-Aquaculture Magazine Volume 49 Number 4 August-September 2023-

6 4 12 20 24 28 32 36 40 58

EDITOR´S COMMENTS

INDUSTRY NEWS

GREENHOUSES AND POND LINERS

Total ammonia nitrogen removal and microbial community dynamics in an outdoor HDPE-lined shrimp pond with no water discharge.

ARTICLE

The influence of sustainability on identities and seafood consumption: implications for food systems education for Generation Z.

ARTICLE

Pre- and post-pandemic seafood purchasing behavior in the U.S.

Archetypes of aquaculture development across 150 countries

Editor and Publisher Salvador Meza info@dpinternationalinc.com

Contributing Editor Marco Linné Unzueta

Evaluation of aqueous magnesium concentration on the performance of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) cultured in low salinity water in West Alabama, USA.

ARTICLE ARTICLE

Has the regulatory compliance burden reduced competitiveness of the U.S. tilapia industry?

Editorial Coordinator Karelys Osta edicion@dpinternationalinc.com

Editorial Design Perla Neri design@design-publications.com

Sales & Marketing Coordinator crm@dpinternationalinc.com

Sales Support Expert sse@dpinternationalinc.com

Operations Coordination Johana Freire opm@dpinternationalinc.com

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

Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China: A review.

ARTICLE ARTICLE

Bioeconomic modeling in tilapia aquaculture: A review.

UPCOMING EVENTS ADVERTISERS INDEX

Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com

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

Office: +210 5043642

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

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

Follow us:

The importance of comprehensive and integrated data in understanding and characterizing aquaculture development has been increasingly recognized in recent years.

44 46

COLUMNS

50

CARPE DIEM

What is missing to consolidate mariculture? (Part 1)

By Antonio Garza de Yta, Ph.D.*

DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MARKETING BYTES

Is there a role for AI in online marketing?

By Sarah Cornelisse*

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Why is “technification” a double-edged sword?

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

54 THE FISHMONGER Seafood consumption action is required.

Marco Linné Unzueta Associate Editor

Aquaculture activity in the world has shown continuous growth in recent years and, in view of the global trend, the sector’s main task is the development of policies to promote an orderly growth of aquaculture at the national level, with clear objectives by region, in order to meet the growing demand of the population for quality animal protein, jobs and income.

Given the stagnation in production of animal protein from fisheries products in different countries, the alternative for the production of this type of protein is from aquaculture and, to address this situation, the sector should consider a strategy oriented towards the implementation and expansion of biotechnology packages through the different stages required for their incorporation into production systems, from experimentation through validation, pilot and commercial tests, to a scaling up that has a significant impact on the socio-economic indicators of each of the regions.

In order to achieve the above, it is essential to combine the efforts of

Biotechnology: Implementation and scaling through their insertion in production systems

various institutions: a) governments, b) research institutions, c) development agencies, d) duly organized producer associations and interested companies; the starting point should be the integration of the accumulated knowledge of specialists in biotechnologies and the proposal of species for their adaptation to totally controlled and self-sufficient conditions, to later be taken to integrated production systems that incorporate the elaboration of food and diets for the target species, maintenance of stocks of reproducers with known genetic characteristics, units and techniques for spawning and fertilization, production, care and growth of fry, larvae, juveniles and experiments for the genetic improvement, nutrition and optimum physical-chemical conditions of the culture systems.

To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to seek synergies with aquaculture innovation and technological development centers that have aquaculture research laboratories equipped to carry out scientific evaluations on aspects of reproduction, nutrition, physiology and other variables that improve com-

mercial farming systems, it is clear that the installed capacities should integrate inter-institutional research groups that contribute biological and technological knowledge from different disciplines.

In this new edition, we can find information that, as aquaculture science evolves, there is an increasing tendency to move from nonscience based production models to science based models and concepts that have been raised in discussion groups and support the lack of consolidation strategies in accordance with the care of aquatic systems, without detriment to the specialties already mentioned, such as genetics, nutrition, health and, without leaving aside, the bioeconomic schemes that establish the profitability and sustainability of aquaculture systems.

Finally, we must not forget that aquaculture is a primary production activity. It must be recognized as an indispensable part of food security for the growing world population.

New research finds that more than 90% of global aquatic food production faces substantial risk from environmental change

A study shows that more than 90 per cent of global “blue” food production, in both capture fisheries and aquaculture, faces substantial risks from environmental change, with several leading countries in Asia and the United States set to face the greatest threats to production. The research has been produced as one of eight initial scientific papers published by the Blue Food Assessment (BFA) as part of a global effort to inform aquatic food sustainability into the future.

The study published by Nature Sustainability and entitled “Vulnerability of Blue Foods for Human-induced Environmental Change” says that many of the world’s largest aquatic food producers are highly vulnerable to human-induced environmental change, with some of the highest-risk countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are demonstrating the lowest capacity for adaptation, a landmark study has shown. “We have only scratched the surface in our understanding of how environmental stressors are connected and how they can both negatively impact on production and safety of the resulting blue foods,” said Ling Cao, co-lead author and professor at the State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science at Xiamen University.

17 stressors surveyed

The authors behind the new paper produced the first-ever global analysis of environmental stressors impacting the production quantity and safety of blue foods around the world, ranking countries according to their exposure to key stressors for the first time. A total of 17 stressors were surveyed, including harmful algal blooms, sea level rise, changing temperatures, pesticide exposure, and more.

Alongside climate change, the report highlights the highly vulnerable blue food production systems are found across all continents, including some of the world’s largest blue food producers such as Norway, China, and the United States, yet also argues there is too often a lack of

understanding around the complexity of stressors causing environmental change. “Understanding the complexity of these stressors and their cascading impacts will be essential in developing successful adaptation and mitigation strategies,” added Ling Cao.

Rich and poor countries

The research also includes an extended dataset that ranks countries around the world based on the exposure of their blue food production systems to various environmental stressors. Species invasion, inland eutrophication or the over-enrichment of water bodies with nutrients, ocean warming, and sea level rise were cited by the paper as the main threats to blue food production in the United States (US), with freshwater and marine fisheries facing disproportionate large risks.

As the largest blue food producer, China’s freshwater aquaculture is also highly exposed to inland eutrophication and severe weather events, the research shows. The authors also argue that special attention should be paid to countries facing high exposure to environmental change while not possessing adequate capacity for adaptation, including Bangladesh, Benin, Eswatini, Guatemala, Honduras, Togo and Uganda.

In terms of production systems, the paper finds that marine fisheries were generally more vulnerable to climaterelated stressors, particularly rising temperatures and acidification, while aquaculture was more susceptible to the effects of diseases and hypoxia, or low oxygen levels. “Although we have made some progress with climate change, our adaptation strategies for blue food systems facing environmental change are still underdeveloped and need urgent attention,” said Rebecca Short, co-lead author and researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Key recommendations

Among the report’s key recommendations is a call for more transboundary

collaboration and adaptation strategies that recognize that the ecosystems that blue food production relies upon are highly interconnected, with environmental change in one area having potential knock-on effects elsewhere.

“In addition to studying the direct effects of stressors, it is also important to broaden the scope and consider how supporting systems are impacted, for example feed production systems providing inputs for aquaculture,” said Max Troell, co-author and associate professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. The authors also call for a diversification of blue food production in high-risk countries to cope with the impact of environmental change unless sufficient mitigation and adaptation strategies are adopted.

Likewise, the paper highlights the urgent need for greater stakeholder engagement in understanding, monitoring, and mitigating pressures on blue food production systems. Indigenous knowledge will be critical for strategic planning and policies to mitigate and adapt to environmental change, particularly for artisanal fisheries and heavy marine fisheries-dependent countries, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

The Blue Food Assessment (BFA) is an international joint initiative bringing together, over 100 scientists from more than 25 institutions. Led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, the Center for Ocean Solutions and the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University, and EAT, the BFA supports decision-makers in evaluating trade-offs and implementing solutions to build a healthy, equitable and sustainable food systems.

INVE Aquaculture welcomes back Olivier Decamp to drive R&D and Business Development

The leading name in aquaculture industry, INVE Aquaculture, announced a few days ago, the return of Olivier Decamp to its team as R&D Director and Business Development Director for Health. A seasoned veteran in the field with over 25 years of expertise, Decamp’s homecoming marks a significant milestone in the company’s pursuit of innovation and sustainable growth, they assured. “I am very happy to rejoin INVE Aquaculture after these two and a half years spent in the shrimp grow-out market. I look forward to working with fantastic colleagues and partners to develop and deliver innovative solutions to our customers,” said Decamp.

On the other hand, Patrick Watty, INVE Aquaculture’s CEO, expressed his excitement at Decamp’s return, stating, “We couldn’t be more thrilled to have Olivier re-join our team as the Business Development and R&D Director and a valuable member of our management team. His return brings a wealth of experience, expertise, and fresh perspectives that will elevate our organization to new heights.”

Almost two decades dedicated to advancing the industry

Decamp started at INVE Aquaculture in 2002, where he dedicated almost two decades to advance the industry through various roles in R&D and Product Management. His contributions were instrumental in developing a diverse range of products and services aimed at achieving sustainable growth through Health & Environment solutions and Knowledge Services.

With a specialization in intensive shrimp farming, Decamp possesses unparalleled field knowledge across Asia and the Americas, from small-scale farms to large corporations. In 2021, he embarked on a new venture with Grobest as Group Technical, Marketing, and Product Director. Now, in

2023, he comes back to INVE Aquaculture, demonstrating his unwavering commitment to the company’s vision and values.

Throughout his career, Decamp has cemented his legacy as a true trailblazer in aquaculture. Holding a biology degree from the University of Namur (Belgium) and a PhD in Zoology from the University of Leicester (UK), he gained valuable experience in esteemed institutions like the Natural History Museum in London (UK), research laboratories in Hiroshima (Japan), and the Oceanic Institute in Hawaii (USA). With over 70 published papers and a patent under his belt, Decamp is renowned for his active participation in scientific conferences and his knack for delivering engaging presentations.

Customer-centric approach

In his new dual role, Decamp will serve as the Business Development Director for Health Products, paving the way for new market opportunities. Simultaneously, he will lead the R&D team, leveraging his extensive field experience and in-depth product knowledge to drive innovation, as the company highlighted.

For them, Decamp’s customer-centric approach aligns perfectly with the

company’s Care for Growth mindset, enabling INVE Aquaculture to anticipate industry trends, address emerging challenges, and seize promising opportunities. With Decamp’s return, the company anticipates an even more vibrant future, fueled by collaborative efforts and passion. “Olivier, rejoining INVE, emphasizes our focus on improving bioremediation and health solutions through customer-centric partnerships, reducing operational issues into a more predictable business environment. Additionally, our commitment to bringing research and innovation closer to the market, resulting in enhanced collaboration between product, commercial and technical support, will accelerate the delivery of customer solutions,”, said Commercial Director Fernando García.

40 years of innovation

It is important to remember that, as pioneers in the industry, INVE Aquaculture (part of Benchmark) remains dedicated to enabling growth at all levels. With 40 years of innovation backing their scientific expertise, the company offers the most comprehensive nutrition and health portfolio in the market, supporting customers in taking better care throughout the culture lifecycle.

Poseidon Ocean Systems and Mowi Canada West have combined forces to install and test novel technologies at its Monday Rock salmon farm off Vancouver Island, in Canada, to improve fish welfare and performance and reduce interactions between wild and farm-raised fish. The salmon raised at Monday Rocks are expected to be ready for market in the second quarter of 2024.

As part of ongoing innovation to reduce interactions with the surrounding environment, Mowi’s salmon farm is now equipped with 15-meter-deep barrier shields, perimeter air bubbles curtains, oxygen systems and real-time environmental monitoring technology to ensure optimal growing conditions are maintained 24/7.

The physical and bubble barriers along with Poseidon’s cutting-edge oxygen systems, will help to avoid naturally occurring oceanic threats, such as plankton blooms, hypoxia, and sea lice they reported. “Three quarters of the farm’s enclosure is physically separated from the surrounding environment to a depth of 15 meters, so this technology developed by Poseidon is critical to allow us to create healthy living conditions within the space where we raise our salmon. The salmon have been growing in the system for six months now and fish condition which include size and health, is looking very promising so far,” explained Rodrigo Cristi, Mowi’s technical manager.

A system that fully dissolves supplied oxygen into the water

Poseidon’s bespoke aquaculture technologies help sustain a life-supporting ecosystem inside a space largely separated from the surrounding environment. Typically, this sort of intervention comes with a matching environmental cost due to higher energy use. However, the Poseidon-developed Flowpressor and Oxypressor systems produce a high rate of oxygen flow at

the right pressure for maximum efficiency, allowing the farmer to produce oxygen as required while saving energy and reducing emissions.

Further to this, Poseidon’s patentpending Depth Charge system, then fully dissolves the supplied oxygen into the water, ensuring that oxygen is available for the fish to consume while eliminating wasted oxygen.

Matt Clarke, Co-Founder and CTO at Poseidon explains: “Our company has been focused on developing our integrated technology platform, which gives farmers more control over the farm environment, allowing for better control of the conditions within the net pens, so that the farmers can more actively and positively affect the welfare of the fish they grow. Since our company was founded in 2015, Poseidon has been focused on bringing a sciencebased, aquaculture-specific approach to this challenge and the system now installed at Mowi’s farm site was developed by our engineers for this application.”

The salmon raised at Monday Rocks are expected to be ready for market in the second quarter of 2024.

Award-winning cleantech product development

Poseidon Ocean Systems (Poseidon) is a Canadian full-service aquaculture

engineering and technology provider. This company specializes in fish welfare and life support systems. The company is an award-winning cleantech product development company headquartered in Campbell River, BC. They design cleantech systems for our living oceans, primarily for the aquaculture industry. The company was founded in 2015 by Heather and Matt Clarke.

The company is currently scaling up for international growth and has opened an additional office in Puerto Montt, Chile, as well as established distribution partnerships throughout the UK. The company provides a wide range of products and services tailored to the aquaculture and marine industries, both locally and internationally.

“Founded by professional engineers and borne by the Canadian aquaculture industry, we provide a wide range of services tailored to the aquaculture and marine industries, both locally and internationally, providing the rare opportunity to do purposeful work on a global scale. Our team makes everything we do here at Poseidon possible. If you are looking to join a team of exceptional and passionate individuals working to make a positive change in the aquaculture industry, Poseidon could be the place for you,” they point out.

Mowi Canada West and Poseidon Ocean Systems install new technologies to improve fish performance and reduce interactions between wild and farmed fish.

French company Phodé reinforces its Olpheel range with three new products

“The only innate behavior is the search for pleasure”

Phodé Laboratories, the French company dedicated to animal well-being and performance and known for their neurosensorial solutions, has presented three new aquaculture products since the beginning of the year, aiming to manage different issues. After launching its new Olpheel range dedicated to shrimp and fish farming last year, Phodé now launches Olpheel Zen, Olpheel Anti-Ox and Olpheel Eat.

According to the information provided by the company, Olpheel Zen is a sensory solution mainly composed of plant extracts that allow for a state of well-being in fish. Olpheel Zen active ingredients reinforce animal resilience during acute and chronic stressful situations like transport, handling, or sampling, for example. Olpheel Anti-Ox, is an antioxidant of 100% natural origin, made from grape extracts. It is a powerful antioxidant that can support antioxidant status and improve aquafeed life span, pigmentation strategy, and animal performance during oxidative stress. Finally, Olpheel Eat is a neurosensory solution composed of selected attractive and botanical compounds to stimulate feed intake. Olpheel Eat improves consumption of feed, including low palatability feeds, resulting in better feed intake, biomass, and size homogeneity in shrimp ponds.

