage, the environmental microbiome in the metamorphosis stage was highly variable. Dietary differences and di-
gestive system development might be responsible for the changes in bacterial composition. In conclusion, this study provides basic knowledge of the relationship between environmental microbiota and the nursery stage of shrimp larvae in aquaculture using high throughput sequencing.
* This is a shortened version developed by Ph.D. Carlos Rangel Dávalos, researcher and professor at the University of Baja California Sur México. The original article on which is based is: “Bacterial Community Dynamics During Nursery Rearing of Pacific White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Revealed via High-Throughput Sequencing”, by: Maocang Yan, Xiang Zhang, Lihua Hu, Xianke Huang, Qianjin Zhou, Guoquan Zeng, Jiongming Zhang, Guoqiang Xiao, Xueliang Chai y Jiong Chen. It was originally published on December 2019 on the through the Indian Journal of Microbiology. We encourage our readers to access the full article and deepen into this study through this link: https://doi. org/10.1007/s12088-019-00853-7
» 31
ARTICLE
Feasible options to restore genetic variation
in hatchery stocks of the globally important farmed shrimp species, Litopenaeus vannamei This collaborative study developed by researchers from Australia, Vietnam and Mexico presents an assessment of genetic diversity levels among L. vannamei samples derived from seven hatcheries across the Pacific Ocean. The results of the aforementioned variation were also compared with the ones from wild caught Mexican samples from the same species, in order to test if a similar genetic variation approaching By: W. Knibb, C.T. Giang, H.K.A. Premachandra, N.H. Ninh, B.C. DomĂnguez *
that of the wild may potentially be restored by crossing different hatchery lines.
Introduction Litopenaeus vannamei is a major farmed shrimp species around the world and over four million tonnes are produced annually (FAO, 2018). The culture of this species plays an important role in food security and contributes significantly to some national economies and livelihoods in Asian, African and South American nations (FAO, 2012). The techniques for captive breeding of L. vannamei were developed in the 1980s and since then captive breeding and sometimes genetic selection, permitted by closing the life cycle, has spread across the Americas, where the species is native, to Asia where it is an introduced species. L. vannamei now constitutes 81% of all shrimp farmed in the world (FAO, 2018). 32 Âť
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 33
ARTICLE
The key question raised by this study was whether there remain sufficient genetic differences among L. vannamei hatchery lines across the Pacific such that crosses among them could potentially restore variation somewhat like that in wild samples.
Marine shrimps are highly fecund which means that individual spawners are able to produce tens or hundreds of thousands of offspring, hence, with captive breeding, relatively few parents are needed for the next generation. Moreover, mass selection has been practiced, but often without pedigree or family records. In Ecuador, mass selection for resistance to White spot syndrome meant few resistant families could be selected and these can then dominate the genetic contributions to the next generation. Even without selection in mixed spawning groups, some few families can, by chance sampling or differential fertility, dominate the contribution to the next generation. Altogether, as it is common in shrimp aquaculture not to have proper pedigree management, there is much opportunity for inbreeding and loss of diversity in this species. It also appears that some L. vannamei stocks have been transported around the world, sequentially from hatchery to hatchery and some hatchery lines may have been derived from few ancestral broodstock. These processes could contribute to widespread loss of variation in hatchery stocks. Indeed, some previously published papers have reported loss of genetic variation and or inbreeding in Latin American 34 Âť
hatchery lines of L. vannamei using wild samples as reference although also others have reported only minor or no loss of variation, again in comparison with wild samples. The importance of using wild stocks to calibrate data from hatchery stocks is evident in these studies because without a wild reference it can be difficult to interpret levels of genetic variation in hatchery data. Overall, these considerations raise the possibility that across the global distribution of L. vannamei there may already be substantial inbreeding with ensuing negative consequences on production and reproduction and on the long-term genetic status of this species. However, there may be options to counteract some of these negative trends as we have previously reported for other fecund marine species, including banana shrimp, Fenneropenaeus merguiensis, and Sydney rock oysters, Saccostrea glomerata, (In et al., 2016). While different hatchery individual lines each had lost variation (in reference to the wild samples), that variation lost in each hatchery line tended to be different from that lost in another, so that by considering a number of separate hatchery lines combined into one “synthetic line�, variation approximately equivalent to the wild can be restored. This
seemed to apply similarly for different types of variation, whether mtDNA haplotypes or DNA microsatellite alleles. Therefore if this study analyzes white leg shrimp samples from a range of hatcheries across whole of the Pacific, Asia and Latin America, while perhaps expecting to find loss of diversity in each line, will there be sufficient differences among lines so that we are able to restore substantial genetic variation, say somewhat equivalent to the wild, by forming a synthetic stock? It is not inconceivable that some of the captive L. vannamei stocks could be related to each other, if stocks trace back to some APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 35
ARTICLE
few common domestication events and hatchery stocks have been sequentially transferred around the Pacific and Latin America. While the genetic concept of interline crossing to restore variation is well understood, this study still needs to demonstrate that there are genetic differences among lines for line crossing to be successful in restoring variation. Such a demonstration of genetic differences using a number of hatchery stocks, and incidentally a variety of markers, will support the view that restoration of genetic variation may indeed be feasible in this species. It also needs to be considered that hatchery lines likely are the product of prior genetic selection for performance traits, so it could be preferable in terms of keeping genetic gains to restore variation using hatchery stocks rather than introgression material from (unselected and unimproved) wild populations. 36 Âť
Materials and methods Live animals were imported into Vietnam from seven captive hatchery stocks from around the Pacific. Sample sizes on importation from hatcheries ranged from 100 to 10,000. Tissue samples from 52 wild shrimp individuals (but unclassified in the field at the species level) were obtained from Mexico. The majority of the hatchery individuals sampled were adult animals which originally came from commercial farm production. Once the incoming adult samples were received in Vietnam,
they were separated into males and females, moulted, then pair mated using artificial insemination to form families; Offsprings of each family (a minimum of 13 families per stock) were kept separate until animals were tagged with elastomer tags, then on-grown communally. At this point, most of the lines were sampled for this study. For those progressing through further generations, families were reformed and reproduced each generation using pedigree information to minimize inbreeding (see Table 1).
Table 1 Information from the seven hatchery and wild stocks of the white shrimp L. vannamei.
APRIL - MAY 2020
Data and analysis A total of 27 to 30 individuals were haplotyped for each of the hatchery data sets, but only 24 individuals were haplotyped for the wild Mexico data set (the variation in numbers arose from factors such as DNA quality, sequence quality and sample availability). Twenty-six to 30 individuals were genotyped for all six loci for all the hatchery data sets, but 15–17 individuals were genotyped for the wild Mexico data set. Accordingly a data set was generated by random selection using 16 individuals for each hatchery data set. To determine the average number and frequency of alleles, heterozygosity, Nei’s genetic distance, and pairwise F-statistics. Twenty-one to 24 individuals per hatchery data set were assessed for SNPs, but only eight wild Mexico individuals had high enough DNA quality for SNP analysis. APRIL - MAY 2020
To simulate crossing lines, a “synthetic pooled” data set, was formed by randomly choosing approximately equal numbers of individuals from each of the hatchery data sets to form a new data set of approximately the same size as those in each of the individual hatchery data sets. Hence for each of the hatchery collections for DNA microsatellite genotyping we selected 4 individuals randomly from each of the hatchery data sets (originally 26–30 individuals each) to form a synthetic pooled set of 28 individuals.
Results Overall, there was a similar pattern for each of the three types of DNA variation, mtDNA, DNA microsatellites and genomic SNPs in that their genetic variability indices were, typically, highest in the wild Mexican data, often statistically significantly so, followed by the “synthetic pooled” data, then the hatchery data sets (see figures 1 and 2).
There is the possibility that across the global distribution of L. vannamei there may already be substantial inbreeding with ensuing negative consequences on production and reproduction and on the long-term genetic status of this species.
» 37
ARTICLE
Figure 1. DNA microsatellite variation in the different stocks examined based on allele proportions for locus TUGAPv1–3.132. Map is freely available from Wikipedia Common web page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_Map_Pacific_World.svg#filelinks) and was used and modified under licence at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_ Free_Documentation_License,_version_1.2 using Adobe Photoshop CS6 software.
The synthetic pooled hatchery line was created in silico by combining equal numbers of random individuals from each of the seven hatchery lines to a number approximately equal to that in a single hatchery line. Comparing diversity between hatchery and wild data sets, there was at least a two-fold reduction in mtDNA haplotypes, about a four-fold reduction in DNA microsatellite allele averages for most hatchery data sets, but less than a 20% reduction in genomic SNP allele averages at maximum. Whereas the haplotype and microsatellite numbers were always statistically significantly different between the wild and the hatchery collections, this was not the case for the corresponding measures of heterozygosities. Only about half of the hatchery sites had heterozyosity values that were statistically significantly different from the wild. Effective population sizes considering the hatchery data, were much reduced compared to the wild data, and were as low as eight for the Ecuadorean 38 Âť
data compared with 96 estimated for the Mexican wild data.
Discussion Loss of, or reductions of, genetic diversity has been reported in a variety of highly fecund hatchery-bred aquacultured species which include marine shrimp, freshwater prawns, abalone, edible and pearl oysters and European sea bass. Consistent with these previous reports, the study found the hatchery individuals of L. vannamei had reduced levels of variation relative to the wild. Knibb, Whatmore, et al. (2014) and others (e.g. Lallias et al., 2010) have discussed a number of mechanisms whereby genetic loss, often rapid, can occur for captive fecund marine species especially where mass spawning is used for reproduction and a noted lack of pedigree management. First, the high intrinsic fecundity of shrimp can result in the use of relatively few broodstock per generation. Second, there can be major variability in the contributions
among families to the next generation as previously demonstrated (e.g. Knibb, Quinn, et al., 2014). Third, intense directional selection may favor selection of offspring from relatively few elite families based on their growth performance or survival to diseases such as white spot syndrome virus. Generally there was strong correlation between the different types of genetic variation. This could suggest the generality of similar genetic processes (loss of variation) being observed in the hatchery lines.
When was the genetic variation lost? While loss is evident in all the hatchery data sets, relative to the wild, researches of this study can only hypothesize exactly when this occurred. The data used originated from commercial hatcheries across the Pacific Ocean, including Asian and Latin American hatcheries running commercial production. So while it has taken many decades, even centuries, to arrive at APRIL - MAY 2020
Figura 2. The distribution of the proportions of mtDNA CO1 haplotypes in one wild and seven different white shrimp hatchery data sets. Map is freely available from Wikipedia Common web page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_Map_Pacific_World.svg#filelinks) and was used and modified under license at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License,_version_1.2 using Adobe Photoshop CS6 software.
Loss of, or reductions of, genetic diversity has been reported in a variety of highly fecund hatcherybred aquacultured species which include marine shrimp, freshwater prawns, abalone, edible and pearl oysters and European sea bass.
low effective population sizes for terrestrial land animal breeding, it is of concern that the nature of aquaculture is such that we may have reached, even surpassed, the terrestrial levels of inbreeding for important marine species such as L. vannamei in a matter of decades, perhaps foreshadowing potential losses of the residual variation into the future. APRIL - MAY 2020
Conclusions Line crossing to restore variation is not a new concept, provided there are genetic differences among lines. While understanding the history, provenance and pedigrees of the samples analyzed in this study all the way back to the wild would have been interesting, it in no way detracts from the potential practical applications raised by the obtained results for two reasons. First, any future attempt to restore variation (yet keeping existing genetic gains) will almost certainly have to rely of subsamples from different hatcheries without full provenance information back to the wild. Second, knowledge of the provenance is not necessary to functionally restore variation; rather genetic information on the samples at hand is needed. Thus these results are perhaps of international relevance given the wide spread use of L. vannamei in farming and where nearly all farming is based
on captive hatchery stocks with no introgression from the wild. Lastly, the key question raised in the introduction was whether there remain sufficient genetic differences among L. vannamei hatchery lines across the Pacific such that crosses among them could potentially restore variation somewhat like that in wild samples. This question was resolved in the affirmative.
