THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

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

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:

1. Using small scale laboratorybased studies to make claims of product efficacy in the field. This is widespread as most people fail to appreciate the limitations in the lab as they relate to the real world. This is NOT to say that in every instance that data from laboratory trials is not of significance. The example I

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 observed effect. One of the challenges facing the industry is the widespread failure to understand that correlation and causation are two distinct things (although some deliberately allow the confusion). Correlative statistics do not prove cause and effect. If correlative statistics do not show a correlation, than there is not likely

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.

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.

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 contain 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

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 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

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.

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

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 Vietnam’s food safety and hygiene control system on Siluriformes but has yet to provide a new date.

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.

Imports of Fresh Tilapia Fillets Imports in January increased from the previous month as seasonally expected, but declined 4% compared to the same month last year. Again, although the monthly behavior is seasonally normal, imports have been decreasing consistently over the last few years. Imports from Colombia started the year flat % compared to January 2019 figures. Imports from Honduras, the largest supplier of this commodity to the U.S. fell 4 %, from 1.3 million pounds in January 2019, to 1.2 million pounds in January this year.

Fresh Tilapia Fillet Pricing & Imports by Country From a replacement cost basis, as well as the adjustments made to weighted import price per pound (which includes only the top five suppliers), we found that the January figure of $2.75 increased again, up $0.11 from the previous month but falls $0.06 from January 2018.

YTD average monthly imports illustrates 2020 falls well below previ

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.

Frozen Tilapia Fillet Pricing Replacement prices fell $0.03 to $1.53 in January. We must remember that when costs overseas advance, it is likely that U.S. importers will try to pass the increase onto the U.S. market, however overseas packers have been doing what they can to absorb added costs so as not to disrupt the steady demand. These actions could be coming to an end as disruptions from the coronavirus slowly leave China and move towards the U.S.

Constant wholesale prices and falling replacement costs has widened the spread between import and wholesale prices with the January ratio reaching 1.39, a level not seen since December 2009.

Frozen Analysis Continued & Other Inputs Between pangasius and tilapia frozen fillets the U.S. has imported 43.3 million pounds of product the first month of 2020, of which 64.9 % are tilapia and 35.1 % are pangasius.

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

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.

Shell-On Shrimp Imports, Cyclical & by Count Size Headless shell-on imports, including easy peel, moved 39.7 % higher in January compared to the same month the previous year. All counts moved significantly higher, between 16 % and 50.5 %. The largest of those were 21-25 count and 31-40 count (+42.5%), but gains were broad based.

Replacement values (import $/lb.) for HLSO shrimp continued to move lower in January. Continued high import supplies weighs on the market. Values were $3.86 per pound, $0.12 per pound lower.

Value-Added, Peeled Shrimp Imports Peeled and deveined shrimp reversed from December and moved 7.5 % higher in January 2020 v. the same month last year.

Price incentives were evident again as replacement values moved $0.08 per pound lower to $3.95 per pound. This was the same as last January.

January imports of cooked (warm water) shrimp were also up, but a much more modest 2.6 % compared to other categories. The gain from India

(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 pound for all types and sizes, another $0.06 per pound slide.

Shrimp Price Timelines; Retail Ads Retail: Buying opportunities at the retail level slipped significantly as the time between two busy periods, the winter holidays and Lent, stunted opportunities. Buying opportunities fell nearly 45 % from December and were 4.5 % below last January. The average price, however, moved $0.16 per pound higher to $7.56 per pound.

U.S. Shrimp Supply & Gulf Situation Tight supplies continue to be the largest concern. The National Marine Fisheries Service has released its first report of the new year and are reporting January landings (all species, headless) of 2.8 million lbs. compared to 2.4 million in January 2019, a 16.1 % increase.

Ecuadorian Shrimp Exports The landscape has changed in such a significant way in recent sessions; we’ll focus our commentary on what has occurred since the realization COVID-19 would have market implications.

The impact on the shrimp market was first felt at the beginning of Feb-

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.

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. It’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.

Upcoming aquaculture events 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 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

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 3 TH 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 6 TH 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

advertisers Index

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