Animal welfare and performance

According to the French company, the Olpheel range, developed to support animal welfare and performance in aquaculture, is aiming at challenges like stimulating appetite and feed intake, managing stress impacts, and supporting the animals’ natural defenses and metabolism. They have noticed that aquaculture is the fastest growing protein production sector to feed the world and aquatic animals require specific technology, nutrition and attention to be produced sustainably and efficiently. In that sense, they consider that “Solutions for aquaculture have to be adapted and designed for its specific challenges: as opposed to livestock farming, in water, you cannot separate the animals from feed, from organic and inorganic matter, and from the environment.” “We thus have allied our olfaction and well-being knowledge with aquaculture expertise to design Olpheel, the first aquaculture brand dedicated to well-being. The Olpheel range is composed of different helping solutions for the main issues that occur during shrimp and salmonid farming: to support good feed consumption to stimulate their natural defenses, to support their physiological state and to contribute to making them feel well in their environment,” they added.

Since 1996, Phodé has been working on mastering the impact of olfactory molecules on the brain in order to increase wellbeing in humans and animals. This unique approach has led to the creation of sensory formulations that act via olfaction on the brain and trigger behavioral and physiological responses. Creative, rigorous, and passionate, the Phodé teams adapt olfactory solutions to each target, finally combining performance and well-being. Phodé Laboratories, the French company dedicated to animal well-being and performance and known for their neurosensorial solutions, are experts in plant extracts and olfaction–brain–gut interactions. They say that “the only innate behavior is the search for pleasure”.

Thanks to its sensory additives, it is widely used in animal feed, Phodé is experiencing exponential growth. From the Albigeois region, the group is now expanding worldwide. Daniel Eclache, founder of Phodé, is today at the head of a group that, from its base in Terssac, radiates across 50 countries.

The key to this success is “intelligent flavors”, mainly used in livestock feed. The former veterinarian, who spent some 15 years working with livestock farmers in the Aspe Valley, had a genius flair for developing his patented formulas. The first were developed 21 years ago. And research is ongoing to improve them or find new ones.

Portuguese Pep4Fish project starts trials with hydrolyzed feeds with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties

The first trials of the Portuguese Pep4Fish project, which aims to explore innovative solutions to strengthen aquaculture fish production, are already underway. Three hydrolyzed feeds with antioxidants and antimicrobial properties were selected for the first trial with sea bass. The researchers are following the development of the animals to observe improvements in their health, growth and resistance to adverse conditions.

Pep4Fish hopes to develop diets by 2025 that improves the robustness of sea bass and sea bream, making them more resistant to stress and bacteria infections. The initiative, part of the ambitious Blue Bioeconomy Pact, is driven by a consortium of companies and brings together multidisciplinary partners, from research to industry, promoting the principles of the circular economy.

“The development of new and sustainable diets that increase the resistance of fish to diseases and improve the quality of the final product for consumers will open new perspectives for the future of aquaculture,” explained André Almeida, head of research at the Animal By-products Processing Company Group (ETSA), the leader in the initiative. The expert stresses that disease prevention and control will help to minimize economic losses in the sector.

EUR 21.7 million in funding

The project, included in the Blue Bioeconomy Pact and financed by the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR) with an amount of about EUR 21.7 million, is led by the ETSA Group and has the participation of nine partners, including research centers and companies. They are AgroGrIN Tech, B2E (Blue Bioeconomy CoLAB, B2E CoLAB), the Interdisciplinary Center for Marine and Environmental Research (CIIMAR), ITS, Empresa de Procesamento de Subproductos Industriales (ETSA),

Seaculture (Jerónimo Martins), Savinor and Soja Portugal (Sorgal), Sebol (ETSA), and the Portuguese Catholic University.

First sea bass trial

The trials are currently underway at CIIMAR. For the first sea bass trial, three hydrolysates with antioxidants and antimicrobial properties were selected. The researchers are following the development of the animals to observe improvements in their health and growth and resistance to adverse conditions.

At the Portuguese Catholic University, which is responsible for the development of new hydrolysates, progress has led to the first poultry hydrolysates with evidence of antioxidant activity.

Between now and 2025, the Pep4Fish project will continue to explore and deepen the use of hydrolysates in aquaculture, with the aim of improving the sustainable production of marine fish.

Aquaculture becomes increasingly relevant

With the growing demand for nutritious, healthy and safe food for humans consumption, aquaculture is becoming increasingly important worldwide. Today, it already provides half of the fish consumed in the world.

The Pep4Fish project will address this growing demand by using animals by-products such as fish, poultry and pork, as well as alternative resources such as insects, to create innovative value-added products (hydrolysates) for sea bass and sea bream feed. These hydrolysates will not only improve fish health but also human nutrition, reduce food waste and preserve the ocean resources.

Thus, the Pep4Fish project also plays an active role in environmental sustainability. “It is a clear commitment to the circular economy. We are reducing waste by reusing and transforming by-products into food ingredients specifically intended for aquaculture diets,” Almeida assured.

Significant investments in companies

In addition to scientific research, the Pep4Fish project promotes an open and collaborative approach with industrial applicability, including significant investments in companies to increase the necessary production capacity. This project will develop two new diets for the industry, one for sea bass and one for sea bream, based on four new hidrolysates that were produced in Portugal.

The Lostallo civic community approves further development of sustainable aquaculture by Swiss Lachs

Swiss Lachs, a pioneering company in sustainable aquaculture, has announced that it has received the approval of the Civic Community of Lostallo, as it did almost 10 years ago, for using a part of the industrial building land for the development of sustainable fish farming. With the approval of the community, Swiss Lachs laid the next foundation stone to meet the steadily growing demand for salmon with sustainable and regionally farmed salmon. “We are incredibly pleased to have received the approval from the Lostallo Civic Community last night and will now move forward with discussions with the authorities and stakeholders to consolidate the needs of all stakeholders in the final project. The expansion is necessary to meet the ever-growing demand for our sustainably and regionally farmed salmon,” said Ronald Herculeijns, Chairman of the Executive Board and co-founder of Swiss Alpine Fish. “This development will allow us to make a positive contribution to the environment by increasing the proportion of sustainably produced salmon. In addition, we will create about 20 new jobs in aquaculture, fish processing & refinement, and sales in the next few years,” the Chairman added. With a strong commitment to the conservation of natural resources and fish welfare, Swiss Lachs aims to develop its production capacity in the most environmentally friendly way possible. This will enable it to meet the growing demand for high-quality, locally produced and eco-friendly salmon.

Innovative farming techniques

Swiss Lachs has enjoyed remarkable success since 2013, offering customers and end consumers a diverse range of high-quality salmon delicacies that are farmed and processed in a particularly sustainable way that is environmentally friendly. Using state-ofthe-art recirculating technology and innovative farming techniques, the company consistently delivers outstanding products, while its environmental footprint is many times smaller than any imported salmon product thanks to local production. Swiss Lachs attach great importance to the welfare of the fish. The salmon are kept in spacious tanks where they have plenty of room to swim. The different life phases of salmon in nature are recreated as closely as possible in the fish tanks. In Lostallo there are freshwater, brackish water and saltwater pools. Huge propellers provide the necessary current in the large saltwater basin. The fish food is produced by Biomar and is made up of the following ingredients: Fish meal, wheat gluten, maize gluten, soya meal (non GMO), fava beans, wheat, starch, fish oil and rapeseed oil. The fishmeal comes from slaughterhouse waste from fish processing plants. The proportion of fishmeal in fish feed has been continuously reduced over the last 10 years and still amounts to 20%. The proportion of fish oil in fish feed is 15%.

One of the cleanest and most sustainable fish farms in the world

The Swiss company specializes in the production of high-quality fish, using innovative farming techniques to ensure both fish welfare and minimal environmental impact. Atlantic salmon are bred in the indoor facility in Lostallo, Grisons. The facility uses the latest technology. This makes it one of the cleanest and most

sustainable fish farms in the world. Swiss Alpine Fish raises the salmon according to the highest quality standards and focuses consistently on sustainability at all levels. The salmon are free of hormones, antibiotics, and other harmful chemicals. The result is fresh, healthy salmon that does not pollute the environment or ecosystems. The closed-loop technology is particularly resource-efficient; it reduces the need for fresh water to 2-5%. In 2022, a total of around 95,000 fish were harvested and processed into the finest salmon delicacies, the company reported. Lostallo is a Swiss commune in the canton of Graubünden, located in the district of Moesa, Mesocco circle. It is bordered on the north by the commune of Soazza, on the east by Menarola and Gordona, on the south by Verdabbio and Cama, and on the west by Cauco.

Holistic approach

Swiss Lachs is committed to transparency and enables consumers to trace the origin of salmon eggs from salmon rearing to salmon processing. Consumers can rest assured that the Swiss Lachs they buy have been produced in a sustainable, regional and environmentally friendly manner. Swiss Lachs not only creates jobs in the Lostallo region but also promotes awareness of the region through its choice of location. The operation of a sustainable aquaculture facility creates long-term prospects for economic development and reduces dependence on imported fish. With its holistic approach, Swiss Lachs helps to meet the growing demand for fish products without overburdening natural resources.

Total ammonia nitrogen removal and microbial community dynamics in an outdoor HDPE-lined shrimp pond with no water discharge

Accumulations of ammonia and nitrite are commonly observed in outdoor lined ponds, and elevated concentrations of these compounds during shrimp culture in a zero-water exchange system can cause shrimp mortality. Here are presented findings that enable estimations of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) removal and oxygen net primary production (NPP) rates in an outdoor lined shrimp pond.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Outdoor aquaculture systems play a significant role in Thailand commercial shrimp cultivation because they entail low structural expenses and less operational complexity. Outdoor ponds with plastic liners have an advantage over traditional earthen ponds in terms of reducing soil pathogens, but the use of liners completely block the natural biological waste treatment processes that take place in soil-based ponds. Biological degradation of unconsumed feed and solid or liquid animal excreta

contributes to the buildup of toxic inorganic nitrogen waste, especially ammonia and nitrite. Accumulations of ammonia and nitrite are commonly observed in outdoor lined ponds, and elevated concentrations of these compounds during shrimp culture in a zero-water exchange system can cause shrimp mortality.

With the increasing popularity of outdoor high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lined ponds, especially in Thailand, proper management is critical for ensuring sustainable shrimp production. The study aimed to as-

sess nitrogen removal, particularly total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), and microbic community dynamics in an outdoor HDPE-lined pond during a 76-day cultivation of Penaeus vannamei with zero-wastewater discharge.

Materials and methods

A semi-intensive culture of Pacific whiteleg shrimp, P. vannamei at a stocking density of 40 shrimp/m2 was operated in an outdoor pond that was lined with 0.7 mm HDPE. The location was a demonstration shrimp farm owned and operated by the Chaipat-

tana Foundation in Chachoengsao, Thailand. Chlorination was used for water disinfection prior to stocking. Operation periods and feeding rates could be used to divide the 76-day shrimp cultivation into three phases.

The experiment was continuously operated without water exchange under the following conditions: dissolved oxygen (DO) of >5 mg/L and alkalinity of >100 mg/L as CaCO3 by sodium bicarbonate supplement.

Results

In Phase I (days 1–30) of shrimp cultivation, the feeding rate gradually increased from 0.5 to 9.5 g/m2 d and accounted for the estimated nitrogen feed loading of 0 to 0.5 mg-N/L d. During this time, low inorganic nitrogen levels were observed as 0.0 ± 0.0 mg-N/L for both TAN and nitrite and as 1.2 ± 0.3 mg-N/L for nitrate. In Phase II (days 31–50) feeding rate was increased to 8.2 ± 1.2 g/m2 d (equal to 0.4 ± 0.1 mg-N/L d) and in Phase III (days 51–76), it was increased to 11.3 ± 2.1 g/m2 d (equal to 0.6 ± 0.1 mgN/L d).

The nitrogen waste loading was estimated to be 48.0 kg-N/t-production. TAN levels increased for a week in Phase II (0.1–0.4 mg-N/L; days 38–44) and then decreased to <0.1 mgN/L. Similarly, in Phase III, TAN lev-

els increased from 0.5 ± 0.0 mg-N/L (day 63) to the maximum allowable level of 1.0 ± 0.0 mg-N/L (day 70). Nitrite was not detected throughout the culture.

The average DO concentration was 5.6 ± 1.2 mg/L, reaching 9.6 mg/L during the daytime. The temperature ranged from 25.6 to 30.8ºC, with an average of 28.9 ± 1.1ºC. Chlorophyll levels increased as the cultivation proceeded. Increases in TSS levels were detected throughout cultivation. During the first three weeks, TSS was relatively low (61 ± 17 mg/L), but the TSS level almost tripled to 169 ± 11 mg/L on day 27 and stayed relatively high at 124–186 mg/L in Phases II and III.

The TAN removal rate indices increased as the cultivation age increased in both control (pond water) and treatment (pond water plus plastic sheet) chambers (Figure 1). Significantly increased TAN removal rates were observed in Phase III in which rates by day 55 had rapidly increased to 0.22 ± 0.2 g-N/m3 h from day 48 (p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA). Thereafter, they remained stable to day 62 (0.21–0.24 g-N/m3 h). By day 70, the rates had significantly reduced from day 62 and there was a significant difference between the TAN removal rates of the control and treatment groups. A sig-

nificant increase in oxygen NPP (1.16 ± 0.16 g-O2/m3 h) had occurred by day 48 (p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA).

Sediment samples contained 4.06 ± 0.16% carbon, 6.89 ± 0.34% hydrogen, 1.79 ± 0.07% nitrogen and 1.63 ± 0.01% sulphur. The total nitrogen loading in the shrimp cultivation crop was 38.7 g-N/m2 (Table 1).

Biofilms of microbial communities were observed on almost all the plastic liner samples examined. These could have been photosynthetic or non-photosynthetic bacteria or algae. Some biofilms included filamentous organisms of 3.47 ± 0.30 μm diameter. These filamentous organisms could also be photosynthetic or nonphotosynthetic bacteria or algae.

Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed a separation among the bacterial profiles of weekly collected water samples on the first two components. The bacterial profiles of pond water shifted from days 1 through 75. Phase I (days 20 and 28) showed water bacterial profile separation from Phases II and III on the first axis (34% of the variances), and Phase II (days 33, 34 and 48) tended to separate from Phase III (days 62 and 75) on the second axis (20% of the variances). Interestingly, the samples of Phase III (days 62 and 75) was clustered closer together than the samples of any other adjacent week pairs.

Figure 2 shows a significant positive correlation between increases in TAN concentration and the relative abundances of Chlorophyta, Cryptophyta, and Euglenozoa, but a significant negative correlation with the abundance of Bacillariophyta (p ≤ 0.01, Pearson’s correlation). Furthermore, increases in nitrate were found to have a significant positive correlation with the relative abundances of Cyanobacteria, Chlorophyta, and Euglenozoa (p ≤ 0.05, Pearson’s correlation).