* This is a short versión from the article: “Feasible options to restore genetic variation in hatchery stocks of the globally important farmed shrimp species, Litopenaeus vannamei”. By: W. Knibb, C.T. Giang, H.K.A. Premachandra, N.H. Ninh y B.C. Domínguez, that was originally published on December 2019 at the Journal Aquaculture from Elsevier and can be found in a full version online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734823 We strongly recommend our readers to consult the original publication in order to dig deeper in results obtained in this study, especially within the section of methods and materials, data analysis and results that were summarized in this edition.
» 39
ARTICLE
Aligning the management of
capture fisheries and marine aquaculture for the future
By: Tyler Clavelle, Sarah E. Lester, Rebecca Gentry, Halley E. Froehlich*
T
he present article is based on a study made by researchers from the University of California and the Florida State University where for the first time a comprehensive synthesis of the interactions between mariculture and wild fisheries was provided.
40 Âť
Aquaculture surpassed wild fisheries as the largest supplier of fish for human consumption in 2014 and is expected to supply the majority of seafood for future increases in demand. Marine and coastal aquaculture, collectively referred to as mariculture, currently represents just 36% of aquaculture production but is poised to expand in the decades ahead. One of the most commonly cited concerns regarding this likely expansion is ecological and socioeconomic interactions with wild-capture fisheries. By considering mariculture development in the context of fisheries interactions, this study suggests that it is possible to minimize conflicts and maximize positive connections between the two sectors. This result was achieved by evaluating the available empirical evidence and identifying where management (sector-specific and cooperative) can play and important role. Aquaculture recently surpassed capture fisheries as the primary source of seafood, contributing 73.8
million metric tonnes (MT) of seafood for direct human consumption in 2014 (50.4% of the total). Indeed, aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing food sector, and with only modest gains from capture fisheries expected, aquaculture will play a key role in providing for projected APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 41
ARTICLE
Primary concerns regarding future growth in marine farming include the uncertain ecological and socioeconomic implications for wild fisheries.
growth in seafood demand (FAO, 2016; Kobayashi et al., 2015). Marine species are being farmed at a rapid pace, increasing viable culture areas, diversifying product offerings and expanding the range of market prices for consumers (Duarte, Marbá, & Holmer, 2007). Mariculture can be among the most efficient sources of animal protein. Also, in the case of offshore aquaculture, ocean space available for mariculture production is estimated to be considerably larger than is needed to feed the world, which stands in contrast to scarce land and freshwater resources required for food production on land. Mariculture is dominated by unfed production of aquatic plants and filter-feeding bivalves and molluscs, followed by marine finfish (primarily salmonids), and shrimps and prawns. Nonetheless, when aquatic plants are excluded, mariculture’s current contribution to seafood supply is smaller than both its inland (freshwater) 42 »
counterpart and the capture fisheries sector, providing only 36% (26.7 million MT) of global aquaculture production and 18.25% of all seafood for human consumption in 2014 (FAO, 2016). Primary concerns regarding future growth in marine farming include the uncertain ecological and socioeconomic implications for wild fisheries. And yet, existing analyses examining the future of seafood production largely ignore interactions between capture fisheries and mariculture (exceptions include Merino et al. (2012) and Watson et al. (2015)). Several influential studies have warned that, without adopting more ecologically sound management practices, an expanded aquaculture industry could make the world’s food supply less resilient by posing a threat to ocean fisheries. As a result of heterogeneity in both mariculture and wild fisheries, the two sectors interact in a variety of
ways that can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial. These interactions can be influenced by a range of factors, such as the similarity of the farmed and wild species; the farming methods (e.g. pond, cage, raft, line), scale and intensity level; farm location (e.g. coastal, offshore); the types of fisheries involved; and the institutions and regulations governing fisheries and mariculture. Here, we organize interactions into two categories: ecological and socioeconomic (Table 1).
Strategies for managing interactions between fisheries and mariculture Interactions with mariculture occur at varying spatial scales and, in the absence of effective regulations, can have both positive and negative impacts on wild populations and their associated fisheries. Additive effects could bring about long-term regional consequences for both sectors from disease, habitat and water quality APRIL - MAY 2020
remain the primary concern for fisheries management, and the effects of overfishing could influence both the degree to which capture fisheries and mariculture overlap and/or conflict and the resilience of wild stocks to potential negative externalities of mariculture. Climate change can also exacerbate these issues (Pershing et al., 2015) and is expected to have profound effects on the distribution of commercially targeted species (Perry, Low, Ellis, & Reynolds, 2005). Thus, it will be increasingly important for fisheries managers to consider how an expanding mariculture sector may affect target stocks and support or conflict with a “working waterfront.�
While conflicts may emerge, the presence of mariculture can also provide economic support for harbours and ports used by both industries, especially given seasonal variation of wild capture (e.g. Trombly & Wilkins, 2016). However, there is limited research around this socioeconomic interaction. Mariculture management aims to limit a broad array of environmental impacts, primarily related to water quality (stocking density, feed use, chemical/antibiotics), disease risk and invasive species because these are important economic issues, are often required by regulations or negatively influence public perception of mariculture (Froehlich et al.,
Table 1 Categorization and suggested references for major interactions between capture fisheries and mariculture (non-exhaustive list)
degradation, reduced genetic fitness, overharvesting, invasive species and price competition. On the other hand, mariculture practices have been used to enhance wild populations for decades, can improve local water quality and shelter populations from fishing effort while expanding the market and overall demand for seafood products. By examining when the decisions of mariculture farmers do not negatively affect their own production or the production of other farmers, we can better anticipate the issues where mariculture management is unlikely to address the concerns of capture fisheries. Fishery management approaches are designed to achieve one or more of the following goals: control fishing mortality, restore age-structure, protect marine habitat and/or protect subpopulation structure to preserve genetic diversity (Selig et al., 2017). Over-exploitation is likely to APRIL - MAY 2020
Âť 43
ARTICLE
2017; Lafferty et al., 2015). In these cases, mariculture and fisheries are largely aligned—poor practices at the farm level can negatively impact all farms (internal) and capture fisheries (external) at the regional level. Further integration of fisheries and mariculture management could benefit from more advanced modelling efforts that incorporate both sectors in an ecosystem framework. Ecosystem-based models are commonly used in mariculture modelling and could serve as a foundation for more holistic models that consider effects of the two sectors in concert.
Co-management strategies The challenge for fisheries management is to deal with those impacts that are partially or entirely external to the individual fish farmer and therefore unlikely to be adequately addressed, if at all, by mariculture management alone. This presents an important opportunity for policymakers to figure out how to achieve cooperative management between the fisheries and mariculture sectors. Such an outcome lacks much precedent and requires adaptive management strategies that carefully balance precaution with empirics to support a sustainable and economically viable seafood industry. Eroding the distrust that often exists among mariculture and fishery stakeholders should be a key prerequisite (Martínez-Novo, Lizcano, Herrera-Racionero, & Miret-Pastor, 2017), and can be supported by approaches that ensure all stakeholders feel involved in the decision-making process and secure in their access to sustainable marine resources. Rights-based management Conflicts in natural resource use arise when property rights are poorly defined, as assessed by the spatial, temporal and quantitative “dimensions” of the property right (Ostrom, 2015; Yandle, 2007). In fisheries, property rights are primarily “withdrawal” rights, where fishers own the right 44 »
to harvest the resource. In contrast, mariculture grants property rights in the form of “access” rights, the right to develop and control a farm in a defined physical property (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). Thus, while property rights can be well defined within a sector, fisheries and mariculture are generally granted rights to fundamentally different aspects of marine resources. In some cases, rights-based fisheries management is spatial, such as Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURFs), where fishers are granted ownership of the fish stock within a designated area. In these situations, the costs of unsustainable mariculture are internalized; poor farming practices by the community will negatively affect the fisheries for which they have exclusive rights. Similarly, TURFs provide the necessary incen-
tives for investing in active resource management such as stock enhancement (Lorenzen et al., 2010). By aligning incentives, spatial rights-based approaches to resource management can allow communities to decide on appropriate levels and locations of both activities, not just fishing effort.
Spatial planning When determining where to site mariculture farms, an important aspect is weighing the production potential and profitability of a given site(s) against the relative value of that site to wild fisheries that could be impacted (Gentry, Lester, et al., 2017). To this end, comprehensive marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged as a means to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives by analysing and appropriately allocatAPRIL - MAY 2020
Further integration of fisheries and mariculture management could benefit from more advanced modelling efforts that incorporate both sectors in an ecosystem framework.
ing different uses to marine spaces (Halpern, McLeod, Rosenberg, and Crowder, 2008) and illustrating tradeoffs to support decision-making. Importantly, mariculture is highly space-efficient and an MSP analysis can often identify options for mariculture development that generate large yields at minimal cost to fishing yields from reduced fishing grounds (Lester et al., 2018). Designating allocated zones for aquaculture (AZAs), defined as “a marine area where the development of aquaculture has priority over other uses,� is a critical step in the MSP process and helps define the extent to which mariculture may encroach on traditional fishing grounds. The use of AZAs (or equivalent legislative and administrative tools) is already globally widespread and includes, among others, applications in EuAPRIL - MAY 2020
rope, New Zealand, Australia, Ecuador and Chile (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2016). However, AZAs alone do not prevent potential negative externalities from mariculture, which requires a subsequent site selection process that considers the specific issues and risks associated with different types of mariculture (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al., 2017). A key challenge to the MSP process is quantifying potential impacts from mariculture on capture fisheries, which is not straightforward, and thus, their inclusion in spatial planning models has largely been evaluated qualitatively (McKindsey, Thetmeyer, Landry,& Silvert, 2006). However, more quantitative approaches to the inclusion of mariculture in MSP process are emerging. Lester et al. (2018) developed an analytical MSP framework for guiding
offshore mariculture (bivalve, finfish and kelp) development in relation to other sectors (including wild-capture fisheries) and environmental concerns in California, USA. To further support such analyses, improved models of the potential interactions between mariculture and wild fisheries, as described in this paper, are necessary, particularly pertaining to FAD and MPA effects. For example, Xuan and Armstrong (2016) developed a bioeconomic model to examine when capture-based mariculture has a negative effect on wild fish stocks (e.g. lower intrinsic growth rate due to the stocking of wild juveniles). Their results suggest implementing an MPA of a certain size may result in better outcomes (e.g. wild catch, mariculture production, net present values) under both open access and optimal fisheries management. Âť 45
ARTICLE
Mariculture is highly spaceefficient and a Marine Spatial Planning analysis can often identify options for mariculture development that generate large yields at minimal cost to fishing yields from reduced fishing grounds.
Time–area closures are a form of spatial management widely used in fisheries to prevent overfishing and minimize by-catch (Dunn, Boustany, & Halpin, 2011). These approaches tend to be effective at addressing their specific design objective but not necessarily other broad-scale objectives (Dichmont et al., 2013). Mariculture managers also employ time–area closures in the form of fallowing—where farm sites are
46 »
emptied and not restocked for a period of time. This strategy helps to reduce disease risk and environmental impacts associated with nutrient loading. In some cases, it may be possible to synchronize these efforts and site mariculture in areas temporarily closed to fishing while simultaneously freeing up the space previously occupied by the farms. Such a strategy is likely best suited for invertebrates and demersal species
with small geographic ranges, such as the Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus, Scallop) fisheries, where time–area closures are widely used.
Stock enhancement Stock enhancement science is progressing to where, in some cases, it is now possible to preemptively evaluate the potential success and impacts of stock enhancement efforts in conjunction with fisheries management decisions (Lorenzen et al., 2013). As the number of domesticated marine species developed for mariculture continues to rise, so too will the opportunities and economic feasibility of stock enhancement and restoration of wild populations thanks to improved understanding of species’ life cycles. However, genetic considerations differ between the two sectors; mariculture focuses on traits advantageous for growth and disease resistance and the genetic composition of individuals released for stock enhancement should reflect the wild population to the greatest extent possible. Reconciling these different objectives may make collaboration between hatchery managers and the mariculture sector challenging, especially where APRIL - MAY 2020
mariculture and fisheries are regulated by different government agencies. A promising example of a collaborative model for promoting both commercial culture and restoration is the U.S. National Shellfish Initiative. In order to be successful, stock enhancement programmes must be supported by adaptive fishery management that sets outcome-oriented goals, such as a net increase in landings, and updates management decisions accordingly (Lorenzen et al., 2010).