Discussion

The biological processes of phytoplankton and other microorganisms actively maintained low nitrogen waste

levels throughout the 76-day shrimp cultivation crop. TAN was largely eliminated by assimilation processes because there was no detectable nitrite that would be expected to result from TAN oxidation. A dominant assimilation process has typically been reported in outdoor aquaculture systems via the photoautotrophic uptake of TAN. This is because phytoplankton growth is favorably promoted by available nutrients, especially inorganic nitrogen and inorganic carbon sources (Gerardi and Lytle, 2015; Lemonnier et al., 2017; Saraswathy et al., 2012). Additionally, the observed small reduction in nitrate levels in Phase I could have resulted from both photoautotrophic uptake and denitrification via heterotrophic bacteria (Burford et al., 2003; Ebeling et al., 2006; Hargreaves, 2006).

The occurrence of anoxic denitrification activities, in the sludge layer on the HDPE liner surface, was indicated by the negative oxidation reduction potential (ORP) values of less than –200 mV, which signifies a mildly anoxic environment is conductive to denitrification. These values were close to the ORP values observed in the bottom substrate denitrification treatment tank (Pungrasmi et al., 2013). The accumulation of such solid deposits at the center of the pond bottom is known to result from paddlewheel operation and leads to oxygen depletion inside the cumulated sediments.

During Phases II (days 31–50) and III (days 51–76) of cultivation, the outdoor lined shrimp pond transitioned to a mixotrophic system. Photoautotrophic uptake continued to govern inorganic nitrogen concentrations, as evidenced by the stable TAN uptake rate indices during the daytime. Moreover, it is notable that heterotrophic or mixotrophic microorganisms can contribute to the uptake of ammonia, even in the absence of light (Burford et al., 2003). Previous studies conducted in outdoor aquaculture ponds have shown that phytoplankton contributes more significantly to TAN removal than bacteria.

Conclusions

The maturation of the pond ecosystem, in the outdoor HDPE-lined shrimp pond with no water discharge, was observed to progress from the photoautotrophic (days 1–30) to the mixotrophic phases (days 31–76). The consistency of the estimated TAN uptake rate index, which was calculated based on photosynthesis, confirmed the outstanding activity of photoautotrophic uptake in controlling inorganic nitrogen waste.

Subsequently, the difference between the photoautotrophic uptake and the overall TAN removal rate indices, in the pond water suggested the involvement of bacteria in the nitrogen cycle. The overall nitrogen waste carrying capacity of the lined pond was largely supported by the activities of suspended phytoplankton in the water, especially cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton, and was much more influential than the activities of attached organisms on the plastic liner. Based on chloroplast analysis, Bacillariophyta was the predominant chloroplast in the shrimp pond, while the abundance of Chlorophyta enhanced with prolonged operation and was positively correlated with the TAN level.

In addition to photoautotrophic uptake, the ORP confirmed the role of nitrate elimination through anoxic denitrification in aggregated sediments at the bottom of the pond, despite the absence of soil.

This article is sponsored by: REEF INDUSTRIES INC.

Intermittent increases or decreases in alkalinity were detected in Phases I and II, but the obvious decline in Phase III might have been associated with the rapid increase in measurable chlorophyll levels.

The dominant activities of phytoplankton were supported by continuously increased abundance of Cyanobacteria, which were positively

correlated with chlorophyll levels. Furthermore, Cyanobacteria was also found to have a positive correlation with TAN availability. This finding is in accordance with a previous study reporting that their growth is typically linked to ammonia levels from shrimp nitrogen waste excretion and the biological degradation of organic nitrogen (Domingues et al., 2011).

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “TOTAL AMMONIA NITROGEN REMOVAL AND MICROBIAL COMMUNITY DYNAMICS IN AN OUTDOOR HDPE-LINED SHRIMP POND WITH NO WATER DISCHARGE” developed by: Satanwat, P. and Tapaneeyaworawong, P. - BIOTEC, Chulalongkorn University; Wechprasit, P. - BIOTECM, Mahidol University; Boonprasertsakul, T. - BIOTEC, Chulalongkorn University; Pungrasmi, W. - Chulalongkorn University; Sritunyalucksana, K. and Prachumwat, A.BIOTEC, Mahidol University; Powtongsook, S. - BIOTEC, Chulalongkorn University, Marel-website-news. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on JUNE 2023, through AQUACULTURE. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739898.

Archetypes of aquaculture development across 150 countries

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Aquaculture is expanding and intensifying globally, with implications for environmental, livelihood, food security and nutrition impacts. Here we present an integration of 45 country-level indicators to examine the social, economic, governance and environmental conditions shaping aquaculture development across 150 countries and four identified archetypes of aquaculture through cluster analysis.

Understanding the social, economic, environmental and governance factors guiding current aquaculture development is essential for analyzing the sector’s rising contributions to food and livelihood security. The sector is now a key contributor to global food security and nutrition

producing near equal amounts of seafood as capture fisheries. However, many questions remain regarding its sustainability. A main challenge is analyzing the underlying drivers of a highly diverse sector with marine, brackish and freshwater geographies, each with unique culturing techniques and environmental dependencies.

The need for comprehensive and integrated data to understand and characterize aquaculture development has been gaining increasing attention over recent years. In response, a number of studies have demonstrated the utility of multi-disciplinary analysis and the use of broader data sets in aquaculture research. For example,

The need for comprehensive and integrated data to understand and characterize aquaculture development has been gaining increasing attention over recent years.

the use of global governance and economic data has been used to explain aquaculture development trajectories and potential across countries, confirming connections between local governance and sustainable development (Davies et al., 2019; Gentry et al., 2019).

Here is presented research projects, that compiles and integrates 45 country-level indicators associated with macro-level aquaculture development and analyzes archetypes across 150 countries. This data provides the most comprehensively compiled data set and assessment of social, economic, political and environmental factors shaping aquaculture trends.

Methods

An important hypothesis in this analysis was to test if both social and

ecological factors influence aquaculture development across countries. To conceptually organize this data to examine this hypothesis, we used the social-ecological systems framework (SESF). The SESF has 8 first-tier variables, and each indicator was categorized as one of the first-tier variables. The following six first-tier variables were assigned indicators: Actors; governance; resource systems; resource units; social, economic and political settings; external ecosystems.

All the data used in this study were collected from secondary sources. The final data included 45 indicators with full coverage in 150 countries standardized by ISO 3166 code, including the top 100 aquaculture producing countries. Justifications for all indicators are provided in relation to their relevance to aquaculture development.

Results and discussion

Comparing production conditions and risks

The conditions under which aquaculture is produced in a country are highly influential on its development trajectory, and can explain historical trends and future scenarios. It was found that 86% of aquaculture is produced in countries that score in the most at-risk 1st and 2nd quartile ranges (bottom half) of the Climate Risk Index, which ranks countries based on the extent to which they have been affected by the impacts of weather-related loss events (storms, floods, heat waves, etc.) (Table 1). Similarly, 74.44% of aquaculture is produced in countries that rank in the worst performing 1st and 2nd quartile ranges of the Environmental Performance Index, which provides a data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world.

Countries in Archetype 3 require the most urgent governance attention given the role of seafood production within the agricultural economy and cultures.

Archetypes of aquaculture development

Archetype 1: Emerging aquaculture producers. This archetype includes countries (Figure 1) characterized by low aquaculture production and the lowest total aquaculture species count of any archetype, while also having the highest ratio of freshwater production and highest average 10-year growth rate, as well as lowest average environmental performance (EPI) and EEZ size (Figure 2). This archetype covers much of central Africa and numerous west Asian countries with the lowest average GDP of all archetypes (Figure 2). The geographical distribution of Archetype 1 includes a majority of sub-Saharan African countries and land-locked countries in Asia and South America.

Countries in Archetype 1 are likely lack of the same types of government investment in the sector as other more established producers, such as sector specific agencies and extensions officers. Strengthening and supporting existing community-based approaches may be most effective to ensure that prioritizing livelihood security is coupled with addressing nutrition issues for larger dispersed rural populations within countries in Archetype 1. Securing property rights for smallholders to

at least access and use water and land should be considered a starting point for justice-based development.

Archetype 2: Limited aquatic food engagement. Archetypes 2 countries have both low total aquaculture production and the lowest overall capture

fisheries production, above average freshwater production ratio, but also the lowest inland water area and irrigation area, and above average environmental performance (Figure 1; Figure 2). These countries have the lowest overall seafood consumption but relatively average per capita con-

sumption, with moderately high HDI and governance indicators. Archetype 2 consists of primarily eastern European countries along with a small number of African, South American, and Asian countries with moderately above average GDP, lowest average total population, and the lowest average value added from agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (Figure 2).

Aquaculture is an established sector in Archetype 2 countries, but unlikely to be a main priority development area for a country’s food security and economy, given its low value added to the overall economy. Archetype 2 scores well on national governance and environmental performance, but likely faces issues related to intensification and technology. Inland freshwater and irrigation availability score is low, although freshwater production is the dominant production environment, suggesting intensified production that leverages technology to produce feed for aquaculture in more densely populated fish ponds. Considering how such production interacts with other sectors, likely needs consideration within a more regulatory intensive governance landscape. Due to lower domestic demand for seafood, larger portions of production may be exported from larger companies rather than rural small-scale producers, for example, to other European Union markets. Creating the right market incentives for sustainability and understanding changes in consumer demand may help inform effective strategies.

Archetype 3: Developing economy producers. Archetype 3 includes countries with high total aquaculture production, high aquaculture imports and export value, and high total species counts across all production types, including the highest average brackish species counts and brackish production ratio (Figure 1; Figure 2). These countries have high overall seafood consumption and the highest average domestic seafood supply, and moderately low governance indicators.

Archetype 3 includes most of southeast Asia including China and India, as well as Russia and most of Latin America (Figure 1). Countries in Archetype 3 require the most urgent governance attention given the role of seafood production within the agricultural economy and cultures.

Large rural production investments spawned by traditional practices in high seafood consuming societies have likely very quickly put pressure on aquaculture to meet domestic needs historically met by declining capture fisheries yields. Scaling from low intensity traditional pond aquaculture to technology driven fish production enterprises needs oversight from national governments to minimize environmental impacts. Simultaneously, aquaculture need priority governance focus across scales, from national to local, to help tailor development ambitions to local needs and assist small-scale producers in increasing efficiency in production while securing stable market opportunities and innovation along the value chain.

Archetype 4: Wealthy economy producers. Like Archetype 3, Archetype 4 countries have high total aquaculture production, high aquaculture import and export value, and high total species counts across all production types, however, Archetype 4 is characterized by the highest overall marine production ratio and marine species counts and the lowest freshwater production ratio (Figure 1; Figure 2). Archetype 4 encompasses primarily high-GDP countries, including most of Western Europe as well as Japan, Australia, US, and Canada, with moderately high overall and coastal populations (Figure 1).

Governing aquaculture in Archetype 4 will include finding and enabling mechanisms for technology development, increasing public awareness and consumer uptake of farmed seafood products and ensuring the supply chains for feed don’t export the environmental impacts of feed sourcing, whether capture fish-

eries or grain products to the countries where they are produced. Aquaculture expansion among wealthier, producing nations may require consideration of removing governance barriers to allow aquaculture growth if desired or deliberate engagement with sectors that already have established rights and regulations for resource use historically.

Conclusions

Aquaculture development is shaped by a wide range of macro-level conditions, including social, economic, environmental and governance factors. It was identifying four socialecological archetypes globally, which are differentiated by their distributions across more than 40 indicators. Each archetype provides a unique fingerprint of the potential drivers, limitations and opportunities present across the countries within them, and allows comparison with countries in the other archetypes to better understand the likelihood of future development trajectories and how governance choices can help meet national-level goals and reduce risks. This analysis shows the value of integrated data analysis, and demonstrates the need to move beyond isolated species production data as the cornerstone of understanding the sector’s development. Coupling global and country-level assessments such as this with case study analyses of specific countries will assist in confirming or modifying knowledge about the performance of the sector and its development in any specific country.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “ARCHETYPES OF AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS 150 COUNTRIES” developed by: Partelow, S. - Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research and University of Bonn; Nagel, B. - Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research and Jacobs University; Gentry, R. - Florida State University and The Nature Conservancy; Gephart, J. - American University; Rocha, J. - Stockholm Resilience Center. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MARCH, 2023, through SOCARXIV PAPERS. The full version can be accessed online through this link: 10.31235/osf.io/9gnfu.

The Influence of Sustainability on Identities and Seafood Consumption: Implications for Food Systems Education for Generation Z

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Generation Z, a generational cohort whose members value the sustainability of their purchasing decisions, may have unique opinions regarding sustainable seafood, given their sustainability values. Therefore, it is important to know Generation Z experiences with seafood and how they perceive the role of seafood to feed people while sustaining the future natural environment.

Human values alter the definition of sustainability, causing it to vary based on region and time; therefore, it cannot be reduced to a singular definition. Yet, news stories and campaigns in the mid-1990s initiated a sustainable seafood movement that paralleled ethical consumerism and established a foundation for consumers’ knowledge of what is considered sustainable seafood.

Generation Z, a generational cohort in the United States (U.S.) whose members value the sustainability and environmental impact of their purchasing decisions, will soon play a significant role in the marketplace with their purchasing power. Generation Z has more options, including seafood options in the marketplace when compared to generations before them because of the emergence of the global market and the internet, which may impact how they view and purchase seafood.

Few U.S.-based studies have explored the consumption of seafood and its perceived sustainability as part of the food system, yet seafood is considered an important component of future food security. Generation Z will soon have a strong influence on the marketplace, making their opinions regarding seafood, particularly pertinent to food security discussions. It is important to understand Generation Zs’ experiences with place attachment and family identity while growing up in a digital world that exposed them to information inaccessible to previous generations, as it may influence the impact of place attachment and family identity on food consumption. Therefore, we share the results of a qualitative study that sought to develop a rich understanding of Generation Z students’ experiences with seafood and how they perceive the role of seafood in feeding people while sustaining the future natural environment.

Materials and methods

The population of interest for the current study were Generation Z consumers in the U.S.A. specifically, undergraduate students at the University of Georgia. A total of 68 students, representative of the population of interest, participated in 11 focus groups (FG). Courses in which students were invited to participate, including an agricultural leadership course, a service-learning course, a floriculture course, and a global food policy course. A range of courses were included to ensure representation from students across the college were present in the sample (Table 1).

Results

Students’ experience with seafood

Themes were identified based on participants’ experience with seafood. They included geographic location, experience fishing or with fishermen, and seafood and family (Table 2). Geographic location impacted participants’ experience with seafood. Many participants preferred eating

Generation Z has more options, including seafood options, in the marketplace.

seafood when they were visiting a coastal community on vacation. One participant considered eating seafood a special and place-based event and said, “my family and I also predominantly only eat seafood when we go to the coast as a special thing. It’s not a regular part of our diet” (FG 11). Participants also expressed distrust in seafood that was sold inland. For example, one participant said, “I feel like most of my experience with seafood has been when we’ve taken vacations

to the beach [ . . . ] I feel like that’s where I trust it the most. Whereas at home, I know it doesn’t come locally as much. Maybe it does from aquaculture and stuff like that, but I don’t feel as comfortable eating it as I would in a beach setting or a coastal setting” (FG 8). Participants who grew up in coastal areas also had a preference for seafood.

Experience fishing or with fishermen impacted students’ experience with seafood. Participant experience fishing on their own or with others and/or knowing someone who fished, such as a family friend or commercial fisherman, influenced perceptions. For example, one participant explained, “[w]e grew up going deep sea fishing pretty often in the summers and spring break down in Florida, just all off the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf. So, [I] love seafood—always have probably always will” (FG 10). Consumption of fish caught in saltwater was more popular among participants than consumption of fish caught in freshwater.

Another identified theme was how familial interactions influenced participants’ experiences with seafood. Participants who indicated they currently

ate seafood often had seafood with their family growing up, whereas participants who indicated they currently did not eat seafood did not have seafood with their family growing up.

Students’ conceptualization of seafood’s role in feeding people

The second research question explored participants’ perceptions of seafood’s role in feeding people, the themes that emerged included sustainability, regulations, limiting seafood consumption, and limited knowledge (Table 2).

Sustainability was a primary theme that emerged in the participants’ conceptualization of seafood’s role in feeding people. Many participants discussed the importance of maintaining healthy fish habitats as a mechanism of sustainability to ensure fish are available as a food source in the future. One participant said, “I think that we should focus on the environmental health of those habitats first. And then, in turn, I think that having more fish to fish will come” (FG 6). Participants discussed balancing sustainability and feeding people. One participant explained: “I feel like with all these situations, it’s a really fine line

between feeding the population and also being environmentally cautious. I feel like going forward, just find solutions that cater to both because yes, you have to feed your population, but if you exploit the environment, then in turn, you’re going to deplete your food source. I think finding solutions that think about long-term effects, but also cater, I guess, to both issues” (FG 5). In contrast, participants discussed the idea that sustainability should be a “top priority” (FG 2) as there are other food sources people can consume.

Regulations were a main theme that emerged in the participants’ conceptualization of seafood’s role in feeding people. Regulations were often discussed as a way to increase sustainability but were coded differently than sustainability as they were explicitly mentioned by the participant.

Although regulations were often posed as a way to increase sustainability, one participant expressed the need for “more people to check up on the regulations” (FG 7) so that they are enforced. Similar to sustainability, four participants expressed the need for a “fine line” (FG 5; FG 8) between sustainable regulations and feeding people. One participant explained “Regulation [is] going to be key. I don’t think you can just ban fishing, but I also don’t think you can just go kill the fish in the sea” (FG 8).

Limiting seafood consumption was a main identified theme in the participants’ conceptualization of seafood’s role in feeding people. Participants explained that seafood was “not really a part of most people’s diets” (FG 7), that it should be “geared towards a luxury [item]” (FG 6), and that it should not be a “main food source” (FG 6). One participant noted the complexity of limiting seafood consumption and said: “I really feel that in the next couple of years, there should be a push to decrease what I would call harvest fishing, as much as I hate to say that because I really appreciate that industry, but I think that can be supplemented by increases in production of fish or aquaculture just

because you can make [it . . . ] a little more sustainable. But it’s really a difficult situation all around; I hate to be the person who actually has to make those choices” (FG 11).

Inland fisheries, aquaculture, and traditional land-based farming were often posed as solutions to limiting coastal or offshore fishing. Similarly, participants believed coastal communities could profit from industries other than fishing. Participants expressed limited knowledge about seafood’s role in feeding people. This often intertwined with sustainability, as participants did not know how to make fishing sustainable.

Discussion

Generation Z consumers are defined by their sustainable values and have the potential to influence the marketplace in the years to come, but may have limited experience with frequent seafood consumption (Terry et al., 2018). Sustainability, regulations, limiting seafood consumption, and limited knowledge were identified as ways participants conceptualized seafood’s role in feeding people. As the sustainability generation, Generation Z is an important consumer segment to analyze food-system and seafood consumption perspective, given their self-identification and emerging market importance (Petro, 2021).

There was an overlap between geographic location, seafood and family, indicating identity does play a role in seafood consumption, or lack thereof. Consistently connecting individuals with their food system from an early age may leverage identity and help students be more aware of the sustainability of their consumption habits (Lee et al., 2015). Food-system educators are uniquely positioned to engage Generation Z consumers in the sustainable consumption of seafood.

Many participants knew about sustainability and regulations were important for the future of seafood as a food source, but some did not know how to implement sustainable prac-

Consistently connecting individuals with their food system from an early age may leverage identity and help students be more aware of the sustainability of their consumption habits.

tices, especially in the context of an industry with which they were unfamiliar. Food-system educators should integrate seafood into their curricula as many participants expressed limited knowledge about sustainable seafood and the associated industry.

Conclusions

This study provides valuable insight into sustainable consumption patterns of Generation Z surrounding seafood. Findings suggest Generation Z wants the seafood industry to be more sustainable. Thus, food-system educators need to focus on how sustainability can be improved and actions students can take to improve sustainability. Additionally, Generation Z needs to be exposed to the seafood industry through family or place in order to increase the likelihood of seafood consumption. Study findings demonstrate a need to have an indepth understanding of generational experiences when researching consumers’ consumption patterns.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “THE INFLUENCE OF SUSTAINABILITY ON IDENTITIES AND SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION: IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SYSTEMS EDUCATION FOR GENERATION” developed by: Gibson, K. - University of Georgia, Sanders, C. - North Carolina State University, Byrd, A., Lamm, K. and Lamm, A. - University of Georgia. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MAY, 2023, through FOODS. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101933

Pre- and post-pandemic seafood purchasing behavior in the U.S.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

The global COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unprecedented economic shock in current times. Subsequent shelter-at-home orders and the shutdown of restaurants and other traditional marketing channels resulted in an unprecedented external shock to seafood markets. Here are the results from research on seafood consumer shopping behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic led to the shutdown of many restaurants, with an estimated 15% of U.S. restaurants either closed permanently or were likely to after just the first 3 weeks of shutdowns (National Restaurant Association, 2020). The magnitude of business closures and employee layoffs resulted in an unparalleled shock to the U.S. economy. The combined effect of business closures and reduced discretionary spending by consumers had severe negative economic effects. Economic relief and stimulus packages likely ameliorated such effects to some degree, but how long of a recovery period would ensue was unknown.

External economic shocks and economic downturns have occurred previously, but the effects on consum-

er behaviors during such times have generally not been well studied. Consumer behaviors were found to change during economic recessions (Latham and Braun, 2010), but the types of changes varied with geographic and demographic differences, by product, and with the nature of the crisis. Fewer studies have followed consumer spending from the crisis through the recovery period. In addition to changes in spending, consumer attitudes and preferences also change during economic crises.

Studies of the effects on seafood consumption during external economic shocks have focused largely on supply shocks. However, it appears that little attention has been paid to changes in seafood consumer preferences and purchasing patterns during times of severe economic shocks.

The 2020–2021 pandemic, subsequent shelter-at-home orders, and shutdown of restaurants and other traditional marketing channels resulted in an unprecedented external shock to seafood markets. A clear understanding of changes in consumer purchasing behaviors for at home and away from-home consumption is necessary to provide guidance for seafood suppliers. Here is presented a consumer research that gathers market information on changes in how, when, and where consumers purchased seafood during the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency.

Methods

An online survey of seafood consumers was designed and administered using the Qualtrics platform. A screener question was used to identify seafood

consumers. The study design targeted 100 completed responses from each of 20 market areas in the US. The questionnaire elicited information for 2019 and 2020 on seafood consumption at-home and away from-home.

Following data cleaning, the total number of usable responses was 1908. This study presents the results of a descriptive analysis of seafood purchasing behaviors reported by respondents for 2019 and following the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

Results

General seafood consumption trends following the onset of the pandemic

Half (50%) of respondents reported that their consumption of fish remained the same in 2020, following the onset of the pandemic as compared to 2019. Only 19% reported

that their consumption of seafood increased in 2020, and 31% of respondents reported that their consumption of seafood decreased in 2020. Those who reported increased consumption of seafood in 2020 as compared to 2019, further responded that the primary reason for doing so was for their health (49% of those who reported increased consumption of seafood), including to boost immunity, as a good source of energy, vitamins, and minerals (Figure 1).

A variety of other, less frequently mentioned reasons included: eating at home more, needing more protein in the diet for variety and greater availability of seafood as compared to other meats, among others. Those respondents who reported decreased seafood consumption in 2020 (27%) did so primarily because of the pandemic

The 2020–2021 pandemic, subsequent shelter-at-home orders, and shutdown of restaurants and other traditional marketing channels resulted in an unprecedented external shock to seafood markets.

shutdowns and not being able to eat in restaurants where they preferred to eat seafood (Figure 2). An additional 20% reported decreased seafood consumption because of reduced income, fewer hours worked, or being laid off making seafood less affordable. Nineteen percent of those who decreased consumption of seafood, reported that seafood was less available, and another 10% that it was too expensive.

Where food was eaten or obtained

Respondents reported significantly different percentages of meals prepared at home, purchased for takeout, delivered to home as a prepared meal, and eaten away from home for 2019 and 2020 for general meals and for seafood meals (Table 1). Pre-pandemic, respondents reported preparing 60% of their meals generally, but fewer (52%) of

their seafood meals at home. After the onset of the pandemic and the shelter at-home orders, respondents reported an 11% increase in meal preparation at home generally, and a 14% increase in home preparation of seafood meals. Away-from-home consumption frequency decreased significantly with the pandemic, as expected, for both general and seafood meals. Pre-pandemic, respondents ate more of their seafood meals away from-home than other meals, but this difference disappeared in 2020. The frequency of takeout orders of prepared meals decreased in 2020 as compared to 2019 for both general and seafood meals, contrary to expectations, but did not differ between general and seafood meals.

Purchases for at-home preparation and consumption

Respondents reported a slight but significant decrease in the percent of groceries purchased (3%) in grocery stores following the onset of the pandemic. Approximately one-fifth of respondents reported ordering groceries online for home delivery in 2019, with a slight, but significant, increase to 29% of general food and 26% of seafood after the onset of the pandemic. Grocery purchases from other venues were low, although shoppers purchased a greater percentage of their seafood as compared to other food from farmers’ markets and food hubs in 2019, but this difference disappeared in 2020. The percentage of food obtained from hunting or fishing or direct visits to farms (“other” category) was also low, but that of seafood was double that of food generally in both years.

Income effects on purchasing groceries for home preparation paralleled those of educational-level groups. Higher-income respondents purchased significantly fewer groceries from supermarkets and more online in both years than did lower-income respondents. Online seafood orders increased slightly for both income groups (4% to 5%) following the pandemic, but grocery shopping was unchanged before and after the pandemic.

To better understand seafood purchasing behaviors, respondents who reported low frequencies of seafood purchase (less than once a month) were asked an open-ended question as to why they purchased seafood infrequently for both 2019 and 2020. The primary reason for both years was the expense and high price of seafood (Figure 3). The second most common response was that seafood was not a preferred food that was eaten often. Following the onset of the pandemic in 2020, availability of seafood became an important factor that constrained seafood purchases, along with the COVID-related shutdowns that

prevented respondents from eating seafood out in their preferred restaurants.

Discussion

Clearly, understanding how consumers shopping behaviors may have changed as a result of the onset of the pandemic is of importance to seafood suppliers, including aquaculture producers and processors (Engle, 2019). Seafood consumer behaviors were found to have changed in response to the pandemic, similar to results by Latham and Braun (2010) for other external economic shocks and downturns, and also varied with demographic differences.

As expected from the shelter at home orders, at-home consumption increased significantly, while that of away-from-home consumption decreased significantly, for meals generally and for seafood. The frequency of takeout orders decreased, but no a difference was found in the frequency of home-delivered meals. A number of demographic differences were found in this study based on age, education, income, and gender, but there were few differences among ethnic groups. Older, lower income, less educated and female respondents were the ones who prepared more seafood dishes at home and bought more seafood to prepare at home. This was true before and after the onset of the pandemic. Thus, those seafood suppliers interested in increasing retail grocery sales may find greater success by tailoring advertising and messaging to the demographic groups identified as likelier to shop for seafood in supermarkets. On the other hand,

younger respondents, those with higher education and income levels, and males tended to order more groceries online, purchase more takeout meals, and order more meals online for home delivery.

These results suggest which demographic groups would be best targeted through advertising and messaging to increase seafood sales through these emerging purchasing channels. The most frequently mentioned reason for purchasing seafood for home preparation less than once a month and for not purchasing prepared fish for consumption at home was that it was too expensive and the price was too high.

Conclusions

National survey results documented significant differences in consumer shopping behaviors and consumption at-home and away from-home for food generally and for seafood specifically in 2020 as compared to 2019. As expected, consumers in 2020 con-

sumed a greater percentage of meals at home than away from home overall and for seafood. Changes in seafood shopping behaviors differed significantly by age, education, income, and gender, but not by ethnic group. Older, female consumers with lower educational levels and lower incomes shopped more often at supermarkets and less online, whereas younger, male respondents with greater educational and income levels shopped more frequently online and less often at supermarkets and also ordered more meals for takeout and home delivery. While the frequency of shopping generally declined with the pandemic, the expenditure per shopping trip did not, resulting in less overall spending for groceries.

Seafood was purchased less frequently for takeout or for home delivery of prepared meals than other general meals because of concerns over quality, freshness, and safety (of food and of COVID spread).

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “PRE- AND POST-PANDEMIC SEAFOOD PURCHASING BEHAVIOR IN THE U.S.” developed by: Engle, C. - Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC, van Senten, J. – Virginia Tech, Kumar, G. - Mississippi State University, Dey, M. - Texas State University. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MARCH 2023, through AQUACULTURE. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739491.

Evaluation of aqueous magnesium concentration on the performance of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)

cultured in low salinity water in West Alabama, USA

Inland shrimp farmers in Alabama, USA, supplement Mg2+ at the start of each production cycle to reach concentrations >20 mg/L at 1 to 11 g/L salinities. However, this concentration may not be high enough for larger shrimp in the later phase of the production cycle. Therefore, two field trials were conducted on a commercial shrimp farm in west Alabama to evaluate the effects of Mg2+ concentration in low salinity of water on the growth, survival, and physiology of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Due to the remarkable ability of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) to tolerate a wide range of salinities, it has become a candidate of choice for low salinity culture in different production systems located far away from the coast. Inland shrimp production using low salinity groundwater (LSW) is a common practice in many countries throughout the world, including China, Thailand, Vietnam, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico, the United States, Israel, Australia, and many other countries. In the US farms in Florida, Alabama, and Texas are currently using saline well water with salinities of 1–15 g/L to produce shrimp, and some of these farms have been in production for >20 years (Roy et al., 2010).

Because of consistently low survival and production obtained in recent years by commercial shrimp producers in Alabama, and doubts regarding optimal concentrations of Mg2+ and Mg:Ca ratios, farmers are curious to know if additional Mg2+ supplementation to commercial ponds might improve growth, survival, and production of shrimp reared in low salinity water while reducing late-term mortality. The current study evaluated the effect of Mg2+ supplementation on the performance of L. vannamei reared in earthen production ponds filled with LSW.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted on a privately owned commercial shrimp farm (Greene Prairie Aquafarm; Boligee, Alabama, USA) as two separate trials during the 2021 shrimp production season. The first was a commercial-scale pond trial, while the second was a tank study, both carried out on the same farm. The farm has 23 commercial shrimp production ponds of different sizes. Eight ponds were used for the study, ranging in size from 1.09 to 1.90 ha.

Results Pond trial

To raise aqueous Mg2+ concentrations in high Mg2+ ponds (n = 4; total area = 5.02 ha) to twice the normal amount used by commercial producers, additional Mg2+ concentrations of 55.05 ± 10.85 ppm were required. As a result, the total amount of MgCl2tech used for that purpose was 15,429 kg (617 bags × 25 kg/ bag; 3075 kg/ha) with a total cost of $10,545 US Dollars (USD; $0.68/kg; $2101/ha).