Conclusions Mariculture is currently operating well below its potential, and its expansion has been hampered in part by concern and uncertainty around interactions with marine capture fisheries. In some cases, risks are relatively low: well-managed and carefully sited farms, particularly of low-density bivalves or algae, can prosper with minimal impacts to wild stocks. Potentially negative ecological and socioeconomic effects on wild fisheries do exist, however, but many of these effects can be reduced or eliminated with a combination of spatial planning and well-designed management strategies. Though disease transmission, genetic introgression and the use of wild fish for feed and seed are concerns, the performance of mariculture is improving and public policies that establish property rights and guide planning are facilitating sustainable development of the sector in many countries. Where mariculture management is unlikely to address externalities on capture fisheries, management strategies like TURFs, MPAs and time–area closures show promise. There are also potential synergistic benefits that mariculture can provide to wild stocks or fisheries in the form of protection from fishing, increased demand for seafood and stock enhancement. Ongoing research is necessary, particularly regarding disease transmission and host density thresholds; implications of the FAD and MPA effects on population dynamics; fitness effects of genetic introgression; impacts of capture-based mariculture; and the substitutability of wild and farmed products. Ultimately, providing for the projected increase in seafood demand will depend heavily on mariculture and understanding how best to manage, as well as leverage, the sector’s interactions with capture fisheries is critical.
*This is a short version of the original article: “Interactions and management for the future of marine aquaculture and capture fisheries” by: Tyler Clavelle, Sarah E. Lester, Rebecca Gentry, Halley E. Froehlich that was published on February 2019 at the Fish and Fisheries Journal volume 20, issue 2 of Wiley Online Library. The full article can be accessed through: https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12351. We highly recommend our readers to consult the full information that has much deeper content on the interactions between both productive sectors.
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 47
ARTICLE
FAO publishes information on how COVID-19 is affecting aquaculture food systems
By: Aquaculture Magazine Staff *
T
his pandemic, unprecedented in modern times, continues to cause major disruption in societies around the world and inflict severe damage on the global economy. Governments have introduced an array of measures 48 Âť
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a public health crisis followed by an on-going economic crisis due to the measures taken by countries to contain the rate of infection, such as home confinement, travel bands and business closures, among others. Even though food retail businesses, like supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores and take-away restaurants are deemed essential and remain operational, the measures taken to contain the COVID-19 outbreak have created an environment in which food could become more difficult to obtain.
intended to slow the spread of the virus, including social isolation directives, limitations on business opening hours and travel restrictions. The seafood sector, along with the majority of industries, is having to deal with a bleak demand outlook as well as an
array of supply challenges. With the effective shutdown of the restaurant industry, foodservice demand has evaporated, while retail sales have been marked by extreme volatility as periods of panic buying are followed by sustained lulls. APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 49
ARTICLE
Other consequences of the virus outbreak include the cancellation of key seafood trade events across the world and a delay in aquaculture harvests due to labor shortages.
Demand for packaged and frozen products has spiked as households look to stock up on non-perishable food at the expense of fresh seafood options. At the same time, online distributors are reporting increased interest as home-bound consumers explore retail alternatives. Overall, however, demand has been sharply reduced and prices have fallen for many species, particularly those that are important for the restaurant industry. Meanwhile, suppliers and processors are struggling with business closures all along the supply chain as well as a
50 Âť
number of other logistical difficulties. Haulers must contend with closed or restricted road borders and health inspection delays, while the large-scale cancellation of flights has directly affected trade in some high-end fresh products which are transported by air. Other consequences of the virus outbreak include the cancellation of key seafood trade events across the world and a delay in aquaculture harvests due to labour shortages. Seafood representatives in many countries are calling for financial aid from the government, but such mea-
sures may only provide limited relief in the face of widespread upheaval. Industry stakeholders are also calling for regulator flexibility in terms of extending catch limits and raising biomass limits, and emphasizing the need to rapidly understand and plan for long-term changes in the market landscape. Uncertainty still dominates the outlook, particularly with regard to the duration and severity of the pandemic, but a prolonged market downturn can be expected even after current restrictions are lifted or relaxed.
APRIL - MAY 2020
In response the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has recently published a brief addressing the particulars on how the seafood industry and the fisheries and aquaculture production sectors are being affected by these changes and new challenges. Below we are including the specific information concerning the aquaculture sector, as well as the recommended measures to minimize the impact or cope with the current situation for the involved actors of the supply and value chains.
Protecting each stage of the aquaculture supply chain Although COVID-19 does not affect fish, the fish sector is still subject to indirect impacts of the pandemic through changing consumer demands, market access or logistical problems related to transportation and border restrictions. This will in turn have a damaging effect on fish farmers’ livelihoods, as well as on food security and nutrition for populations that rely heavily on fish for animal protein and essential micronutrients. At the same time, misleading perceptions in some countries have also led to a decreased consumption of seafood, resulting in a fall in prices of fish products. This emphasizes the need for clear communications regarding how the virus is transmitted and that it is not related to seafood. The full range of activities required to deliver fish and fishery products from production to the final consumer are complex. Globally, technologies employed vary from artisanal to highly industrial. Value chains include local, regional and global markets. Key activities in an aquaculture supply chain are aquaculture production, processing, transport, and wholesale and retail marketing. Each link in the chain is susceptible to being disrupted or stopped by impacts arising from COVID-19. If one of these producer –buyer –seller links is broken by the disease or containment measures, the outcome will be a cascading chain of disruptions that will affect the sector’s economy. The desired result, human consumption of aquaculture products, can only be achieved by protecting the producer – buyer – seller links and each stage of the supply chain. Therefore, it is essential that each stage of this food chain is given all possible protection. Varied impacts in aquaculture production with uncertainties for the future Effects on aquaculture production will vary. Due to market disruptions, fish farmers cannot sell their harvest and they must keep large quantities of live fish that need to be fed for an indeterminate period. This increases costs, expenditures and risks. Some farmed species for export (e.g. pangasius) have been reportedly affected by the closure of international markets (Chine, EuroAPRIL - MAY 2020
» 51
ARTICLE
Key activities in an aquaculture supply chain are aquaculture production, processing, transport, and wholesale and retail marketing. Each link in the chain is susceptible to being disrupted or stopped by impacts arising from COVID-19.
pean Union). Shellfish aquaculture (e.g. oysters) is affected mainly because of the closure of foodservices (e.g. tourism, hotels and restaurants) and retailers (e.g. European Union). In addition, due to a wide range of restrictions by different countries on cargo movements and airport clearing, etc. hatchery operators and brood stock traders may find it difficult to trade brood stock for seed production, which could cause a sharp decline in production. Smallscale aquaculture, on the other hand, may benefit from reduced competition with fish imports. Aquaculture production capacity may also be affected by the difficulty in sourcing inputs (seed and feed) and finding labor due to lockdowns. 52 »
Measures to maintain operations include • Declaring aquaculture to be at par with agriculture for the purpose of priority sector lending, crop insurance, power tariff and other levies. • Increasing access for fish farmers to credit and micro-finance programmes with reduced interest rates, flexible loan repayment, and options for restructuring loans and related payment schedules. • Granting programmes to cover production and income losses to maintain domestic seafood supply chains and to ensure continued operations. • Forgiving loans used to maintain payroll, and low-interest loans to refinance existing debts.
• Relieving payments, i.e. suspending certain financial obligations such as utilities, real estate tax and mortgages. • Slowing down production where there is a drop in demand or reduced market access, especially if exports remain slow and farm labor has been lost.
Processors, markets and trades are adapting to shift in demand Fish products are particularly reliant on the food service sectors, and thus are highly affected by changes in food services. As countries implement lockdown measures, restaurants, hotels, schools, universities and associated canteens close down, causing a drop in activity for many fish wholesalers and an absence of APRIL - MAY 2020
outlets for some high value fresh fish species. Panic buying of food has reportedly benefited the sale of pre packed, frozen or canned fish products, but these may not be able to continue supplying the market if the war material is not available, and because of other logistical problems. In particular, as countries are closing down their borders, there may be delays at border crossing and air flights may be cancelled, which may affect the trade of goods, and the cost of transport could increase significantly. Restrictions on market access and a drop in demand will mean fish and fish products may be held in storage for loner. This has implications for foods loss and waste due to quality changes as well as additional costs for processors, exporters, importers and traders. At the same time, this unprecedented situation is generating promising innovative practices that could influence the way the sector works in the future.
Measures to support the aquaculture supply chain include: • In the area of international trade, in a joint effort to ensure that trade
flows continue to be as free as possible, a call by the heads of FAO, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) for the prevention of border restrictions on trade in food to avoid shortages, emphasizing that the dissemination of information on foodrelated trade measures is fundamental. • Ensuring supply chain access, with continued access to and cooperation from officials at ports, rail and border crossings so the sales can be maintained. • Ensuring the stability of production by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens that are preventing production • Continuing support for the supply chain (e.g. using temporary storage of fish, diverting fish to the home market, working with processors to adjust supply to the home market and replacing product previously prepared for the export market). • Processing fish and products that remain unsold (e.g. salted or stored in ice as appropriate, which requires a supply of medium-sized insulated boxes or containers to be provided by the relevant government departments. • Exploring the possibility of freezing fish productions with fish processing, refrigerating and distribution companies. • Marketing directly to end consumers as a potential important new approach for some businesses. • Using alternative marketing strategies to help alleviate the need for prolonged storage of products.
Problems of working conditions along the value chain The wide informality in the sector constitutes an added barrier for fish farmers to access protection from labor market policies and contributory social protection mechanisms. These might exacerbate the secondary effects of COVID-19, including poverty and hunger. APRIL - MAY 2020
» 53
ARTICLE
As countries implement lockdown measures, restaurants, hotels, schools, universities and associated canteens close down, causing a drop in activity for many fish wholesalers and an absence of outlets for some high value fresh fish species. Measures to protect the most vulnerable include • Improving hygiene ad sanitation in the sector during the relief / recovery period. • Providing payroll and unemployment assistance for staff members of production facilities and self – employed, small-scale fish farmers. • Supporting the most vulnerable with cash and in-kind transfers by
local institutions (where no national social protection schemes exist). • Adapting the programme design (delivery schedule, level of benefits) and relaxing conditionalities (e.g. waivers on contributions) to ensure wider and adequate coverage of the aquaculture sector, including informal workers, where social assistance (cash and in-kind transfers) or social insurance programmes exist.
• Supporting inter-institutional coordination, through data information exchanges between authorities responsible for the sector development and governance to ensure the coverage of fish farmers y social development.
Management and policy implications The collapse of export markets has increased the possibility of re-sourcing fish from local producers. However, the national market of some nations is small or non-existent and the national fishing fleet may exceed the capacity for the national market, with several management implications. Measures include • Having governments carry out assessments and identify specific solutions in partnership with the actors from the sector.
This brief was developed by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The full version including also information and recommendations specifically for the fisheries sector is available online at: http://www.fao. org/3/ca8637en/ca8637en.pdf
54 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 55
LATIN AMERICA REPORT
Latin America Report: Recent News and Events By: Aquaculture Magazine Staff *
Ecuador expects a considerable drop in shrimp exports due to COVID-19 ECUADOR. Recently in an interview for local Ecuadorian media, José Antonio Camposano, president of the National Aquaculture Chamber, expressed how international and national scenarios have been affected by the outbreak of COVID-19 for the Ecuadorian shrimp industry. The arrival of COVID-19 in China was the first point of wobble for Ecuador in terms of exports, since the Asian giant is one of the main markets for shrimp, acquiring around 67% of the national production. This scenario was presented at the end of 2019, but according to Camposano, for January and February 2020, shrimp exports, despite the crisis in Asia, continued to rise. This as a result to the fact that Ecuadorian entrepreneurs diverted a good part of the product destined for China and processed it to export instead to the United States, which worked well but it was an unusual scenario. Exports for those months reached approximately
630 million dollars in foreign currency for the Ecuador shrimp sector. Even if that strategy had a good outcome for the first two months of the year, it cannot be repeated during the current and upcoming months, because as China begins to regain normality, outbreaks are taking place now in Europe, North America and also beginning in Latin America. So, it’s clear that the numbers and figures of this year will reflect an export statistic fall affected by the market and by
the supply chain disruption due to the same problem. The outbreak of COVID-19 in Ecuador has also generated a series of situations that have delayed production, reducing the capacity of process and packaging in facilities. José Antonio Camposano mentioned that these negative impacts are likely to continue until the end of this year, and will reflect in a stronger way when the national production of shrimp is not sold to the international seafood markets, not precisely because the consumers don’t look for the product anymore, but because a lot of the importing companies may not survive the crisis.