Production and growth parameters: Pond groups were not significantly different in area, stocking density, weight of stocked PLs, or length of the culture period. No significant differences were detected in growth parameters between the pond groups. The Johnson-Neyman procedure showed no significant differences in average body weight during weeks 1 to 14 between pond groups. Still, shrimp in high Mg2+ ponds were significantly heavier than those in low Mg2+ ponds during culture weeks 15 to 21 (Figure 1). Even though shrimp harvested from high Mg2+ ponds had numerically higher final body weights

(32.13 ± 5.39 g) than shrimp harvested from low Mg2+ ponds (26.13 ± 1.79 g), they were not statistically different (p = 0.079). This is likely due to pond-to-pond variation and the small sample size (4 ponds/group). Based on the sample size calculation, the difference in final body weight between pond groups would be statistically significant if the sample size was nine ponds per group (effect size = 1.49, power = 0.84).

Whole-body and hemolymph ionic profile: In each of the trial months, shrimp whole-body Mg2+ concentrations in high Mg2+ ponds were significantly higher than those in low Mg2+ ponds. Ponds with high Mg2+ concentrations had significantly higher whole-body Mg2+ concentrations than ponds with low Mg2+ concentrations. There was a significant difference (t(30) = 166.29, p < 0.0001) in the ratio between Mg2+ concentrations of shrimp whole-body to culture water between high Mg2+ ponds (mean ± SD: 52.67 ± 13.90; range: 33.98 to 86.37) and low Mg2+ ponds (129.02 ± 19.98; 95.88 to 164.57). There were significant differences between pond groups for the other

whole-body ionic profile concentrations and hemolymph ionic profile concentrations.

Tank trial Production and growth parameters:

Initial shrimp body weights were significantly greater in high Mg2+ tanks than in low Mg2+ tanks. Therefore, the effect of initial body weight on all other parameters was statistically evaluated and accounted for, whenever significant, by adding it as a covariate to the statistical model. The six Mg2+ concentration-stocking density tank groups did not show that Mg2+ concentration or stocking density influenced final body weight, survival, feed conversion ratio (FCR), weekly weight gain, or percent weight gain. Shrimp in low Mg2+ tanks stocked with 20 shrimp/tank had a significantly higher thermal growth coefficient (TGC) than shrimp in high Mg2+ tanks stocked with 25 shrimp/ tank, while all other tank groups were not different. In addition, the final biomass of shrimp in high Mg2+ tanks stocked with 30 shrimp/tank was significantly higher than that in all other tank groups, and within low Mg2+ tanks, the final biomass of shrimp in tanks stocked with 30 shrimp/tank was higher than that in tanks stocked with 20 shrimp/tank.

Regardless of stocking density, shrimp cultured in high Mg2+ tanks had significantly lower TGC (Figure 2-C) and higher final biomass (Figure 2-E) than those in high Mg2+ tanks. Regardless of the Mg2+ concentration, tanks stocked with 30 shrimp/ tank had significantly higher final biomass than those stocked with 20 or 25 shrimp/tank (Figure 2-F).

Whole-body and hemolymph ionic profile

Whole-body Mg2+ concentrations of shrimp in all high Mg2+ tanks were higher than those in low Mg2+ tanks. Higher whole-body Mg:Ca ratios were found in shrimp reared in high Mg2+ tanks stocked with 25 shrimp/

tank compared to those in low Mg2+ tanks stocked with 20 shrimp/tank. Shrimp stocked in tanks with 25 or 30 shrimp/tank in the low Mg2+ system had Na:K ratios significantly higher than those in the high Mg2+ system. Hemolymph in shrimp from high Mg2+ tanks stocked with 25 or 30 shrimp/tank had significantly higher Mg2+ concentration and Mg:Ca ratio than hemolymph from shrimp in low Mg2+ tanks stocked with 20 shrimp/ tank.

Discussion

Inland low salinity aquifers that provide water for Pacific white shrimp in earthen ponds in west Alabama have variable Mg2+ concentrations that are extremely deficient on most farms. Therefore, farmers need to add mag-

it is not statistically significant, there was numerically lower growth of shrimp in the control group with lower Mg2+ concentrations.

Though

nesium salt (typically K-Mag®, a commercial grade potassium magnesium sulfate) to raise the Mg2+ concentration in pond water. However, specific Mg2+ requirements are still not well established. Hence, concentration in seawater diluted proportionately to a given salinity is assumed to be the safest reference value to attain optimal growth and survival of L. vannamei (Boyd, 2018).

During the study, no differences were detected in performance parameters or physiological variables of shrimp between the control (Mg2+ = 12.9 ± 4.0 mg/L) and Mg2+ treatment (Mg2+ = 28.1 ± 22.8 mg/L), except for significantly higher whole-body Mg2+ concentrations in shrimp reared in elevated Mg2+ concentrations. The reference Mg2+ concentration in seawater at the tested salinity (2.1 g/L) is 82.2 mg/L. Hence, Mg2+ concentrations attained in control and treatment culture water in this trial were both suboptimal, being lower than 50% of what Mg2+ should be at the salinity in which the experiment was carried out.

The growth performance of shrimp observed during the current study agrees with observations from Galkanda-Arachchige et al. (2021), which revealed that elevated Mg2+ concentrations in ponds were not

high enough to yield significantly higher growth in shrimp compared to the control since Mg2+ concentrations are below the optimal range. In parallel, insignificant differences in the final weights of Pacific white shrimp reared in low salinity (4 g/L) waters containing various concentrations of Mg2+ were documented by Zacarias et al. (2019). This is assumed to be due to no Mg2+ deficiency in test treatments (167 to 205 mg/L) compared to concentrations of Mg2+ in diluted seawater (~156 mg/L) at the respective salinities.

Findings from the 8-week on-levee tank experiment confirmed that there were no significant main effects or interactions of Mg2+ concentration (12 and 37 mg/L) or stocking density (24, 29, and 35 shrimp/m2) on growth performance, survival, FCR, hemolymph osmolality, and osmoregulatory capacity of shrimp. Though it is not statistically significant, there was a numerically lower growth of shrimp in the control group with lower Mg2+concentrations. This could be due to the extra energy expenditure needed to maintain osmoregulation or a size-dependent deficiency in Mg2+ bioavailability to support the molting mechanisms of adult shrimp in low salinity waters.

In conclusion, the stocking densities that we tested did not negatively impact the growth performance of shrimp reared at suboptimal Mg2+ concentration. In addition, the benefits of Mg2+ supplementation in low salinity shrimp production systems with suboptimal Mg2+ concentrations have been confirmed. Together, this suggests that commercial shrimp producers in west Alabama using inland low salinity waters will likely continue to face challenges late in the production cycle due to low Mg2+ concentrations in production ponds and should closely monitor aqueous Mg2+, particularly late in the production cycle.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “EVALUATION OF AQUEOUS MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION ON PERFORMANCE OF PACIFIC WHITE SHRIMP (LITOPENAEUS VANNAMEI) CULTURED IN LOW SALINITY WATER OF WEST ALABAMA, USA” developed by: Hernandez, D. - Alabama Fish Farming Center and Auburn University, Abdelrahman, H. - Cairo University, Alabama Fish Farming Center, Galkanda, H. -Arachchige - Wayamba University of Sri Lanka, Kelly, A. - Alabama Fish Farming Center, Butts, I. - Auburn University, Davis, D. -Auburn University, Beck, B. - US Department of Agriculture, Roy, L. - Alabama Fish Farming Center and Auburn University. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on DECEMBER,, 2022, through AQUACULTURE. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.739133

Has the Regulatory Compliance Burden Reduced Competitiveness of the U.S. Tilapia Industry?

Emerging research on aquaculture governance has pointed to the conundrum of negative global environmental effects from economic incentives for aquaculture production to shift from more highly regulated to less regulated countries. There is evidence that regulatory costs, along with other challenges related to live fish markets, have contributed to the decline in U.S. tilapia production.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

The continued growth of the global human population has led to serious challenges in meeting global food production needs while reducing the often accompanying environmental and social costs. Effective governance has become ever more critical as the demand for food, but also for improved environmental and social quality, has increased. Safeguarding the environment and individuals within society requires the promulgation of laws, regulations, and rules that are accompanied by effective enforcement. The absence of effective governance leads to negative externalities that include pollution and environmental contamination, as well as unsafe and unhealthy workplace conditions.

Attention to the environmental problems that resulted from unregulated, negative externalities led to the promulgation of comprehensive environmental laws in many countries. Those countries that successfully implemented effective laws and regulatory structures have benefited over the years in various ways from the resulting improvements in environmental quality, workplace safety, and public health.

The U.S. is the largest seafood market in the world, consuming $102 billion of seafood products annually. Of this, an estimated 79% is imported. Tilapia is the fourth most consumed seafood in the U.S., after shrimp, salmon, and tuna. However, tilapia sales declined by 7% from 2012 to 2018, and the number of farms raising tilapia decreased by 24%, to less than the number of farms reported in the 2005 Census of Aquaculture. Over this same time period (2012 to 2018), the global annual production of tilapia increased by 35%. Thus, there are important questions related to competitiveness of U.S. tilapia production, given the recent declines in the U.S. that contrast sharply with the global increase in tilapia sales. Possible hypotheses for the contraction of U.S. tilapia

production includes: (1) greater production costs as a result of the regulatory framework; (2) substitution of other live fish in the markets targeted by U.S. tilapia producers; or (3) other economic factors.

A key research motivation of the present study was to examine the case of tilapia from the perspective of the effects of regulatory governance.

Methods

The study was designed as a descriptive, cross-sectional research survey. A set of structured questions was developed from questions used in previous regulatory cost studies. The population to be studied was that of commercial tilapia producers in the U.S. The sampling design was that of a total census, in which every attempt was made to interview all known commercial tilapia producers in the U.S.

The survey was conducted nationally, with a concentration on the three major tilapia producing states of California, Florida, and North Carolina. Attempts were made to contact all known commercial producers identified as existing tilapia businesses. The structured questions used in the survey instrument were developed from regulatory cost survey questions that had been used successfully in previous surveys.

Results

Top problems and regulations

Respondents rated increasing costs as their top problem, primarily those related to feed, electricity, and water. Each bar represents the number of respondents who reported each type of problem as one of their top five. Problems associated with markets being the next greatest problems overall among the top five problems, followed by regulations and diseases. Brownouts, or partial electrical outages, and reliability of utilities (especially electricity) were the fifth-greatest problem, followed

by labor, supply chain and distribution problems, and the ability to discharge water. While the ability to discharge water was categorized as a discharge regulation by respondents, the inability to discharge was driven in most cases, by concerns related to the escape of non-native tilapia into the wild.

Of the various regulatory challenges identified by tilapia producers, effluent discharge was the most problematic, with the greatest number of respondents indicating that it was the #1 greatest problem (Figure 1). The international shipping and trucking categories (including international permits to sell live fish, regulations related to electronic logs, and other trucking regulations) was second overall in terms of the topfive rankings, but problems with management of bird predation received more first-place rankings than international shipping. Policies related to water access and electricity were ranked third among regulatory problems, followed by state import health certifications, new or aquatic nuisance species, and drug approval/investigational new animal drug (INAD) processes.

Forty-two percent of respondents indicated that their businesses had experienced interruptions from regulatory delays related to required permits, and 38% reported that regulatory issues prevented them from expanding their businesses.

Respondents reported 164 total regulatory filings. A regulatory filing was defined as an activity required by regulatory agencies that involved a substantive study, survey, or other submission by the farm to obtain specific certificates or other approvals required as part of the permit application process. In addition to filing permit applications, other types of regulatory filings included engineering studies, wetland surveys conducted by hired consultants, and consultations required of tribal, coastal, or federal authorities.

Direct regulatory costs

National and State Regulatory Costs. The national total regulatory costs for tilapia were $4.4 million, as compared to $45.4 million for catfish, $16.1 million for salmonids, $15.6 million for Pacific Coast shellfish, and $5.2 million for Florida tropical fish. As a percentage of total costs, regulatory costs on U.S. tilapia farms accounted for 15% of all costs of production nationally, with a range of 7% to 18%.

Regulatory Costs by Type of Cost. Regulatory compliance resulted in a variety of different types of costs on tilapia farms. The greatest of these was taxes, at 28% of total regulatory costs, followed by capital costs (20%), manpower (18%), water costs (5%), legal, accounting, and professional services (4%), with permits and licenses accounting for only 1% of total regulatory compliance costs (Figure 2). Direct costs other than labor constituted 24% of the total costs of regulation.

Regulatory Costs by Category of Regulation. The categories of regulations that contributed the most to regulatory costs were those related to discharge of effluents (20% of total regulatory costs), control of predatory birds (14%), non-native or aquatic nuisance species (ANS) (10%), water access (7%), and fish health (2%). The greatest percentage of regulatory costs was in the “all other regulatory costs” category, with 47% of all regulatory costs that included farms with high costs for guest worker visas, increased feed costs related to drugs under the investigative new animal drug (INAD) programs, consulting and other professional services, taxes, and increased interest on operating and investment capital.

Regulatory Costs by Farm Size.

While regulatory costs per farm were significantly (p < 0.05) greater on larger farms, when calculated on a perkg basis (averaged across farms), the regulatory cost per kg was significantly lower on larger farms. Management of predatory birds accounted for the greatest percentage of total regulatory costs on farms in the smallest size

group. On medium-sized farms, effluent discharge regulations comprise the greatest regulatory costs. In the largest farm size category, more than half (58%) of regulatory costs were in the “all other regulatory costs” category.

Lost revenue from regulations

Lost revenue had a much greater economic effect on tilapia farms than did the increased costs resulting from regulations. Nationally, the total revenue lost from regulations was eight times greater than that of direct regulatory costs, at $32 million annually. The largest portion of the lost revenue ($23.4 million) was experienced by tilapia farms in the “other states” category.

Lost revenue resulted from three different effects that included the value of lost production, lost markets and business opportunities, and thwarted attempts to expand the business. Of these different effects, the largest category of lost revenue was that of thwarted attempts to expand the business, at $16.7 million in annual lost revenue. The greatest amount of lost production was reported from Florida, where tilapia producers were no longer able to discharge water because of regulations related to the potential for the escape of non-native tilapia.

In terms of category of regulation, the greatest amount of lost revenue per farm was that of regulations re-

lated to non-native species, followed by those related to effluent discharge, labor, managing predatory birds, fish health, and water access regulations (Table 1). The most important sources of lost revenue, however, varied by state.

Potential Pathways for Growth of U.S. Tilapia Production

The major findings showed that the decline in U.S. tilapia production may have resulted from two different factors: one is the regulatory structure and associated cost increases, and the second is access to the large U.S. market for food fish fillets. Therefore, there is a need for:

9 Improve the efficiency of the regulatory framework in the U.S. for tilapia, particularly given that a pragmatic regulatory framework has been slow to develop in the U.S.

9 Reduced paperwork will reduce costs in the form of the value of personnel time spent on monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting. Reducing the time burden of reporting would free up time on aquaculture farms for innovation and other efficiency enhancements.

9 The advances in information technology in the past decades likely offer potential solutions for

alleviating the costs of monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting. Dashboards could be developed for producers to upload all required monitoring data for all regulatory agencies.

9 Periodic training is needed for farm-level inspectors, permit writers, and other regulatory personnel to keep up with the rapidly developing new technologies are being adopted by aquaculture producers.

9 Sunset clauses in all regulatory actions. The rapid evolution of aquaculture technologies have resulted in improved technologies, but inflexible regulatory processes impede their adoption. Therefore, one important pathway to growth for U.S. tilapia producers is for land-grant universities and the United States Department of Agricul-

ture to re-commit to investing in tilapia aquaculture production methodologies and providing the R&D support needed to adapt new technologies on farms. There is an especially strong need for such R&D support to test and adapt new processing equipment for U.S.raised tilapia. If feasible, as some producers believe it is efficient processing equipment could potentially provide the basis for the rapid expansion of U.S.-raised tilapia fillets into the larger seafood fillet market.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “HAS THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE BURDEN REDUCED COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. TILAPIA INDUSTRY?” developed by: Engle, C.- Engle-Stone Aquatic$ LLC, Strasburg, van Senten, J., Clark, C. and Boldt, N. - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MARCH, 2023, through FISHES. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8030151

Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China: a review

Industrialized aquaculture is an essential trend for aquaculture development in China, owing to its considerable advantages in lower water consumption, higher productivity and sustainability. Here is a review of the current status and solutions for the development of industrialized aquaculture in China.

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

China is the world’s largest aquaculture producer: In 2020, it produced 49.90 million tons of aquaculture fish, accounting for 57.03% of the global total (FAO, 2022). However, the development of Chinese aquaculture has been confronted with many problems due to excessive use of traditional culture systems (e.g., ponds and cages), such as disease outbreaks, environmental pollution, and food safety concerns. These problems have seriously restrict sustainable development of the Chinese aquaculture industry. There is an urgent need to improve this situation by developing culture systems in which fish production can be highly controllable and environmentally friendly, such as industrialized aquaculture.

Industrialized aquaculture is an important future trend for aquaculture development in China, owing to its advantages in saving water and land resources and promoting higher productivity and sustainability. However, little information on its current status has been available up until now. Here is a review of the current status of industrialized aquaculture in China, the main issues in its development, as well as possible solutions for its future direction.

Definition of industrialized aquaculture in China

According to government statistics, industrialized aquaculture systems

can be defined as a circulating filter types, warm drainage types, ordinary flow types, and warm water types (FBMA, 2021). Compared with traditional culture methods (e.g., ponds and cages), industrialized aquaculture systems have the following advantages:

9 They have more controllable conditions, a higher culture den-

sity, and more extended production periods.

9 They save land and water resources: compared with conventional aquaculture systems, some industrialized aquaculture systems (e.g., recirculating aquaculture systems) use 90–99% less water and less than 1% of the land area.

9 Their construction sites are more flexible. Conventional aquaculture systems need to be built close to the water source and are generally far from the aquatic products markets.

9 They improve feed utilization and reduce pollutant emissions.

Industrialized aquaculture models in China

At present, industrialized aquaculture models in China can be divided into three categories: flowing water systems, recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), and aquaponics systems (Figure 1). Flowing water systems use underground water as the primary water source. After culture, the wastewater, enriched with nitrogen and phosphorus, is discharged directly (Figure 1) (Cang, 2019; Shen et al., 2014). Despite a higher production rate and a shorter culture period, this model has some drawbacks. These systems ignore ecological and environmental protection measures and use many resources (e.g., water, land, and electricity) with low efficiency; additionally, they overlook long-term interests, intensify intra-industry competition, and make it difficult to standardize the management and development of aquaculture (Cang et al., 2018).

RAS is becoming more popular in China, especially in Shandong, Tianjin, and Liaoning provinces. However, the proportion represented by this model in industrialized aquaculture is still low. Taking the coastal provinces of Liaoning, Hebei, Tianjin, and Shandong provinces as examples, the area occupied by RAS accounts for only 6.72% of the total area of industrialized aquaculture (Wang et al., 2013). The biological treatment (microbial nitrification and denitrification) of RAS produces the greenhouse gas N2O, whose effect is more than 310 times greater than CO2 in inducing global warming (Hu et al., 2012). To reduce the potential impact of such compounds in the environment and fish health, aquaponic systems were developed.

Aquaponics is a combination of aquaculture and hydroponics (Figure 1) that uses vegetables in hydroponics systems to absorb waste (e.g., CO2-, NO3-, and PO43- ) from the rearing water and produce O2. These systems achieve the double purpose of producing farmed fish and hydroponic vegetables.

Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China

According to government statistics, records on industrialized aquaculture production in China can be traced back to 2003 (FBMA, 2022). At that time, the production from industrialized aquaculture accounted for 0.4% of total aquaculture production. After an 18-year effort, the production and farming areas achieved great progress. In 2021, the total produc-

tion and total farming water volume of industrialized aquaculture were 6.8×105 tons and 9.6× 107 m3, respectively (Figure 2).

The farming area is occupied by industrialized aquaculture increased from 3.3× 107 m3 in 2003 to 9.6×107 m3 in 2021, with an annual growth rate of 6.2%. During that period, the freshwater industrialized aquaculture area increased from 2.4× 107 m3 to 5.5× 107 m3 and the seawater industrialized aquaculture area increased from 9.2× 106 m3 to 4.1× 107 m3 (Figure 2). From 2003 to 2021, industrialized aquaculture production in China increased from 1.2× 105 tons to 6.8×105 tons, with an annual growth rate of 10.2%. During the same period, industrialized freshwater aquaculture production increased from 8.2×104 tons to 3.2×105 tons and in-

dustrialized seawater aquaculture production increased from 3.7×104 tons to 3.6×105 tons (Figure 2).

Shandong and Fujian provinces rank high above others in industrialized aquaculture production and farming areas. In 2021, these provinces occupied 57.1% of the total industrialized aquaculture production and 54.4% of the total industrialized aquaculture area (Figure 3).

Fujian, Shandong, Hubei, Jiangxi, and Anhui are the main provinces of industrialized freshwater aquaculture, together accounting for 73.6% and 60.5%, respectively, of the total industrialized freshwater aquaculture production and areas in 2021.

Shandong, Liaoning, Fujian, Jiangsu, and Hainan are the main provinces of industrialized seawater aquaculture in China, together accounting for 88.9% and 79.2%, respectively, of the total industrialized seawater aquaculture production and area in 2021.

Existing problems and possible solutions for industrialized aquaculture in China

Compared with conventional aquaculture systems, some industrialized aquaculture systems (e.g., recirculating aquaculture systems) use 90–99% less water and less than 1% of the land area.

Current industrialized aquaculture in China has made important breakthroughs in aquaculture theory and technology, however, there are still many problems that limit the sustainable development of industrialized aquaculture.

Firstly, high capital and operational costs limit the broad application of industrialized aquaculture in China. Engle et al. (2020) examined the cost structures of RAS for Atlantic salmon, trout and tilapia and found that capital costs were the greatest cost for RAS, representing 23–57% of the total costs. In addition, high energy consumption is the main factor contributing to the elevated operational costs of industrialized aquaculture. The use of renewable energy sources (such as geothermal and solar energy) can reduce the operational costs of industrialized aquaculture. Biofloc technology (BFT), a technique for enhancing

water quality and producing proteinaceous feed into aquaculture through balancing carbon and nitrogen in the system, has been proven helpful in supplying feed for aquatic animals.

Secondly, the selling price of farmed species in industrialized aquaculture does not have a comparative advantage over other culture systems. The fish market price is a crucial factor in determining the profitability of industrialized aquaculture. With the improvement of living standards, people are paying more attention to health and are willing to pay extra for pollution-free and environmentally friendly agricultural products. Compared with traditional culture models, industrialized aquaculture has a considerable advantage in controlling fish production and producing pollutionfree aquatic products. Thus, increasing pollution-free certification and enhancing the advantages of green brands of industrialized aquaculture products could improve their market competitiveness.

Thirdly, industrialized aquaculture technology is still at an early stage, and regional development is uneven. In order to decrease the detrimental effects of flowing water systems on the environment, sufficient funding is needed to promote the transformation of culture models from flowing water aquaculture to closed recirculating aquaculture and aquaponics. Additionally, coastal regions should fully exploit their technological advantages, invest the necessary elements in industrialized aquaculture, and continuously optimize their production systems. Inland regions should fully utilize their resource advantages and improve their industrialized aquaculture technology.

Fourthly, there remains a lack of suitably experienced RAS managers and operators. Industrialized aquaculture emphasizes multi-professional work and needs more specialized and competent people in its workforce. Poor management due to a lack of professionals in water quality control, water chemistry, and waste management is a major factor leading to the failure of RAS operations. Therefore,

it is necessary to train people in the responsibility of managing industrialized aquaculture systems.

Finally, the development of industrialized aquaculture has been adversely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures being taken to contain the epidemic, have made a negative impact on the aquaculture sector (including industrialized aquaculture) in China. A series of strategies have been recommended to deal with these problems, such as the support of free legal advice and financial assistance to companies and farmers along the aquaculture industrial chain.

Conclusion

Industrialized aquaculture is an environmentally friendly and sustainable culture model, possessing considerable advantages over traditional culture systems in saving water and resources, increasing production and food security of aquatic products, and reducing pollutant emissions. At present, industrialized aquaculture is still at

an early stage of development and is mainly distributed in coastal regions. The development of industrialized aquaculture is restricted by high capital and operational costs, the uncompetitive market price of fish, the uneven distribution of industrialized aquaculture, a lack of suitably experienced RAS managers and operators, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Possible solutions to these problems include technological innovations in systems optimization, the use of renewable energy sources and biofloc technology, the pollution-free certification of industrialized aquaculture products, more trained professionals in water quality control and waste management, and financial assistance to companies and farmers along the aquaculture industrial chain.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “CURRENT STATUS OF INDUSTRIALIZED AQUACULTURE IN CHINA: A REVIEW” developed by: Chen, W. and Gao, S. - Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang China. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on FEBRUARY 2023, through ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH. The full version can be accessed online through this link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25601-9

Bioeconomic modeling in tilapia aquaculture: A review

By: Aquaculture Magazine Editorial Team*

Aquaculture industry is considered by financial institutions as high risk due to failures caused by epizootics, natural disasters, and poor planning and monitoring. Bioeconomic modeling should be used in aquaculture to plan, monitor and determine cost effectiveness and risk to reduce uncertainty and increase profits from ongoing or new projects. A review of bioeconomic modeling in tilapia aquaculture is presented here.

Bioeconomic models are mathematical tools that make it possible to estimate the success of a production project, or to evaluate projects to produce organisms in progress, in order to optimize their production and increase their profitability. These facilitate the representation of the production process, considering biological, environmental and economic factors, and allow the simulation of different production scenarios and then the application of different optimization methodologies. In addition, they allow for quantifying the production process and weighing the importance of the various components that intervene, directly and indirectly, in each of the links of the chain of production, distribution and marketing. They answer questions related to economic feasibility, use of time and movements, optimization of resources and operational areas.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that aquaculture will produce more than 50% of fish production for human consumption in 2030. Specifically, the growth of tilapia production in the decade 2010–2020 was higher (43%) than the growth of world aquaculture (34%), respectively, indicating that tilapia aquaculture is increasing at a faster rate than other species.

Despite this progress, financial institutions consider aquaculture a high risk economic activity. For example, in salmon, the infectious salmon anemia virus appeared in the region of Los Lagos in Chile in August 2007, and in tilapia, the TiLV virus, the etiological agent of the lake tilapia disease, was discovered in Israel in 2014. Additionally, there are environmental variables, such as hurricanes, floods and periods with atypical tem-

peratures, that have seriously affected some projects. For this reason, effective tools, such as bioeconomy models, are required to increase the certainty of projects.

In this work, a meta-analysis of the literature on bioeconomic modeling in aquaculture, covering a period of 26 years (1994–2020) is presented to know the actual status of bioeconomic modeling in aquaculture, particularly in tilapia, published in scientific journals worldwide.

Materials and Methods

The data for the study was obtained by searching published scientific content using several search engines. Once the results of each engine were obtained, the articles that included keywords in the title, such as analysis, bioeconomic modeling, bioeconomy, tilapia, aquaculture or a mixture of these, were selected. The selected articles were then classified into dimensions. The models of those papers dealing with the tilapia bioeconomy were reviewed in detail to know the approaches followed by the authors and to identify potential aspects for their improvement.

Results

A total of 68 articles were selected out of 260 found in the search, containing bioeconomic modeling in aquaculture. These were selected if a mathematical model was developed or employed that considers biological, environmental and economic elements. These articles were written in 19 different countries or regions (Figure 1), with Mexico being the country with the highest number of published articles (20). Shrimps were the group of species with more articles (15), followed by tilapia (12), sea bream (11), salmon and carp with 3 articles each, and the rest of the species with two or one publication.

The characteristics of the 12 bioeconomic models published on tilapia were presented in the study: 11 of them were theoretical models ad-

In the economic sub-models, all the authors seek to determine economic viability of the project, starting from quantifying total costs from fixed costs variable costs, gross income and net profits.

justed with data obtained from commercial farms, while one of them presents an empirical model developed through data obtained through previous experiments. These models deal with four tilapia species and were classified in the categories of (a) management and (b) economic viability, depending on the objective for which they were used.

Management papers (9) dealt with optimization of harvest times, optimal feed rations, diet evaluation, effects of size heterogeneity, and the integration of aquaculture with aquaponic tomato production. The remaining three articles on economic viability seek to determine, through simulations, the economic viability of tilapia growing out in semi-intensive systems. They evaluate the economic impact of tilapia production in monocultures and polycultures, as well as the impact of replacing standard feeds with plant ingredients.

All tilapia bioeconomic models share a common structure composed of biological, management and economic sub-models (Table 1).

The biological sub-model aims for the estimation of the growth, either in weight or in size of the organisms according to the environmental conditions provided by the production system. The most commonly used equations to quantify growth in weight (Equations 1–3) and size (Equation 4) along a period, using initial weight, asymptotic weight of the organism, anabolism, catabolism and temperature as input parameters are presented in the Figure 2.

The management sub-model aims for the evaluation of the production process over time, to estimate total biomass and weight dispersion, survival rate, feeding rate and the expected food conversion factor, at a given the projected food ration, total ammoniacal nitrogen concentration, culture density in a number of individuals and biomass density. Finally, with regard to the economic sub-models, all the authors seek to determine the economic viability of the project, starting by quantifying total costs from fixed costs to variable costs, gross income and net profits. These economic parameters allow for calculating cash flows and profitability through parameters such as the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and cost-benefit during the life of the project.

In all cases, the three sub-models worked independently but received input information from the others

to be processed with mathematical models, to finally generate output information that feeds the next submodel.

Discussion and conclusions

In this work, it has been pointed out that at a global level, there is a sustained trend towards an increase in the production of aquatic resources, and that this trend is supported only in aquaculture since fisheries have reached their maximum sustainable level. However, the main problem facing aquaculture is that being an economic activity, profit margins are frequently narrow and sometimes nil (Saha et al., 2022). This is possibly due to poor planning, control and monitoring of production and the occurrence of external factors that are difficult to control but are feasible

to measure, analyze and learn from them. Like protected agriculture, it would be ideal for aquaculture to evolve towards the modernization of production systems to produce more and in less volume, with fewer risks, and with control of variables, such as water temperature, which greatly influences the growth and survival of organisms and disease control.