Badinotti implements prevention measures in its work system against current global pandemic CHILE. As an innovative and effective measure, Badinotti Group has defined a new working strategy to implement in the operations of its three units in Chile: Marine, Services and Net. The strategy consists in reducing contact 56 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 57
LATIN AMERICA REPORT
between collaborators and maintaining the operation of all areas through small groups, called “cells”. Currently this company is the only textile producer for the salmon industry that is operational in the Latin American continent, which has led the company to take all the necessary measures since the first cases of coronavirus were confirmed in Chile.
CORFO’s Sustainable Salmon Regional Strategic Program (PEM) continues operating remotely CHILE. The regional sustainable salmon strategic program that covers territory from Araucanía to Magallanes, has been actively operating its annual plan through the use of virtual platforms, attending to social distancing and safety measures suggested in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak in south America. Remote meetings have allowed the organization to advance in the governance management and lobbying for all the participating regions. Also, members have been actively reviewing the current state of the most relevant initiatives of this program, attending upcoming social interest open calls for project and program submissions and working on the upcoming initiative they will launch for the development of nutritional supplies for the salmon industry. All of this responds to the greater purpose of the organization which is to contribute to an effective link and interaction between the salmon industry and the territory and society in which it operates.
characterized by large ponds and low planting densities. Despite being a system that requires large extensions of land and low levels of infiltration, the shrimp farming industry in Guatemala used this traditional system for decades, and to date it continues to be widely used worldwide. Guatemala did not have the necessary characteristics so that shrimp
farming with the extensive system will continue to develop due to its sandy soils, high cost of land and scarce estuaries, so it did not manage to develop at the level of other countries in the region. However, the history of the shrimp industry in the country changed course once the knowledge of super intensive farming was adopted. And these previously characteris-
Super intensive shrimp farming has also great results in Guatemala GUATEMALA. Extensive shrimp farming systems predominate in countries such as Ecuador and India. It is 58 »
APRIL - MAY 2020
tics, which were considered unsuitable for extensive farming, became an advantage. The super intensive system is characterized by its small, deep ponds and central drain, guaranteeing above all cleanliness in the removal of organic matter and greater control of it. It has the capacity to produce up to 70/80 metric tons per hectare cycle. The level of technology development and innovation of the Guatemalan shrimp farmers has allowed the country to meet the demands of the local and international market and stand out from other Asian and Latin American countries. Currently, Guatemala has around 1,700 hectares built for shrimp farming, a figure that seems significant even when compared to the “greats of America” where Ecuador has the first place with around 200,000 hectares available for shrimp farming. In Central America, the largest producer of shrimp is Honduras with around 20,000 hectares. Guatemala is making bold steps in this directions and certainly in the upcoming decade there will be more development of this product for national and international markets.
National University of Costa Rica empowers women on the Pacific coast through oyster farming initiatives COSTA RICA. Through an inter-institutional project, women’s groups in Costa Rica are taught oyster farming procedures and techniques, as well as some basic farm management tools. The cultivation of oysters has become the impulse that these women, who are family heads of households in her communities located on the Pacific coast, needed to get ahead and not only bring sustenance to APRIL - MAY 2020
their families, but also achieve an economic revival in their communities. The project led by the National University (UNA) of Costa Rica with inter-institutional aid, was born in 2000 with the impulse of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (Conicit) together with the Puntarenean Chamber of Fishermen. Specialists from UNA’s, two Marine Biology stations in Puntarenas, produce the oyster “seeds” that will be delivered to coastal communities. In their laboratories the mollusk grows faster, which allows optimizing the process. Once the optimum size is reached, they are delivered to the communities ready for maintenance, care and fattening on the farms. The project has a higher incidence in the Gulf of Nicoya; however,
there is also a project in El Jobo, in La Cruz de Guanacaste. Of the participating communities, female representation ranges from 60% to 70% (in total, there are about 19 women). The process of cultivation of oyster farms is expensive, complete and represents a commitment for the communities: from the moment the mollusk is introduced into the farm (with a size close to 2 millimeters) until its extraction (when it reaches 6 centimeters) it can take six months. With the project, these women have not only learned to cultivate oysters, but have also acquired basic knowledge in: business administration, finances, working with processes and soft skills, so that they manage production in a comprehensive way. In this way, UNA takes the next step: it does not keep the knowledge, but transfers it to the communities. » 59
OUT AND ABOUT
An increase in global consumption of farmed
seafood is expected over the next 10 years Visionary people who are investing in the seafood industry, whether they are in aquaculture, fishing or any other areas within the associated value chain, now is the time to step forward and get ahead of the development of RAS farms (Aquaculture Recirculation Systems), in order to prevent staying out of the new and dynamic markets that will promote this technology.
By: Salvador Meza *
T
he production of farmed species has mainly driven the increase in the commercialization of fish and shellfish in recent years in different aquaculture settings, predominantly premium quality crustaceans, highvalue marine species, and lower-value white fish species produced in Asia and exported to countries in Europe and the American Continent.
60 Âť
The annual growth of this market has been steady and around 4% on average between 2012 and 2017, reaching a value of nearly 150 billion dollars. This value increase is mainly a result of the commercialization of farmed salmon and shrimp, rather than a general rise of productions from fisheries, which are already being impacted by over-exploitation, lack of governance in an interna-
tional level and the effects of climate change. The highest value produced in the seafood market currently responds to farmed salmon exports from Norway to the European Union, followed by farmed shrimp and fish exports from China to the United States. During the period between 2013 and 2017, one of the seafood mar-
APRIL - MAY 2020
Analysts from the global financial sector expect growth in aquaculture production to be driven in the upcoming decade by genetic improvements, innovations in aquaculture feed and intensification of production with more efficient sustainable technologies.
kets that grew the most in a global scale was the farmed shrimp, since the United States, the European Union, and China increased their imports significantly. Meanwhile, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Ecuador have been the countries where the production of this species has grown the most, given their favorable climatic conditions and the gradual technological development of their farming techniques, which has allowed them to become the main shrimp suppliers for these countries. Analysts from the global financial sector expect growth in aquaculture production to be driven in the upcoming decade by genetic improvements, innovations in aquaculture feed, and intensification of production with more efficient sustainable technologies. These analysts expect that during 2020 the volumes of aquaculture production will be APRIL - MAY 2020
above 90,000 metric tons and exceed the output obtained from fisheries. Among the technological innovations expected to have a more significant impact on the aquaculture production rates increase, the Aquaculture Recirculation Systems (RAS) are identified. These systems are a constant reason for analysis by financial institutions and investment funds, in which this emerging technology is projected to change the role of aquaculture over the next ten years. These analyzes exemplify this by highlighting the potential of inland salmon production in farming ponds with RAS technology. “An increasing number of proposed RAS projects, particularly for salmon farming, are in the process of building a platform for the future success of the aquaculture industry,” says Beyhan de Jong, animal protein analyst at Rabobank. “So far, we have identified more than 50 proposed
RAS projects (and counting) to farm salmon on land. The estimated total production of these projects announced until 2030 is equal to 25% of the current total production of salmon in the world. “ According to this analyst, if the risks within the RAS operations are managed effectively, the aquaculture production of these systems will have a significant impact on the salmon market and, eventually, on all the species that are added to the production with RAS systems. The chain of commercialization of these aquaculture products will be affected by the dynamism of this production, as well as the systems of process, collection, and distribution, which means that the entire industry will be in a revolution in the next decade. Salvador Meza is Editor & Publisher of Aquaculture Magazine, and of the Spanish language industry magazine Panorama Acuicola.
» 61
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
Science-deniers and the
global ecological crisis By Neil Anthony Sims*
There is a global ecological crisis, driven by humanity’s ongoing heedlessness that needs collective, concerted engagement, if we are to avoid the planetary-scale consequences. The United Nations has convened panels of expert scientists to plot a path forward, out of the quagmire, and their conclusions are unequivocal: we need significant changes in policy, supported by radical reinvention of how we do business, and we need all of this to happen quickly.
Y
et in the face of this imperative, there are powerful, vocal groups who continue to rail against the expert-recommended innovations and policy changes. These groups willfully choose to ignore the science, and instead bleat platitudes and promote patent falsehoods, muddying the issues and fostering fear mongering. The consequences of such denial of the science are very real, and will be manifested in ongoing human health costs, and an altogether avoidable ecological catastrophe. We bring this on our own heads – or rather, it is brought upon us by those who continue to deny the preponderance of scientific evidence. This all sounds too familiar: the onslaught of obfuscation from the global climate deniers, right? Yes, but we aren’t just talking about fossil
62 »
fuels and carbon. This scenario also describes the global seafood crisis, the ocean’s potential to mitigate climate change impacts, and the resistance to policy change from the anti-aquaculture advocates. There are now compelling conclusions, from global leaders in their respective fields of study, that urge a transition from our reliance on terrestrial agriculture to more marine based food production. It is clear: we need more marine aquaculture! There is also now abundant research that demonstrates that in deep water, further from shore, the environmental impacts from responsibly farmed fish are minimal, if detectible at all. Yet, still, the anti-aquaculture activists persist; their heated handwringing, inflammatory innuendoes and flatout falsehoods pile up like bloated carcasses on a beach. No less an august body than the
United Nations High Level Panel on Climate and Oceans has delivered a report entitled “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change”, which makes five recommendations, or “Opportunities for Action”. Of these five, the opportunity for “Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Dietary Shifts” argues that we must “Shift (human) diets toward low carbon marine sources such as sustainably harvested fish, seaweed, and kelp as a replacement for emissions from intensive land-based sources of protein.” (Back when I was in school, kelp was a seaweed, but never mind … we will forgive them that redundancy). The UN HLP report also establishes medium-term goals, (i.e. a target date of implementation by 2025), of creating “incentives to switch from high-carbon land-based sources of protein to low-carbon APRIL - MAY 2020
There are now compelling conclusions, from global leaders in their respective fields of study, that urge a transition from our reliance on terrestrial agriculture to more marine based food production. It is clear: we need more marine aquaculture!
ocean-based sources”, and goes so boldly as to “explore potential impact of a carbon tax on red meat and other carbon intensive food”. Wow! In case there was any doubt as to what we should be eating, the final medium-term goal is to “develop and bring to scale high-technology digital aquaculture”. That, friends, is us – the world needs offshore aquaculture! The Expert Group was cochaired by Oregon State University’s Dr Jane Lubchenko, previously head of NOAA under the Obama administration. Dr Lubchenko is a renowned marine conservationist. The Expert Group also included other luminaries from the ocean conservation and global climate fields, such as Dr Steve Gaines of UCSB’s Bren School, Dr Rashid Sumaila of University of British Columbia’s Institute for the Oceans and FishAPRIL - MAY 2020
eries, and Dr Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute. These folk carry considerable gravitas in the conservation community. They are not known for giddy arm-waving. It is hard to dismiss their conclusions. Yet, in spite of this preponderance of science, Canada’s new government continues to move forward with a plan to end open water net pen fish farming in British Columbia, though strangely, not in the Atlantic Maritime provinces. There is perhaps irony that Canada’s Prime Minister is also a member of the High Level Panel on Oceans. (Notably, however, Canada did not sign the “Call to Ocean-Based Climate Action” that the Panel issued during the course of the recent national election). The Canadian government’s plan is to move all B.C. salmon farming from net pens to
land-based recirculating farms. This certainly limits the economic scalability of the industry and the affordability of the product to consumers: it increases the capital equipment and operating costs, as well as the GHG impacts from energy use. More expensive salmon would certainly not encourage more seafood consumption. People will presumably, then, just eat more beef. This is aligned with neither the UN High Level Panel’s recommendations, nor with the earth’s best interests. Denmark has also recently called for a moratorium on expansion of marine fish farming. This has been gleefully miss portrayed by antiaquaculture activists as the shutting down of all net pen production in Danish waters, but is actually a recognition by the government that the country’s EEZ may have reached its carrying capacity. The government » 63
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE Figure 1 Danish EEZ waters that are currently committed for other uses (shown in blue), or that are not currently committed and could be suitable for aquaculture (shown in green).