However, much of the world’s aquaculture is carried out in a rustic way, without control of environmental variables and with little knowledge of production costs (Saha et al., 2022).

The 68 articles found are of high quality since they were published in prestigious specialized journals, which can be found with the criteria described in this work in the four search engines used. However, if the time of the analysis (26 years) is taken into account, the scientific productivity in this field was low (2.6 articles/ year) in relation to the growth of world aquaculture. Possibly, this is due to a low diffusion of the advantages of having bioeconomic models and the complexity with which scientists present their models to users, generally in the form of scientific articles that are difficult for producers and planners or financial institutions to understand and apply.

The relationship between the degree of the use of bioeconomic models and the lack of knowledge among industry professionals to work with mathematical and optimization models, the need for the development of models to be accompanied by the

development of decision-making support systems, or the creation of interfaces that make it possible for the user to take advantage of these developments, are crucial aspects of understanding the current situation and the main future challenges. A large number of endogenous and exogenous factors lead to farmers needing decision support systems for operational issues, such as seeding and harvesting dates, or strategic issues, such as site selection. Simulations and optimizations would help farmers reduce uncertainty.

The analysis of all sub-models (the biological, the management or production, and the economic) made is it possible to create a conceptual diagram of the bioeconomic model for tilapia (Figure 3), based on the System Dynamics Theory, in which all independent sub-models interact with each other to produce profitability information.

This is the logic of the production process; that is, it first focuses on the development of organisms, including the effect of temperature that affects their growth, then the management that is given, and then the economic part that depends on biomass and the costs of the production. However, all papers analyzed lacked a risk submodel (Figure 3) to parameterize and understand not only the behavior of

the results under the conditions considered normal, but also to simulate what would happen within the uncertainty of the system. Risk sub-models have been introduced in bioeconomic modeling of other species, such as shrimp making sensitivity analyses to see to what extent the project could collapse or reach the goals we set for ourselves, or by carrying out more complex analyses, such as the Monte Carlo simulation (Martinez and Seijo, 2001).

In conclusion, this work provides valuable information that shows that the aquaculture bioeconomy is advancing, but slowly, as a tool to support the development of the world aquaculture. Low-cost and easily accessible, user-friendly software, such as Excel, is required to apply the existing and future models, which could be improved with a risk sub-model to make sensitivity analyses.

This is a summarized version developed by the editorial team of Aquaculture Magazine based on the review article titled “BIOECONOMIC MODELLING IN TILAPIA AQUACULTURE: A REVIEW” developed by: Dorantes-de-la-O, J. - Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, La Paz, México, MaedaMartínez, A. - Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S.C., Tepic, México, Espinosa-Chaurand, L. and Garza-Torres, R. - Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S.C., Tepic, México and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. The original article, including tables and figures, was published on MARCH, 2023 through REVIEWS IN AQUACULTURE. The full version can be accessed online through this link: DOI: 10.1111/raq.12817

What is missing to consolidate mariculture? (Part

1)

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

Recently, in a discussion group, the topic of what is missing to consolidate mariculture on a global scale was raised. In the West, apart from salmon in Norway and Chile, as well as sea bass and sea bream in the Mediterranean, there are no recent examples of the development of any marine fish industry based on open-water aquaculture. In Asia, in contrast, there are a large number of species being farmed, but almost all in protected waters, with much more

Recently, in a discussion group, the topic of what is needed to consolidate mariculture on a global scale was raised. Many of us agreed that the future, not only of aquaculture but of the world’s food supply, lies in the oceans. In this regard, I would like to highlight some key points.

rustic systems and, in many cases, already affecting the surrounding environment because, in most situations, they are working at the limits of the carrying capacity of the systems.

Many of us agree that the future, not only of aquaculture, but also of world food, lies in the oceans. This is due to the fact that the pressure on the planet’s arable areas, in frank decline, for food production is diminished. In addition, the use of fresh water is reduced to what is consumed for the production of formulated food (some-

thing that, little by little, must be transformed to include a greater amount of micro or macroalgae in diets).

Next, I would like to highlight some key points for the development of aquaculture in open waters:

1. Technology.

2. Investment and operating costs.

3. Market.

In terms of technology, we can divide it into two important areas: the first is biotechnology for the production of different species, and the second is the technology of farming

systems in the open sea. In the last decades, the complete cycles of several species have been achieved: pompano, cobia, jack mackerel, snapper and totoaba, among others. Although there are specific examples of companies that have achieved this sustainably, the fact is that the industry of any of these species has not yet been consolidated. The truth is that all the aforementioned species compete strongly with their fishery counterparts and do not have mass consumption on a global scale.

In terms of cultivation technologies, we have seen that there are substantial advances in cultivation methods, such as submersible cages, closed systems within the seabed, some fully automated, and many highly technical variations and combinations.

This is where technology and cost have a direct relationship and the complications begin. The capital investment (CAPEX) results in millions of dollars, and to recover the investment it is necessary to have a very high production break-even point. When aquaculture started in Chile, farms were designed to produce 300 tons each.

Today, most large companies produce no less than 30,000!

Today, the minimum production to start an open-water culture cannot be imagined below 3,000 tons, and this requires enormous capital. In addition, the cost of operation (OPEX) is high due to the nature of open-sea farming systems, which require the operation of boats, divers and daily feeding maneuvers. Consequently, very little capital can be invested in this type of cultivation, in addition to the history of failed projects.

Finally, the market, from my personal point of view, is the most delicate issue. Throughout the history of aquaculture and in many of the strategies that have been implemented at the national level, the aim is to produce a particular species or group of species. What can be produced is farmed, but no thought is given to what can be sold. From my perspective, it is imperative to produce what can be sold, and even to plan the presentation from the beginning in which it should be sold. Until today, with the exception of salmon, sea bass and sea bream, you have had a product-driven strategy when, in reality, it should be a market-driven strategy. This is a paradigm that must be changed if we really want mariculture to flourish.

In the next issue, we will discuss some factors and/or strategies to consider boosting mariculture on a global scale, which will probably involve not only thinking outside the box, but burning it. See you next time!

Today, the minimum production to start an open water culture cannot be imagined below 3,000 tons.

Senior Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisor for AWJ Innovation, Vice President of the International Center for Strategic Studies in Aquaculture (CIDEEA), President of Aquaculture Without Frontiers (AwF), Past President of the World Aquaculture Society (WAS), Former Secretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Creator of the Certification for Aquaculture Professionals (CAP) Program with Auburn University.

Is there a Role for AI in Online Marketing?

For small businesses where there may only be a few people responsible for operating and managing all aspects of the business, dedicating sufficient time to marketing can feel like a chore. With artificial intelligence (AI) tools, however, it is possible to quickly generate content in a matter of seconds.

By: Sarah Cornelisse*

Marketing is both an art and a science. A certain degree of creativity is needed to develop marketing content that resonates whit and engages the desired consumer segment. For small businesses where there may only be a few people responsible for operating and managing all aspects of the business, dedicating sufficient time for marketing can feel like a chore. With artificial intelligence (AI) tools, however, it is possible to quickly generate content in a matter of seconds, freeing business owners or employees to focus on other tasks.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is described by Brittanica as “the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.” AI has existed as a field of study for several decades, tracing its roots in the work of Alan Turing.

The discussion about artificial intelligence tools exploded into the mainstream with the release of ChatGPT in November 2022. Immediately, people began testing the capabilities of this tool, finding both valuable uses and identifying flaws. While AI technologies have existed for some

time (consider Siri or Alexa), continuing advances in technology leading to tools including ChatGPT and others are opening new possibilities. These tools may either be integrated into other platforms being used or existing as standalone applications. For instance, ChatGPT is a standalone application accessed via browser, while Microsoft offers “AutoComplete” as a function in Word.

There are AI tools to assist with all aspects of marketing – text/ copy, image, video and music creation, scheduling, data analysis, and communication to name a few. To

illustrate, consider a business that sends a monthly email newsletter with highlights shared on their website and social media channels. The individual responsible for producing that content could use AI tools to generate topic ideas and outlines for newsletter articles and then ask the AI to create a tweet from a summary of the article content. A different AI could be used to produce original music to overlay with a TikTok video.

To share an example of what one AI tools can generate; below is part of a ChatGPT interaction.

Prompt: Give me some suggestions for aquaculture social media posts

ChatGPT: Sure! Here are some suggestions for aquaculture social media posts:

1. Sustainability Efforts: Highlight the eco-friendly practices you implement, such as water recycling, renewable energy use, or reduced waste management. People appreciate businesses that care for the environment.

2. Educational Infographics: Create visually appealing infographics explaining the benefits of aquaculture, its role in food security, and how it compares to other forms of protein production.

3. Q&A Sessions: Host live Q&A sessions with your aquaculture experts, where your followers can ask questions about aquaculture techniques, fish care, or anything related to the industry.

4. Infographics on Nutritional Value: Create infographics comparing the nutritional benefits of different fish species, emphasizing the importance of incorporating fish in a balanced diet.

These are just a few of the suggestions that came back in response to my prompt. As you can see, they are general in nature and could be used and applied by all types of farm businesses with just a bit of customization. Providing more specific prompts can improve responses or generate additional ideas. Take this next prompt, for example.

Prompt: What about ideas that highlight environmental responsibility

ChatGPT: Highlighting environmental responsibility is crucial for aquaculture farms. Here are some social media post ideas that focus on your farm’s commitment to the environment:

1. Water Conservation: Share how your farm optimizes water usage, employing efficient systems to reduce water waste and ensure responsible water management.

There are AI tools to assist with all aspects of marketing.

2. Monitored Water Quality: Explain how your farm regularly monitors water quality to ensure a clean and healthy environment for your farmed fish and surrounding wildlife.

3. Educational Videos: Create informative videos on environmental topics related to aquaculture, such as the importance of preserving marine biodiversity or the impact of climate change on aquatic ecosystems.

Marketers should view AI as an additional tool in their toolbox.

needs to feel authentic to the consumer so ensuring that the “voice” of your marketing content matches real life and your business’s brand is important. Also critical is the need to check the accuracy of the generated content. It can be risky; for example, to rely on AI to provide correct information on current regulations pertaining to the licensing and sales of food products in your geographic area. Thus, a degree of caution should be used when asking for increasingly detailed information. Finally, since AI tools may not disclose the sources of information for the content generated, there is the potential that the output includes copyrighted or plagiarized material.

Artificial intelligence tools are “trained” by feeding them datasets from which the model used by the AI tools find patterns. The patterns are then used when responding to inquiries. If the AI hasn’t been

trained on data appropriate or relevant to your inquiry, or if the human responsible for training the tool has a bias that impacted the choice of data used in development, the AI tool output may not be factually correct. For instance, the following prompt was given to Dalle-2, an AI tool for image creation.

Prompt: illustrate in circular fashion the lifecycle of a trout fish showing the stages of development. Include stages: eggs, alevin, fry, juvenile and adult. Do not label the images with text.

The Figure 1 is one of the outputs that was generated following several increasingly descriptive prompts. It is clear that the AI tool used was unable to generate an image as requested, desired, or that might be expected by someone with knowledge of the trout lifecycle.

If you decide to try integrating AI into your marketing work, here are some tips for success:

4. Long-term Sustainability Goals:

Share your farm’s long-term sustainability goals, demonstrating your commitment to continuously improving environmental practices. For anyone whose strength does not lay in marketing, having an AI tool such as ChatGPT at hand can be very useful. In just a few seconds, a user can generate a plethora of ideas that they can choose from to use in their marketing activities. Additionally, AI tools can easily generate content for use in a variety of marketing formats, from long-form articles and blog posts to concise text for tweets or as part of a Facebook post. For cash-strapped businesses, utilizing AI can be a costeffective option when compared to hiring marketing consultants or developing an in-house marketing department.

However, it’s important to not simply use the text output as generated verbatim. Your marketing

9 Provide specific prompts. There are numerous guides and articles online that provide examples of how to best word prompts to generate the desired type of output. As you gain experience using an AI tool, you will also learn how to phrase prompts to generate the desired output.

9 Be prepared to work through iterations of requests to generate a final product. The accuracy and appropriateness of results improve with the level of information provided to the AI tool through prompts. Providing the “right” amount and type of information typically takes multiple tries, particularly if the user wants a highly detailed response specific to their operation.

9 Ensure the accuracy of the information. AI output is only as good as the data that the tool

is trained on. Therefore, ensure that the output generated in response to your prompts fits your understanding and knowledge of the topic.

9 Personalize output. Even with prompts that are specific to your business and situation, responses should be tailored to fit your personal voice and brand before begin using in your marketing. Remember that consumers want to connect with businesses on a personal level, something that AI can’t replace.

Artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for online marketing, just like any other marketing tool. However, it should be used with full awareness of its capabilities and limitations.

Marketers should view AI as an additional tool in their toolbox, not as a replacement for human experience, knowledge, and personal touch.

Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Extension is implied.

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

*Sarah Cornelisse is a Senior Extension Associate of agricultural entrepreneurship and business management at Penn State University in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education.

Sarah has expertise in direct marketing, valueadded dairy entrepreneurship and marketing, the use of digital and social media for agricultural farm and food business marketing, and business and marketing planning and decision making. Originally from New York State, she has a B.A in mathematics from the State University of New York at Geneseo, and M.S. degrees in Agricultural Economics and Animal Science, both from Penn State University. Correspondence email: sar243@psu.edu

Editor’s note: references cited by the author within the text are available under previous request to our editorial team.

Why is “technification” a double-edged sword?

As the science of aquaculture evolves, there is an increasing trend to move away from non-science-based production models to science-based models.

By: Ph.D. Stephen G. Newman*

As the science of aquaculture evolves, there is an increasing trend to move away from non-sciencebased production models to sciencebased models. Sustainable production depends on reproducibility as well as the ability to ensure consistent production in the face of increased costs and market challenges. In SE Asia, land constraints along with a high population densities have shaped the current face of shrimp farming. Farms are typically small, with ponds or tanks, lined with plastic with sumps or other means of readily dealing with accumulated waste. Heavy aeration is the norm, as are high stocking densities. In the Americas, farms tend to be much larger, not lined and stocked at lower densities. Waste cannot be collected with ease. Aeration, automatic feeders, and bioremediation are elements of the evolving model.

Many studies corroborate that consumption of seafood is healthy and that when it comprises a significant component of the animal protein humans consume, it can extend longevity and overall quality of life. This appears to be for seafood in general. As humanity has surpassed the 8 billion population mark and continues to add to this with no immediate end in sight, we are at or beyond the limits of sustainable fishing. Some

would argue that we have exceeded the carrying capacity by our insatiable demand. Few would not agree that the disruptions that are accompanying climate change are having an impact as well.

If humanity is going to be able to enjoy the benefits of consuming seafood, aquaculture must continue to grow. This is not simple. There are powerful NGOs that see aquaculture as a point source for pollution not just of waste but also of residues of chemicals such as antibiotics. The major source of damage to aquatic ecosystems is the result of direct human activity and the totality of aquaculture does not even come close to this. Most of the world does not treat human sewage before dumping it into rivers, estuaries, and the world’s oceans. Many still end up dumping huge amounts of human waste when under engineered wastewater treatment systems are overwhelmed by rain.

Aquaculture is agriculture in an aquatic environment. Animals require proper nutrition and stress-free production conditions for optimum productivity. The world’s leading exporter is Ecuador has over 1 million MTs in 2022. China produces more than this, but little if any is exported, and they buy almost 2/3rds of the export volume of Ecuador. Per capita

consumption of seafood is variable, as it is in the US where the price of shrimp is not in line with consumer expectations.