There is also now abundant research that demonstrates that in deep water, further from shore, the environmental impacts from responsibly farmed fish are minimal, if detectible at all.
has simply stated that there will be no development of any new seabased fish farms or expansion of any of the 19 existing farms. Danish Environment Minister Lea Wermelin declared that ‘Denmark has reached the limit of how many fish can be farmed at sea without risking the environment”, and suggested that expansion of marine fish production should be confined to onshore developments. “We have major challenges with oxygen deficiencies, and we can see that nitrogen emissions are not falling as expected. Therefore, it is the government’s position that there is no room for more or larger facilities in Denmark,” said Wermelin. At least these conclusions would seem to be based in science, and that is to be applauded. Given that most of Denmark’s marine farming is currently located in the shallower, more protected waters between Denmark and Sweden (see Figure 1); some prudence would not seem misplaced. And Denmark is already the eighth largest producer of farmed marine fish in the EU. However, there is ample ocean space in Denmark’s EEZ in deeper water to the west. Yes, certainly, this is fully exposed to the North Sea, but Norway and China are already 64 »
launching offshore net pens that are designed to withstand North Sea storms or South China Sea typhoons. Denmark’s government would seem to be perhaps flinching in the face of a challenge, by essentially stating up front “No, we aren’t going there”. Perhaps if they read the UN HLP report, they may reconsider. In the U.S., meanwhile, the AQUAA Act (“Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture”) creeps forward through the jungle that is the Congressional legislative process. This legislation would provide clarity for offshore aquaculture regulation in U.S. Federal waters, as well as considerable financial support for offshore R&D. In March, Representatives Peterson (Democrat, Minnesota) and Palazzo (Republican, Mississippi) co-introduced H.R. 6191 into the House of Representatives. This bill parallels closely the Wicker Bill that had previously been introduced into the Senate. So, we wait in hope for Congressional wheels to turn. Or … perhaps not. Waiting is not what the UN HLP has urged us to do. The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful document, and its 10th Amendment is outright exhilarating. To wit:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Paraphrasing loosely, this means that you don’t need permission from the legislature or from the executive branch to grow fish in the ocean, so long as there is no law against it. Until the AQUAA Act is passed and signed, there is no such law. (Well, some of us would have been happy to have offshore aquaculture administered under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act – the law which governs all other living marine resources in Federal Waters – but some fringe fanatics sued to prevent NOAA from implementing their Management Plan). There is still a multitude of Federal and State permits that are yet required to deploy even a small, temporary net pen in Federal waters. Ocean Era (formerly Kampachi Farms, LLC) therefore continues to pursue the permits for a demonstration net pen in Gulf of Mexico waters, some 40 nautical miles offshore from Sarasota, Florida. The “Velella Epsilon” project is largely supported by NOAA’s National SeaGrant Program, and is primarily designed to allow the Florida fishing APRIL - MAY 2020
and boating community to learn to appreciate the positive benefits that can flow from offshore aquaculture. The premise is founded on the company’s prior experience with the Velella Beta-test and the Velella Gamma-test projects, which floated a small (20 ft diameter) Aquapod as, firstly, an untethered, free-drifting array, and then as a feed-barge and net-pen on a single-point mooring some 6 miles (10 km) offshore of Kona, Hawaii. These projects pioneered the permitting process for offshore aquaculture in Federal waters with both NOAA and US Army Corps of Engineers. They were also instructive biologically: performance of the 2,000 Seriola rivoliana, or kampachi, that were stocked into the Velella’s Aquapod was phenomenal. Growth rates, feed conversion ratios (FCRs), and survival rates far exceeded that recorded from other offshore net pens for this species. The projects also developed remote command-and-control technologies connected through a wireless bridge to shore, and thence to the cloud, that allowed for the fish to be fed and monitored from anywhere in the world with a smart phone and Wi-Fi connection. However, the truly revelatory finding from these two projects was the enthusiastic response from the
Figure 2 Fishing boats gathered around the Velella Beta test net pen array, offshore of Kona, Hawaii. The vessel in the foreground is the S.S. Machias – the tender vessel that was attached to the Aquapod net pen. This “drifter-cage” net pen aggregated tuna, marlin, mahimahi and wahoo, and was exceedingly popular with local recreational, commercial and charter-boat vessels. Photo credit: Ocean Era, LLC.
Figure 3 Fishing boats gathered around the Velella Gamma test net pen array, offshore of Kona, Hawaii, as viewed from the M.V. Ekolu – the remote-controlled, unmanned feed barge. The Gamma test array also aggregated pelagic sportfish and food fish, but was even more popular with the local fishing community, as it was moored on a single-point mooring, in 2,000 m of water, and its location was more predictable than the “drifter cage” of the Velella Beta-test. Photo credit: Ocean Era, LLC.
More expensive salmon would certainly not encourage more seafood consumption. People will presumably, then, just eat more beef. This is aligned with neither the UN High Level Panel’s recommendations, nor with the earth’s best interests.
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 65
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
In the U.S paraphrasing loosely the constitution, it says that you don’t need permission from the legislature or from the executive branch to grow fish in the ocean, so long as there is no law against it.
local recreational, commercial, and charter-boat fishing community, who found the offshore net pen arrays acted as stupendous Fish Aggregating Devices, or FADs. Tuna, marlin, mahimahi, and wahoo could be caught in abundance around the Velella arrays. One Kona fisherman exalted that “this was the best fishing that I have had in my life!” (See Figures 2 and 3). Fishermen are notoriously skeptical of the stories that others might tell - there’s a reason that an exaggeration is sometimes referred to as a ‘big fish story’. And so, rather
Figure 4 The Velella Epsilon Project is a proposed demonstration net pen on a swivel-point mooring, to be located ~ 40 Nm offshore of Sarasota, Florida, in 40 m (130 ft) deep water, over a soft sand substrate. The project is designed to demonstrate the benefits of offshore aquaculture to the Florida fishing community. The proposal is already popular with commercial and charter-boat fishermen.
66 »
than sharing in words and pictures the benefits of offshore net pens in Kona, the Velella Epsilon was designed to offer first-hand experience for the Florida fishing community, to turn them into offshore aquaculture advocates. The best available science indicates that 20,000 fish, in a net pen in 40 m deep water, located 40 miles offshore (Figure 4), will have no significant effect on water quality or the soft substrate beneath the pen. Most likely, the impacts on water quality will not even be detectible. The proposed mooring design – a swivelpoint mooring – would even further reduce any potential impacts to the substrate. The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council – the ostensible voice of commercial fishing consensus in the Gulf - gave cautious approval for the project. Commercial fishermen from Florida’s Gulf Coast have also expressed keen interest in involvement in the project, by leasing boats, wharf space, or processing plants. The management from the Southern Shrimpers’ Alliance helped vet the location of the proposed mooring for the array, to ensure that it was not located in any shrimp trawl grounds. Local charter-boat fishermen and fishing guides have written enthusiastic, supportive letters, recognizing the potential FAD benefits of the project. In spite of this evidence, and these efforts, the usual fringe antiaquaculture activists arose to oppose the Velella Epsilon project. This was much as expected; they have opposed pretty much every other offshore aquaculture project that was ever proposed in U.S. waters, out of principle. (Such said ‘principle’ being: they detest the very notion of growing fish in the ocean, and will not be swayed by any evidence that might erode their hard-held opinions, no matter how sound the science or respected the scientists. “Facts, be damned!” they seem to say. “We have attitude on our side!”). APRIL - MAY 2020
It was, however, deeply disappointing that several so-called “environmental” groups – entities that might have otherwise laid claim to being guided by science, such as Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club - have joined the naysayers. Ignoring all of the above evidence, they have dug deeper into the darkness of science denial. And so the public hearing to accept comments on the EPA’s NPDES permit for the Velella Epsilon was enlivened by protestors dressed as dolphins, and a rowdy crowd waving “Not here! Not now!” signs with a slash through an image of a fish. (If not here, not now, then – pray tell – where and when?!). The Sarasota City Commissioners voted to also send a letter of condemnation of the project to EPA, highlighting the concern that these 20,000 fish could exacerbate the red tides that have been decimating sea life along Florida’s Gulf APRIL - MAY 2020
Coast in recent years. Never mind that red tides also kill farmed fish. Never mind that the best available science indicates that Florida’s red tides are caused by nutrients almost entirely of terrestrial origin (municipal wastewater treatment and agricultural run-off), which are concentrated along the shoreline by the shallow water and minimal currents. Never mind that the selected site is 40 miles away from the shoreline, in waters over 40 m deep. The City Commissioners neither paid any heed to the scientists, nor accepted an offer to hear from the project proponents. Science, clearly, was not needed here. So Ocean Era waits in hope, with eager anticipation, but no expectation Offshore fish farmers are genetically predisposed to optimism, but this is also usually tempered by experience, to a cautious pragmatism. If the Velella Epsilon permits are issued, then the company will need
about 6 to 8 months to mobilize, deploy, and stock the net pen. If the permit is denied, then we – all of us – will have to ponder deeply the role of science, and the costs of fear mongering, in shaping public policy, and our planet’s future.
Neil Anthony Sims is co-Founder and CEO of Kampachi Farms, LLC, based in Kona, Hawaii, and in La Paz, Mexico. He’s also the founding President of the Ocean Stewards Institute, and sits on the Steering Committee for the Seriola-Cobia Aquaculture Dialogue and the Technical Advisory Group for the WWF-sponsored Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
» 67
AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING
Is Developing a Brand Worth
the Time and Money for your Aquaculture Business? By: Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatics LLC*
Consumers today are faced with a host of differentiated products of all types. In markets where there are many similar products, each supplier seeks ways for their product to stand out and attract consumers to out-compete other similar products. The food sector is no exception to this trend. Branding a product can be beneficial, but it also can be quite expensive in terms of time and money. Attempts to develop a brand have not always resulted in the anticipated boost in sales.
68 Âť
W
hat is a brand and what can it do for an aquaculture company? The simplest definition of a brand is that it is a way to identify a specific product sold in a way that differentiates it from other similar products. A brand can be developed by and for a specific company, an organization, or a governmental agency. Jersey Fresh was an early state-level brand developed for New Jersey farmers. Some state branding programs, such as that of Florida Oranges, focused on specific products grown in the state. In aquaculture, some successful brands have been developed by aquaculture associations. A leading example is that of U.S. Farm-Raised Catfish, a brand developed by The Catfish Institute that provides a vehicle for generic advertising of catfish products. In a very different segment of aquaculture, the Arkansas Bait and Ornamental Fish Growers Association developed the Arkansas Baitfish: Cer-
APRIL - MAY 2020
tified Farm Raised brand, along with tag lines such as “Safe Bait from the Natural State.” The Arkansas Baitfish brand is managed by the Arkansas Department of Agriculture as the third-party certifier of the farm-level testing that verify that the fish sold under the brand are free of important diseases and aquatic nuisance species. Individual farms can also develop their own brands, such as Taylor Shellfish Farms. No longer just a farm name, the Taylor Shellfish brand includes their line of oyster bars and other products. A brand, however, is much more than the name of an aquaculture farm. A name has become a brand when customers seek out and ask for products specifically from that particular farm or company. When an individual plans to buy a “John Deere” instead of a “tractor,” for example, or a customer asks when Limestone Springs trout will be available, those company/ farm names have become brands. Comments related to how brands will solve various types of marketing or price competitiveness problems are heard frequently, but unfortunately too many people equate a logo or catchy name with a brand. While a good brand may be accompanied by a logo or memorable name, neither constitutes a brand. What a successful brand does for an aquaculture farm is to differentiate its products from other, similar products. An aquaculture farmer who sells fish or shellfish that are indistinguishable from those sold from other farms is selling a commodity into a market that purchases from many similar farms. If the fillets sold are very similar to each other, why would anyone pay a higher price for those from one specific farm? A farm that has successfully developed brand recognition, however, will have customers that specifically request product from their specific farm. The question that APRIL - MAY 2020
an aquaculture producer must answer when considering developing a brand is this: what attributes can the farm provide in their product that separate their fish or shellfish from others in a way that customers desire and for which customers are willing to pay a higher price? That is the core marketing question for a farm that seeks to provide a product at a higher price than that received by other farms. The brand, then, is the vehicle for the farm to communicate to their customers those attributes that are most desired. A brand must embody the values and attitudes desired by customers and reinforce the quality and consistency that makes customers willing to seek out that product and pay a
The simplest definition of a brand is that it is a way to identify a specific product sold in a way that differentiates it from other similar products. A brand can be developed by and for a specific company, an organization, or a governmental agency.
» 69
AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING
higher price. Seafood consumers desire fresh seafood of high quality and are fearful of food safety, especially of raw seafood. More and more consumers expect seafood to be supplied in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Thus, critical attributes of food products in today’s markets include its freshness, taste, safety, and that it has been produced responsibly. The challenge is how to convince buyers that the products sold are those that can be trusted to deliver the desired attributes. Developing a successful brand requires years of commitment. Advertising and promotion, by themselves, are not sufficient. One poor quality fillet sold under a brand that emphasizes taste, freshness, and quality, will damage the reputation of the brand for many years. The key to successful branding is not just knowing which attributes consumers seek and desire, but meeting those expectations with each and every fillet or oyster sold. The entire farm business must live up to the standards expressed and embodied in the brand and it must do so each and every day.
A name has become a brand when customers seek out and ask for products specifically from that particular farm or company.
70 Âť
Brand development begins with the business plan in which the core values of the business are described. What is it that the business wishes to be known for? Consistent, timely delivery of the freshest, highest quality product on the market? Customer service that exceeds that of all other suppliers, bar none? The business planning process must include an assessment of how well the farm currently meets those expectations and how it will deliver the expected quality, freshness, and safety each and every day. For example, if the brand description emphasizes the highest quality, but the fish are delivered in a dilapidated truck by an employee still in his/her pond
clothes, it might be time to think about investing in a new truck and requiring the employee to change clothes before making deliveries. It is essential to always present and embody the core values of the farm and the brand. The entire business plan must be geared towards fulfilling the expectations set out in the core values and vision statement. The production, product distribution, and marketing systems must be capable of meeting customer expectations with every fillet or shellfish sold. Over time, as a brand develops for a farm that consistently delivers what has been promised, customers develop loyalty to that farm. The APRIL - MAY 2020
The key to successful branding is not just knowing which attributes consumers seek and desire, but meeting those expectations with each and every fillet or oyster sold.
holy grail really is customer loyalty, not having a “brand.� A loyal customer who routinely asks for and seeks out the fish produced on a specific farm is one who will pay a somewhat higher price and will also likely recommend fish from that farm to friends and neighbors. Such word-of-mouth endorsement provides on-going reinforcement of the key attributes associated with the fish or shellfish sold by the farm. A successful brand takes many years to develop, but once developed has monetary value. Successful brands may be imitated or even stolen outright by someone seeking to gain a foothold in a particular market. It is essential to register a tradeAPRIL - MAY 2020
mark for the brand early on to ensure legal protection if and when it becomes successful and a target for theft and fraud. Farms with successful brands must further devote resources to monitor attempts to imitate or steal the brand. Developing a formal brand may not be necessary for every aquaculture farm. The steps involved, however, in thinking through the core values of the business and how to live up to them in every phase of the business, day in and day out, will create the kind of reputation that will contribute to long-term marketing and financial success for the aquaculture farm, with or without a formal brand.
Additional Resources available under direct request to the author. Carole R. Engle, Ph.D., Engle-Stone Aquatics LLC Carole Engle holds a B.A. degree in Biology/Rural Development from Friends World College and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Auburn University where she specialized in aquaculture economics. Dr. Engle is a past-President of the U.S. Aquaculture Society and the International Association of Aquaculture Economics and Management. She is currently a Principal in Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC, and can be reached at cengle8523@gmail.com
Âť 71
THE SHELLFISH CORNER
Controlling Biofouling on Shellfish and Gear By Michael A. Rice*
Biofouling is a complex and costly problem in most shellfish aquaculture operations. Problem areas include fouling on gear such as cages, mesh bags, predator control netting that may impede proper water flow to the shellfish stock, resulting in reduced food supply, and ultimately, growth stunting of the shellfish stock. Estimates of the effect of not properly managing biofouling on shellfish aquaculture gear suggest that it can reduce growth rates in oysters in excess of 40%.
A
ny aquaculture gear or shellfish stock placed into marine environments rapidly becomes colonized by biofouling organisms. In very short order upon immersion, surfaces become primed for colonization by chemical adhesion or adsorption of proteins and other dissolved organic material (DOM) present in the water, and these chemically prepared surfaces allow for bacterial colonization within a few hours, followed by unicellular microalgae, protozoans, and fungi. These earliest colonizing organisms form a slimy surface referred to as a biofilm or microfouling. Finally macrofouling invertebrates such as barnacles, mussels, and ascidians begun to cover the surfaces along with macroalgae or seaweeds. Biofouling is a complex and costly problem in most shellfish aquaculture operations, often significantly cutting into profit margins.
72 Âť
The specific types and the intensity of biofouling in shellfish farms are very site-specific, depending on local environment, season and yearto year climate variables. Problem areas include fouling on gear such as cages, mesh bags, predator control netting that may impede proper water flow to the shellfish stock, resulting in reduced food supply, and ultimately, growth stunting of the shellfish stock. Estimates of the effect of not properly managing biofouling on shellfish aquaculture gear suggest that it can reduce growth rates in oysters in excess of 40 percent [See: Hidu et al. 1981. Aquaculture 22:189-192]. A survey of shellfish farmers across the United States showed that 14.7% of shellfish farm operating costs, amounting to over US$ 21 million annually [See: Adams et al. 2011. J. World Aquaculture Soc. 42:242-252]. Biofouling of floats and gear suspension lines can add considerable weight, caus-
ing gear to sink or make overall gear handling more difficult. Fouling of the shellfish stock itself can create additional problems. Biofouling can not only impede the growth of the shellfish, but also affect its marketability as well. For instance, oysters encrusted with barnacles may not be as aesthetically pleasing for sale in the half-shell trade, and other biofouling invertebrates such as boring sponges and mud blister worms (an annelid worm boring into shells) can weaken the shells, making shucking very difficult without breakage. The most common method to control biofouling around shellfish farms is by some form of mechanical cleaning, such as use of brushing, scraping, or use of powered water spraying [See: Hodson et al. 1997. Aquaculture 152:77-90]. However, a drawback to power washing of gear is in some coastal areas is that farm neighbors object to the noise generated by the machine. Often air/ sun drying of gear can aid in the cleaning by killing and drying out some of the biofouling organisms, making their mechanical removal easier. Cleaning of shellfish or gear can be combined with dips into fresh water, high salinity brine, acetic acid (vinegar) or chlorine bleach for varying lengths of time to aid in killing the biofouling organisms as well [see: Carver et al. 2003. J. Shellfish Res. 22:621-631]. The use of some biocidal chemical coatings such as copper oxide and tributyl tin on gear has been used as a means to avoid more labor-intensive approaches, but this approach has been banned in many jurisdictions based upon demonstrated negative consequences on local habitats and additional regulatory concern for human health [See: Guardiola et al. 2012. Int. J. Molecular Sci. 13:15411560 for an excellent review]. A number of alternative methods have been developed, such as the use of grazing fish or sea urAPRIL - MAY 2020
chins in conjunction with shellfish farming, as a means to control biofouling, particularly macroalgae [See: Hasse 1974. Prog. Fish Culturist 36:160-162; Lodieros & Garcia 2004. Aquaculture 231:293-298]. Local knowledge of specific areas and past occurrences of the timing of previous biofouling episodes can be used to develop strategies for moving gear temporarily to other locations to avoid a future fouling event. In more recent times the use of silicone or other smooth surface plastic coatings for gear to resist development of initial bacterial or algal biofilms, or allow for easy release of freshly set biofouling organisms, have been developed or are under development. Current research on biofouling prevention is focusing upon the surface properties of materials and their ability to attract or resist biofouling organisms. The four key properties of material surfaces affecting biofouling settlement include, the mechanical properties such as coefficient of Biofouling of oyster bags in Point Judith Pond, Rhode Island. Photo by the author.
Biofouling of floats and gear suspension lines can add considerable weight, causing gear to sink or make overall gear handling more difficult.
Unloading fouled lantern nets at a Chilean scallop farm. Photo by Ed Rhodes.
APRIL - MAY 2020
Âť 73
THE SHELLFISH CORNER
Local knowledge of specific areas and past occurrences of the timing of previous biofouling episodes can be used to develop strategies for moving gear temporarily to other locations to avoid a future fouling event.
Biofouled mussel spat collector line in the Black Sea near Batumi, Georgia. Photo by the author.
friction (or slipperiness); structural properties such as porosity and topology (shapes, roughness and degree of regularity of geometric forms on the surface); polarity (nature of electrical charges on the surface); and the surface chemistry, including the bioactivity of exposed molecular groups once exposed to seawater. Materials science studies of this type are expected to point the direction to better biofouling technologies for the aquaculture industry. Promising new coatings with a high degree of resistance to biofouling are now under development, but all too frequently once exposed to real world conditions they fail to perform as they do in the laboratory [See: Koc et al. 2019. J. Bioadhesion & Biofilm Res. 35:454-462]. One interesting recent practical development in the control of biofouling on cultured shellfish themselves is the use of wax-based coatings applied to pearl oysters during the high season for biofouling in China. In the study, pearl oysters (Pinctada imbricata) were coated with 74 Âť
a thin layer of paraffin wax, or alternatively the wax infused with Chinaberry seed extract or honeylocust seed extracts, and then tested against untreated control oysters at coastal pearl farm sites. The wax-based coatings deterred fouling-organism settlement on oysters for at least 60 days during the intensive fouling season, while reducing mortality and not adversely affecting their growth [See: Ye et al. 2019. J. Bioadhesion & Biofilm Res. 35:649-657]. Since there are a number of food-grade waxes and similar coatings approved by food safety authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States for use as coating of fruits destined for human consumption, this approach of applied wax coatings might be adapted for use in aquaculture production of shellfish destined for human consumption. One obvious application of this technology may be for trials with oysters to prevent biofouling by boring sponges or mud blisters that frustrate many oyster farmers in the Northeastern United States.
Michael A. Rice, PhD, is a Professor of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at the University of Rhode Island. He has published extensively in the areas of physiological ecology of mollusks, shellfishery management, molluscan aquaculture, and aquaculture in international development. He has served as Chairperson of his department at the University of Rhode Island, and as an elected member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. rice@uri.edu
APRIL - MAY 2020
APRIL - MAY 2020
» 75
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
Does pseudoscience
negatively impact aquaculture sustainability? By: Ph.D Stephen G. Newman*
T
he development of the philosophy that underlies the scientific method has forever changed the condition of the human animal. It has taken us from caves where even small cuts could kill us to a global civilization that is unraveling the mysteries of how the universe around us works. Life spans have increased and for many the quality of life is dramatically improved. The scientific method itself is elegant in its simplicity. Yet despite this, all too many twist things to suit their specific goals, typically sales of products to generate revenue, often at the expense of those who do not appreciate that not everything
that is claimed to be determined as a result of the rigorous methods that science requires to establish facts is indeed real. The generally accepted definition of the scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.� Pseudoscience is broadly defined as a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method. The proliferation of pseudoscience in any arena can be extremely
damaging. It can and often does lead to widespread financial losses, bankruptcies, injury and even death. There are innumerable examples of this outside of aquaculture. Perhaps one of the most visible current issues centers around immunization. There are many parents who unwittingly endanger their children and those of others by refusing to vaccinate children against any number of diseases. The rationale for this is based on pseudoscience. The fact that some instances of autism occur seemingly related to immunization has resulted in a massive fear of immunization that the facts simply do not support. Even if they did, the benefits from immuni-
Shrimp Farm in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
76 Âť
APRIL - MAY 2020
Pseudoscience is broadly defined as a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The proliferation of pseudoscience in any arena can be extremely damaging.
zation to humanity as whole far outweigh any risks. This is one example out of hundreds where an apparent inability to understand the scientific method has stoked irrational fear and caused needless suffering and death as well as having a huge financial impact. Pseudoscience is everywhere in today’s highly connected culture. During my 40 year tenure working with many different species and aspects of aquaculture, I have witnessed far too often the deleterious impact of the widespread presence of pseudoscience on fish and shrimp farming. Given the litigious nature of our culture, I can only cite generalities. The reader should form their own opinions based on these comments. Puffery is defined as exaggerated or false praise. Selling often engenders the use of some puffery. Sometimes it is benign and at other times it falls clearly into the realm of pseudoscience with the potential for resultant harm. Some of the examples that I have observed over the years are:
am going to use to make this point is for laboratory testing that is done in aquaria with shrimp. Shrimp typically grind their feed before they ingest it and then subsequently the gastric mill grinds what has been ingested again. A great deal of what is present in the feed, whether it is nutrients or additives (in or on) ends up in the water column. In lab studies the animals are often bathed in these materials as well as ingesting them. This affords entry through the gills as well as in the water itself. When shrimp are in shrimp ponds, dilution ensures that this typically will have little to no impact. Therefore something can appear to work great in aquaria trials (this assumes static or periodic water exchange) that in the field will not necessarily work. In fact this is common and many companies push their products based on laboratory trials that fail in the field. Some continue to do so even in the face of repeated failures in the field. Perhaps the worst part of this that the scientific community publishes papers in peer reviewed journals that make claims about field performance based on poorly designed aquarium studies in the lab. This is unfortunately all too common. Most of us have seen catchy titles of papers claiming some incredible benefit to farmers when the lab studies are extrapolated to the field. Properly conducted field studies are needed to validate the effect.
2. Cherry picking data. Statistical analysis of data is essential to being able to claim reproducibility. This requires proper experimental designs, multiple tests and choosing the correct statistical tools to validate the 1. Using small scale laboratory- observed effect. One of the chalbased studies to make claims of lenges facing the industry is the widespread failure to understand that corproduct efficacy in the field. This is widespread as most people relation and causation are two distinct fail to appreciate the limitations in things (although some deliberately the lab as they relate to the real world. allow the confusion). Correlative staThis is NOT to say that in every in- tistics do not prove cause and effect. stance that data from laboratory trials If correlative statistics do not show is not of significance. The example I a correlation, than there is not likely APRIL - MAY 2020
The proliferation of pseudoscience in any arena can be extremely damaging.
to be a cause and effect relationship. When there is a strong correlation, usually taken as p < 0.05, that is the observed results have greater than a 95% chance of not being random, all too often those trials that demonstrate this are put forth as “proof ” and those that do not are not even considered. In other words, those with a vested interest may ignore data that does not appear to support the use of the product in the manner for which it will be marketed. Shrimp farming has an extreme degree of inherent variability that in of itself can obfuscate observations of correlation. For a cause and effect benefit to be certain, the mechanisms by which the specific product works should be understood well enough to be able to state that there can indeed be a relationship between the use of a given product and the observed impacts. All too often though this is not the case. The mechanisms by which a given product works may not be understood at all, be partially understood, or there may be aspects of shrimp life cycles, physiology and cultural conditions that ensure that there is no science-based explanation that could explain the results. » 77
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
Shrimp Farms in Vietnam.
Cherry picking data and using non-science based observations are commonly used to sell farmers on the use of products such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids and others.
78 »
3. Hiding true product content by omission or by saying things are there when they are not. Using terms like “developed specifically for aquaculture” or selling products that may be based on commonly available materials, such as yeast extracts, can readily be considered as legitimate puffery. However, when it is combined with other of the points that I am raising here, it typically falls into the category of pseudoscience. It is misleading and can be and is used by unethical individuals and companies to sell products with poor quality control or that do not contain what the label states. Again, I am not saying that this is ALWAYS the case. It is however quite common. In SE Asia a quick look at the products that are on many of the shelves reveals that some contain products that are labeled with claims of “proprietary ingredients” or claims that they con-
tain things that could not possibly be viable or present at the levels claimed.
4. Extrapolating that products that work in one species will work in other dissimilar species. This has been occurring with ever increasing frequency as the shrimp farming industry continues to grow and attracts companies that apparently had little to no interest in the industry until the lure of easy profits was brought to their attention. Shrimp are essentially aquatic insects. They are invertebrates, have chitinous exoskeletons and physiologies that are not even remotely akin to that seen in vertebrates. They have copper base blood, not hemoglobin. Their digestive processes are not based on an acidic pH. Automatically assuming that products that work or in some cases appear to work in terrestrial vertebrates appears to be APRIL - MAY 2020
a stretch when applied to shrimp. I am NOT saying that some of these products will not positively impact shrimp, only that for many there is simply no mechanism that could explain how they could work, and data from lab trials simply does not translate to the same benefit in the field.
5. Persuading naive and ignorant clients that they need things that they do not. In SE Asia the sales of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc. for use in top dressing is widespread. Typically, top dressed materials diffuse very quickly into the water column and, again, the very nature of how shrimp feed ensures that most of these materials will not end up in the shrimp’s circulatory system. Farmers spend vast sums on these products. For the most part properly formulated feeds contain adequate levels of these materials. While there are legitimate reasons for adding higher levels of some, such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), there is little to no evidence that shrimp are suffering from deficiencies of most of these materials in most feeds. While some would argue that this is insurance, there is little if any data from real world observations that confirms that this is the case. Cherry picking data and using non-science based observations are common components of sales pitches to farmers persuading them to use these products. 6. Advocating the constant use of non-specific immune-stimulants. Shrimp are highly evolved animals and their immune systems reflect this. However, they are not vertebrates and their immune systems have much more in common with insects than with a typical vertebrate. While there are reports that they may have some memory of an exposure to a pathogen, the consensus is that they do not. They do not form antibodies and the mechanisms by which APRIL - MAY 2020
they resist the natural onslaught of micro-organisms appears to be largely non-specific. It does not appear to be proliferative in the same sense that vertebrate immune systems are. The specter of immune paralysis is real when animals are being constantly exposed to immunogenic materials. With shrimp the depletion of lymphocytes can result in increased susceptibility to various pathogens and even open the door for many opportunistic pathogens. With the current gold rush to find substitutes for the use of fish meal, a natural substitute is microbial sources. These would be bacteria and/or fungi. These can contain very high levels of protein and provide many other critical nutrients. However, they also contain the structural elements of the cell walls, which includes lipopolysaccharides, glucans and peptidoglycans. These often highly immunogenic and it stands to reason that the constant exposure to levels that are far beyond what shrimp normally encounter as they feed on detritus poses the potential for over stimulation of the immune system. These products are likely best used in a pulsed manner to achieve the optimum potential of their use. These are some of the highlighted areas where it appears that the scientific method is not being properly used in shrimp farming. For fish it is a bit different although the same issues are present in fish farming. It is highly improbable that any of these things will change. Human nature is such that it will always be present. The Latin term “caveat emptor”, i.e. let the buyer beware comes to mind. Maintaining a healthy degree of skepticism and asking the tough questions can go a long way as well. Bear in mind that regardless of the appearance of a benefit, if they are indeed real, there more than likely will be a plausible mechanism that can explain the observation and the benefits will be more or less consistent and reproducible.
The specter of immune paralysis is real when animals are being constantly exposed to immunogenic materials. With shrimp the depletion of lymphocytes can result in increased susceptibility to various pathogens and even open the door for many opportunistic pathogens.
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. sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com www.aqua-in-tech.com www.bioremediationaquaculture.com www.sustainablegreenaquaculture.com
» 79
URNER BARRY
TILAPIA, PANGASIUS AND CHANNEL CATFISH UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Lorin Castiglione, Liz Cuozzo *
Pangasius and Channel Tilapia imports increased across all categories from the previous month, as well as from the same month a year ago for frozen whole and frozen fillets. Increases from January 2019 were significant on frozen categories due to the fact that increased tariffs were set to go into effect one year ago, but were subsequently delayed. Pangasius increased almost 60% from the previous month, however compared to the same month a year ago, import volume fell 24.8%. Meanwhile, Chinese catfish imports fell slightly from the previous month, but saw a surge of 225.2% year-over-year comparison, again attributed to tariffs affecting imports. Imported Channel Catfish Imports of frozen channel catfish fillets fell slightly from the previous month, down 3.9% or by 78,087 lbs. However when looking at the same month a year ago, January 2020 import volume reported a 225.2% gain over January 2019. This was due to the fact that exporters rushed shipments to the U.S. in December 2018 to avoid the increased 25% tariff on the product that began in January 2019. January 2020 volume of 1.92 million pounds is right in line with the previous 5-year average for the month of January recording 1.91 million pounds. Shipments in January entered the U.S. with a declared value of $1.87 per pound, falling $0.13 from the previous month and $0.44 from the January 2019 value of $2.31 per pound. The wholesale market adjusted lower in February but has since remained steady at listed levels. 80 Âť
Demand remains moderate, but prices have softened as some industry players have reported favorable pricing on domestic catfish. Delays are anticipated on product shipping out of China once plants are up and running at capacity, however, as the coronavirus spreads through the U.S., the industry is eager to see how the market will be affected.
Imports of Frozen Pangasius (Swai) Fillets January imports increased significantly from the previous month but declined compared to the same month last year. January 2020 totaled 15.2 million pounds of volume, which falls 26.2% below the previous 3-year average. Historically, January and July produce the largest volume of pangasius frozen fillet imports into the U.S. European data is only updated through December 2019 revealing higher imports of pangasius in 2019 compared to the U.S. 2019 pangasius imports in Europe total 151.5 million pounds compared to 116.3 million for the U.S. from Vietnam, trailing 35.2 million pounds behind. In looking at monthly December volume, the U.S. imported 473,895 pounds less than Europe for the last month of the year. Imports of Frozen Pangasius (Swai) Fillets According to the data from the USDOC, replacement prices for January 2019 fell $0.07/lb. from the previous month, recording at $1.28. January 2020 figure falls $0.87 below January 2019 replacement prices. Replacement prices are the lowest on record APRIL - MAY 2020
since December 2016 recorded $1.27 per pound. Despite favorable replacement prices, inventory levels in the U.S. remain elevated and Vietnamese exports to China have shrunk due to the coronavirus, leaving Vietnam having to wait out COVID-19 to start moving product again. The FSIS under the USDA has postponed their assessment of Vietnamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s food safety and hygiene control system on Siluriformes but has yet to provide a new date.
ous year averages for the first month of the year and prices have adjusted lower and remained relatively steady since 2016.
Imports of Frozen Tilapia Fillets Imports increased seasonally in January from the previous month and also saw a significant jump from the same month a year ago. Imports in January are historically and seasonally the highest of the calendar year, with this year registering 28.1 million pounds. That translates into a 23% decrease from the average of the last 10 years. According to many importers, supplies in the U.S. remain adequate, noting a slight uptick in Lenten sales. Reports of more workers in China returning to work have been noted with plants rushing to complete all unfinished orders placed prior to the CNY holiday.
Imports of Whole Fish Tilapia Frozen whole fish imports increased again, up 8% from the previous month and are the highest on record since 2007 brought in 17.6 million pounds for the first month of the year. Compared to January 2019, January 2020 volume has increased 87% and registers 40% above the previous 3-year average. Frozen Tilapia Fillet Pricing Replacement prices fell $0.03 to $1.53 in January. We must remember Imports of Fresh Tilapia Fillets Imports in January increased from that when costs overseas advance, it the previous month as seasonally ex- is likely that U.S. importers will try to pected, but declined 4% compared pass the increase onto the U.S. marto the same month last year. Again, ket, however overseas packers have although the monthly behavior is sea- been doing what they can to absorb sonally normal, imports have been added costs so as not to disrupt the decreasing consistently over the last steady demand. These actions could few years. Imports from Colombia be coming to an end as disruptions started the year flat % compared to from the coronavirus slowly leave January 2019 figures. Imports from China and move towards the U.S. Constant wholesale prices and Honduras, the largest supplier of this commodity to the U.S. fell 4 %, from falling replacement costs has wid1.3 million pounds in January 2019, ened the spread between import and to 1.2 million pounds in January this wholesale prices with the January ratio reaching 1.39, a level not seen year. since December 2009. Fresh Tilapia Fillet Pricing & Imports by Country Frozen Analysis Continued & OthFrom a replacement cost basis, as well er Inputs as the adjustments made to weighted Between pangasius and tilapia frozen import price per pound (which in- fillets the U.S. has imported 43.3 cludes only the top five suppliers), million pounds of product the first we found that the January figure of month of 2020, of which 64.9 % are $2.75 increased again, up $0.11 from tilapia and 35.1 % are pangasius. the previous month but falls $0.06 from January 2018. * Liz Cuozzo lcuozzo@urnerbarry.com YTD average monthly imports ilLorin Castiglione lcastiglione@urnerbarry.com lustrates 2020 falls well below previAPRIL - MAY 2020
Âť 81
URNER BARRY
Shrimp
UPDATES FROM URNER BARRY By: Jim Kenny, Gary Morrison *
Imports All Types, By Type January imports were released and showed an increase of 19.4 % in total volume compared to the same month last year, however it’s important to note that the import total in January 2019 was diminished. The United States top three trade partners, India, Indonesia, and Ecuador powered the growth and led the gains. These countries accounted for 76.85 % of all imported shrimp for the month. For January, India (+30.9%), Indonesia (+23.9%), and Ecuador (+63.9%) shipped more. Vietnam (-3.2%), Thailand (-24.5%), and Mexico (-8.8%), which occupied the fourth, fifth, and sixth spots to start the year all shipped less shrimp to the U.S. Argentina (+49.4%) moved up to seventh while China (-16.5%) moved down to eight. In terms of product form, net gains were seen across all in January. The U.S. imported more headless shell-on, which includes easy peel (+39.7%), peeled (+7.5%), cooked (+2.6%) and breaded (+34.5%). Monthly Import Cycles by Country (All Types) India: Imports from India in January were 30.9 % higher than last year, albeit from a low January 2019 base. But this continued the strong trend set last year. The 62.24 million pounds was nearly ten % of last year’s record 623 million pounds. This represented 43.48 % of all imports for the month. Indonesia: Indonesia also shipped more shrimp to the U.S. in January, with gains of 23.9 %. This is ten straight months of year-over-gains. At 29.19 million pounds, this was less than half of the volume from spot one. Ecuador: Imports from Ecuador surged 63.9 % in January from 82 »
last year’s low total. There were gains in both shell-on (+73.6%) and peeled (+32.1%). Thailand, Vietnam and China: All three countries saw year-over-year declines in shrimp imports into the United States. Vietnam (-3.2%), Thailand (-24.5%) and China (-16.5%) were all lower.
(43.9%) overpowered the losses from all the other countries.
Cooked, Breaded & Other Shrimp Imports The price trend of lower month-tomonth was evident in breaded shrimp despite the slight increase in imports over last month, and last year. The average price for January fell to $3.94 per Shell-On Shrimp Imports, Cyclical pound for all types and sizes, another $0.06 per pound slide. & by Count Size Headless shell-on imports, including easy peel, moved 39.7 % higher in Janu- Shrimp Price Timelines; Retail Ads ary compared to the same month the Retail: Buying opportunities at the reprevious year. All counts moved signifi- tail level slipped significantly as the time cantly higher, between 16 % and 50.5 between two busy periods, the winter %. The largest of those were 21-25 holidays and Lent, stunted opportunicount and 31-40 count (+42.5%), but ties. Buying opportunities fell nearly gains were broad based. 45 % from December and were 4.5 % Replacement values (import $/lb.) below last January. The average price, for HLSO shrimp continued to move however, moved $0.16 per pound highlower in January. Continued high im- er to $7.56 per pound. port supplies weighs on the market. Values were $3.86 per pound, $0.12 per U.S. Shrimp Supply & Gulf Situation pound lower. Tight supplies continue to be the largest concern. The National Marine FishValue-Added, Peeled Shrimp Im- eries Service has released its first report of the new year and are reporting Januports Peeled and deveined shrimp reversed ary landings (all species, headless) of from December and moved 7.5 % 2.8 million lbs. compared to 2.4 million higher in January 2020 v. the same in January 2019, a 16.1 % increase. month last year. Price incentives were evident again Ecuadorian Shrimp Exports as replacement values moved $0.08 per The landscape has changed in such a pound lower to $3.95 per pound. This significant way in recent sessions; we’ll was the same as last January. focus our commentary on what has ocJanuary imports of cooked (warm curred since the realization COVID-19 water) shrimp were also up, but a much would have market implications. more modest 2.6 % compared to The impact on the shrimp market other categories. The gain from India was first felt at the beginning of FebAPRIL - MAY 2020
U.S. Shrimp Imports All Types. Source: U.S. Census, USDOC, Urner Barry
YTD Shrimp Imports by Type Breakdown
ruary when the coronavirus outbreak spread in China which just so happened to coincide with Chinese New Year. China is the largest importer of shrimp globally and it was immediately realized that any disruption in the flow of product into that country would certainly have market implications. It was difficult in the early days to identify just how severe the impact would be as Chinese buyers were not at work in the time around the Chinese New Year. The most immediate concern was shrimp of Ecuadorian origin given its close proximity to the U.S., its reliance on the Asian market and the anticipation of some fairly large harvests. Sellers of Latin origin headless shell-on and head-on shrimp quickly began to lower offerings in order to deplete inventory. This action has been ongoing ever since, with the bellwether 21-25 count size moving from $4.75 to $4.15 per pound in just seven weeks. The balance of the market has been steadier, but all susceptible. APRIL - MAY 2020
Any price action, except for 31-40 and smaller count P&D, tail-off, white shrimp has been lower. More recently, the market is frozen in-place. Movement of shrimp products has essentially come to a standstill. Shrimp, and really seafood, has always been uniquely placed when compared to other protein categories. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hugely reliant on the foodservice sector. As the situation surrounding coronavirus has intensified, many states and local governments were prohibiting dine-in consumption in restaurants; that turned into the issuance of stay at home orders and instructed all non-essential businesses closed. This escalation of restrictions has only added to the uncertainty that exists. Many states are allowing takeout and delivery, and we have seen a consumer preference shift from foodservice to retail, but these shifts are likely to be somewhat problematic for seafood consumption. * Jim Kenny jkenny@urnerbarry.com Gary Morrison gmorrison@urnerbarry.com
Aquaculture Magazine
Âť 83
Upcoming
aquaculture events
2020 AUGUST 2020 WAS NORTH AMERICA & AQUACULTURE CANADA 2020 Ago. 30 – Sep. 02 St John’s Newfoundland, Canada T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org SEPTEMBER 2020 LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN AQUACULTURE 2020 Sep. 7 – Sep. 10 Guayaquil, Ecuador T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org AQUACULTURE EUROPE 2020 Sep. 29 – Oct. 02 Cork, Ireland T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org
OCTOBER 2020 15° FIACUI – INTERNATIONAL AQUACULTURE FORUM Sep. 29 – Oct. 02 Chiapas, Mexico T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com AQUASUR 2020 Oct. 21 – Oct. 24 Puerto Montt, Chile E: info@aqua-sur.cl W: www.aqua-sur.cl NOVEMBER 2020 3rd. INTERNATIONAL MARICULTURE SYMPOSIUM Nov. 5 – Nov. 6 La Paz, Mexico T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com
RASTECH 2020 Nov. 16 – Nov. 17 South Carolina, USA. T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.ras-tec.com
AQUACULTURE AFRICA 2020 Nov. 28 – Dec. 1 Alexandria, Egypt. T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: africanchapter@was.org DECEMBER 2020 WORLD AQUACULTURE 2020 Dec. 14 – Dec. 18 Singapore, Singapore T: +1 760 751 5005 E: worldaqua@aol.com W: www.was.org
advertisers Index
AERATION EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, FILTERS AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, ETC AQUATIC EQUIPMENT AND DESIGN, INC.....................................17 522 S. HUNT CLUB BLVD, #416, APOPKA, FL 32703. USA. Contact: Amy Stone T: (407) 717-6174 E-mail: amy@aquaticed.com DELTA HYDRONICS LLC...............................................................13 T: 727 861 2421 www.deltahydro.com ANTIBIOTICS, PROBIOTICS AND FEED ADDITIVES CARGILL, INCORPORATED......................................................1 PO Box 9300 Minneapolis, MN T: 55440-9300 USA T: 800-227-4455 MEGASSUPPLY............................................................................19 USA, Europe, South America, Asia y Middle East. Tel.: +1 (786) 221 5660 Fax: +1 (786) 524 0208 www.megasupply.net EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS 3TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MARICULTURE 2020.............................................................7 November 5 – 6, 2020. La Paz, BCS, Mexico. T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com 6TH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ON SHRIMP FARMING 2021.....................................................................9 January 28 – 29, 2021. Cd. Obregón, Sonora, Mexico. T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2021 SAN ANTONIO............................15 February 21 - 24, 2021.San Antonio Texas, USA. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org AQUAEXPO EL ORO 2020....................................................35 14 al 16 de Juliio, 2020. Machala, Ecuador. E-mail: aquaexpoec@cna-ecuador.com T: (04) 268 3017 ext. 202
84 »
AQUAEXPO GUAYAQUIL 2020..............................................33 26 al 29 de Octubre, 2020. Guayaquil, Ecuador. E-mail: aquaexpoec@cna-ecuador.com AQUASUR 2020...........................................................................41 October 21 - 24, 2020. Puerto Montt, Chile. E-mail: info@aqua-sur.cl www.aqua-sur.cl 15° FIACUI..........................................................................55 October 8 - 9, 2020. Chiapas, Mexico. T: +52 1 331 466 0392 E: crm@dpinternationalinc.com W: www.panoramaacuicola.com GUATEMALA AQUALCULTURE SYMPOSIUM 2020...................21 Cooming Soon, 2020. Santo Domingo del Cerro, La Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala. E: simposiodeacuiculturagt@agexport.org.gt W: www.simposio.acuiculturaypescaenguatemala.com LAQUA 2020................................................................................57 7 al 10 de Septiembre, 2020. Guayaquil, Ecuador. Tel: +1 760 751 5005 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org INFORMATION SERVICES
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: Juan Carlos Elizalde, Sales & Marketing Coordinator. crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392 Contact 3: Claudia Marín, Sales Support Expert E-mail: sse@dpinternationalinc.com www.panoramaacuicola.com
AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE...................75, INSIDE COVER, INSIDE BACK COVER Design Publications International Inc. 203 S. St. Mary’s St. Ste. 160 San Antonio, TX 78205, USA Office: +210 504 3642 Office in Mexico: +52(33) 8000 0578 - Ext: 8578 Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com Sales & Marketing Coordinator. Juan Carlos Elizalde crm@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell: +521 33 1466 0392 Sales Support Expert, Claudia Marín sse@dpinternationalinc.com | Cell:+521 333 968 8515 AQUAFEED.COM..........................................................................49 Web portal · Newsletters · Magazine · Conferences · Technical Consulting. www.aquafeed.com URNER BARRY........................................................................83 P.O. Box 389 Tom Ride. New Jersey, USA. Contact: Steven Valverde. T: (732)-575-1967 E-mail: svalverde@urnerbarry.com AQUA IN TECH, INC......................................................................11 6722 162nd Place SW, Lynnwood, WA, USA. Contact: Stephen Newman. T: (+1) 425 787 5218 E-mail: sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com TANKS AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE REEF INDUSTRIES..................................................................25 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
APRIL - MAY 2020