Technification refers to the sum of tools that are used to increase overall productivity. Typically, the intent is to reduce the overall cost per unit of production and increase profitability. Unfortunately, this seems not to be as readily achievable as one would think. Several challenges persist despite the move towards optimizing the production environment. The most challenging aspect of technification is recovering the costs of the changes in the value of the crop. The added costs of technology must be recouped by lowering the overall costs of production per animal.

Perhaps the number one reason for this not being commonly realized is that disease is rampant despite a better understanding of where the problems originate and what we need to do about them. The widespread lack of understanding about the statistical nature of PCR testing (it is not a stand-alone technology) and a myriad of providers that either cannot grasp the nature of infectious disease or do not care and use terms like specific pathogen free (SPF) to mask the shortcomings in the processes ensure that this cycle will not be easily or readily broken. There is strong

evidence from the field that stocking pathogen free animals (APF-all pathogen free) can have a dramatic impact on profitability while the presence of even low levels of pathogens in typical production environments often leads to higher costs. The reasons for this are simple. Disease affects growth rates, survival rates, and feed conversion ratios. Slow growing animals take more time to get to market sizes. Low survival rates increase the production costs of those that survive. FCR’s are important elements of overall costs. When animals succumb at larger sizes, the feed that they consumed has been wasted, which skews the FCR´s.

Shrimp farming is one of, if not the most rapidly growing components of aquaculture globally. Current production is around the 5 million MT per year mark, with some signs of a

moderate slowdown. There are many different production paradigms, and it seems that these are constantly being tweaked. Basic business principles teach us that no matter how good a product or service one might have, there must be a demand for it. This can be existing demand or developed through marketing schemes. Failure to appreciate that as production increases the market demand will impact how sustainable the business is can lead to failure, as food is a commodity.

Ecuador is the world’s leading exporter of farmed shrimp. They have been able to increase production because of several things. Among these are:

9 Improved genetics: Different sources of fast-growing shrimp with varying degrees of tolerance to disease.

Aquaculture is agriculture in an aquatic environment.

9 Aeration: Consistent use of aerators to maintain dissolved oxygen levels at or near saturation levels.

9 Automatic Feeders: Great control of feed consumption ensures less waste and better consistency.

9 Bioremediation: Use of Bacillus species to digest organic matter that accumulates as a natural byproduct of the production process

Ecuador chose some years ago to not control the presence of pathogens and to allow all of their animals to be exposed to whatever was present in the environment. Some speculate that this APE (All pathogen exposure) approach is a part of this success as well. Unfortunately, since the use of technology to reduce stress and increase productivity is apparently essential for the continued growth of the industry, the presence of a myriad of pathogens that reduce the chances of successful crops ensures that recovering the added costs of these approaches may be challenging at best and not achievable at worst. This is apparent at the moment when one looks at Ecuador’s success.

Despite challenges with animal health, they are still able to produce animals for less than most of their SE Asian competitors. When disease reduces efficiency, the impact can be proportional to the overall investment in technology. Small, lined ponds with high aeration rates (which equates to high electrical costs) stocked at hundreds of animals per m2 have little flexibility in terms of what the outputs must be to ensure consistent profitability. Larger, non lined ponds with less than 30 m2 stocking densities, aeration, automatic feeders, etc. have fewer added costs and a little more flexibility. Regardless, if the costs of technology are not returned in terms of lower costs of production, then fi-

nancial losses will drive future growth. This is bad for those who fail, but not so for those who learn from their mistakes and adapt. This can drive consolidation, with stronger vertically integrated companies dominating.

Supply side economics play a role in this. As levels of production increase and demand does not; there is downward pressure on the price. Excess production invariably results in lower prices. These are natural cycles. When prices drop to the point that they have and additional costs are unavoidable (such as increases in costs of pumping and running aerators, security challenges, etc.) then the costs associated with technification must result in increases in ef-

Technification refers to the sum of tools that are used to increase overall productivity.

ficiency that compensate for these increased costs. When this is not the case, then we see what seems to be happening. Farmers begin to lose money.

If they are not highly efficient and biosecurity is not the highest priority, many will find that increasing densities using existing stocks is risky. Animals thrive in environments that are not stressful, although some stress can likely be beneficial. Too much upsets the balance between prey (the shrimp) and predators (the obligate and opportunistic pathogens). The prey suffers and the farmer in turn suffers.

What can one conclude? The cost of using science-based tools

to improve productivity must be offset by the additional profits that their use generates. If fundamental problems persist, specifically as discussed here, the fickle nature of the marketplace and the continued impact of disease wherever shrimp are being farmed, then the added costs of science-based approaches cannot be justified economically. It would make more sense to revert to a very low input, low density production system using clean animals, which is what some are discussing.

Moving back to producing tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon . The wild types grow rapidly at low densities, although the threat of disease is still going to pose a challenge.

sgnewm@aqua-in-tech.com

www.aqua-in-tech.com

www.bioremediationaquaculture.com

www.sustainablegreenaquaculture.com

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

Seafood consumption action is required

In a recent study published by Stanford University, it highlighted that humanity is likely to consume more fish and shellfish in the coming decades and that preparing for that future requires better data on the types of fish that people eat, sustainable expansion of aquaculture and an improved understanding of the local context for the “food on our plate”.

By: The Fishmonger*

In a recent study published by Stanford University, it highlighted that humanity is likely to consume more fish and shellfish in the coming decades and that preparing for that future requires better data on the types of fish that people eat, sustainable expansion of aquaculture and an improved understanding of the local context for the “food on our plate”.

The study’s authors estimate global fish consumption by mid-century will increase by nearly 80 percent and the total weight of the world’s fish harvest as it comes from the water – shells, guts, bones, and all – may nearly double. A confluence of factors, including population growth and local changes in affordability, trade and culture is behind the projected increases.

While rising incomes have helped to fuel demand for meat in recent decades, fish and shellfish, which researchers have dubbed “blue foods,” do not fit quite as neatly into the conventional economic model of income-driven demand for animal products.

Lead study author Rosamond Naylor, the William Wrigley Professor of Earth System Science at Stan-

Cooked Vannemai Shrimp with salad/slaw and crunchy top.

ford University, is reported as saying “A main result of the paper is that wealth and blue food consumption are not tightly coupled. You do not see people eating more fish overall as they get richer, but the types of fish they eat may change. At low incomes, people consume more blue foods if they are affordable. At high incomes, people eat fish if they have some sort of preference for it: health, or sustainability or just taste.”

“One likely explanation for the disconnect is that “fish” is such a vast category, encompassing thousands of species caught or farmed across the planet’s oceans, lakes, rivers, and backyard ponds, or cultivated in landbased tanks and raceways. And the things that shape fish consumption patterns – food traditions, nutritional knowledge, the availability of plantbased meat substitutes and more they vary from place to place and evolve over time. We have a tremendous opportunity to bring species to market that are both environmentally sustainable and nutritious.”

Co-lead author Shakuntala Thilsted, a nutrition and public health expert with the Malaysia-based international research organization WorldFish and the 2021 World Food Prize Laureate reportedly said, “The new results emphasize the need for local, context-specific food and nutrition security policies. The environmental and health impacts of the projected rise in fish consumption will depend on the types and methods of aquaculture that expand to meet new demand – and on how the mix of proteins on our plate changes.”

This move to seafood is not the first-time people’s preferences for animal products have changed: poultry has already become a “major substitute for beef in global diets,” the authors noted. While consumption per capita of beef has declined since the 1960s, that of seafood has more than doubled and that of poultry has increased five-fold.

However, bringing species to market, is only half the battle. Bivalves

such as oysters, clams and scallops are clearly sustainable seafood options that can contribute to shoreline protection and cleaner water – but, as the report states that it remains to be seen whether people’s tastes will change enough to boost demand for these creatures as food relative to other types of seafood and meat.

On issues with data, it was noted that records of the food that people actually eat, rather than the amount of food that is produced or available for purchase, are scant. The authors found that national surveys seeking to estimate the current consumption of blue foods tend to produce conflicting results. They often ignore fish eaten outside the home – leaving a particularly gaping hole in understanding the role of urbanization in driving blue food demand – and fail to capture prices and types of fish consumed.

To overcome the lack of data, the researchers analyzed previously published research and food supply data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for seventy-two countries that together account for 80 percent of all blue food consump-

tion worldwide. They also analyzed regional demand for the largest consuming nations within each continent and combed through the data for four specific countries: China, India, Nigeria, and Chile, in more detail to investigate the roles of income, trade, geography, culture, and preferences in “blue food” demand.

The degree to which oceans and freshwater systems will be able to keep up with the predicted changes in demand will be intricately linked to global climate change, which the authors say is likely to drive up seafood prices and disproportionately impact the poor. The need to bolster preparedness has been laid bare by the disruption of COVID-19 pandemic, which saw widespread closures of ports and seafood processing facilities throughout Asia and, early in 2020, a near-total collapse of the restaurant market for farmed oysters and other mollusks.

According to the authors “One crucial step will be gathering better data on household consumption and prices of not only fresh fish but also dried, salted, or otherwise processed fish that allows for storage and long-

Open Omelette with Smoked Salmon, spinach and cheese.

distance trading. Much improved data is urgently needed to ameliorate the impacts of shocks, including pandemics and climate change, on vulnerable populations. We need consistent surveys across countries. Without fully understanding the demand side of the puzzle, policy recommendations will be based on faulty assumptions about which blue food species consumers already prefer.”

In Norway, according to the IMARC Group, the market is primarily driven by the increasing consumption of seafood due to rising awareness regarding the various health benefits associated with it. This, coupled with the inflating disposable income levels and the shifting dietary preferences of individuals, is significantly contributing to market growth. Furthermore, the availability of the ideal climatic conditions for aquaculture production in the country is propelling market growth. Other factors, including the increasing support by the government of Norway to promote aquaculture and the rising expenditure on research and development (R&D) activities, are anticipated to contribute to market growth further across the country.

The Norwegian aquaculture market reached 1.8 million tons in 2022. Looking forward, there is expectation that the market will reach 2.5 million tons by 2028, exhibiting a growth rate (CAGR) of 5.7% during 20232028. As of 2021, there were approximately 1.66 million metric tons of fish for consumption sold. In that year, the average volume of fish and fish products consumed in the country amounted to 19.3 kilograms per capita. That figure is currently just below the world average but it is growing and the government seems to be backing the industry.

In Australia, we know the locals love their red meat and poultry, but seafood is fast catching up in terms of popularity and has always been an important part of Australian culture and diet. About 334 kt of seafood was consumed in Australia in 2019-2020,

which increased to 356 kt in 2020-21 according to ABARES. This equates to about 13 kg per person per annum – well below the world average and highlights why Australia suffers from so many chronic diseases and yet has no program for increasing seafood consumption. In the hearts, minds and stomachs of Australian consumers, seafood slots in at number four, behind beef, pork, and poultry but higher than sheep or lamb.

According to a 2019 survey, frequent eaters (who eat seafood at least once a week) accounted for 33% of consumers, but this group consumed 77% of the total seafood available.

The data shows that seafood choice among consumers is not purely economic. A survey of more than 2,000 adult grocery buyers in 2019

found that price was important to consumers but was not the key driver of seafood consumption. Consumers reported that freshness and food safety were more important than price, but that price was more important than quality (whether it was fresh or frozen) and presentation.

A few years ago, in Frontiers for Nutrition, a scientific study, Sociodemographic Variation in Consumption

Patterns of Sustainable and Nutritious Seafood in Australia, concluded that increasing seafood consumption to meet dietary recommendations is an essential element of improving health outcomes, in particular for lower socioeconomic groups and for people who currently consume little or no seafood. There are opportunities to increase intakes by varying cur-

Port Arlington Mussels - steamed with leak, spinach, garlic and chilli.

rent seafood consumption patterns to maximize nutritional outcomes and minimize ecological impacts. Initiatives to increase awareness of the nutritional variation and trade-offs in sustainability of different seafood types are also required. These initiatives must actively promote the health and environmental benefits of seafood at the population level, and should encourage consumption of highly nutritious, low resource intensive, types of seafood. Here are some of the important and relevant comments from that report:

9 Improving the availability of healthier seafood options and increasing the exposure of children to seafood early and regularly while their food preferences are being established is one way to encourage consumption. This is also important for adults, as increasing people’s confidence and establishing a habit of purchasing and preparing seafood on a regular basis are important strategies to increase consumption.

9 Initiatives to promote seafood consumption should also consider the nutritional requirements of specific population groups and promote seafood species based on their nutritional profile, quality, acceptability, affordability, and availability. For example, affordability might be a barrier to consumption in lower socioeconomic groups, therefore promoting cheaper options with high nutritional value, such as small pelagic might be a mutually beneficial strategy. The findings of this research would suggest there may be less resistance to this strategy in lower socioeconomic groups, as small pelagic account for a greater proportion of total consumption in this group than others. Previous experience with purchasing and preparing fish is a vital component of consumers’ behavior and their intention to eat fish.

9 Another sub-group of the population that requires consideration are seniors, as they are at greater nutritional risk than the general population. While this research demonstrated that the percentage of seniors consuming seafood was higher than other groups, the amount consumed was lower. Reasons for lower consumption may include a reduced, appetite and affordability of seafood, as well as other factors that place them at nutritional risk more generally, such as decreases in sensations of taste and smell and poor dental health. However, diet may play an important part in promoting health, delaying the time to onset, and slowing the progression of diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease–for which specific dietary recommendation is regular consumption of oily fish. Strategies around purchasing and preparing seafood are important predictors of consumers’ behavior and their intention to eat fish and should

form part of any nutrition interventions around seafood. Interestingly, it was older Australians, and men, who ate more underutilized and pelagic, which tend to be oiler species, so there may be opportunities to promote the consumption of a broader range of less popular seafood species for people in their senior years.

Despite this, little has been done! Is it the same in your country? Quite often, politicians and bureaucrats pay lip service to seafood and its importance, but it is about time we got them to start supporting better health outcomes from increased seafood consumption. The Fishmonger often feels that instead of having Ministers for Fisheries and Aquaculture, we have Ministers AGAINST Fisheries and Aquaculture. Happy to hear your views as usual.

Baked Barramundi on rice and herbs.

aquaculture events

AUGUST 2023

SHRIMP AQUACULTURE: REGENERATION

Aug. 16-17, 2023

Bali, Indonesia

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

E: conference@tarsaquaculture.com

W: http://tarsaquaculture.com

AQUA NOR

Aug. 22-24, 2023

Trondheim, No.

T: +47 73 56 86 40

E: post@nor-fishing.no

W: https://aquanor.no

17vo FORO INTERNACIONAL DE ACUICULTURA 2023

Aug. 22-23, 2023

VIRTUAL

W: https://panoramaacuicola.com/fiacu-2023/ REGISTRATION: https://design-publications.zoom.us/webinar/ register/2116905596470/WN_yIZhDLV5RUelSVyj7DdNng#/ registration

WORLD SEAFOOD SHANGHÁI

Aug. 23-25, 2023

Shanghai, China

T: +86-21-61276585

E: weishijun@ite-gehua.com

W: https://www.worldseafoodshanghai.com/

JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ANIMAL SCIENCE

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

Aug. 26 - Sept. 1th, 2023

Lyon, France

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

E: General information: infoeaap2023@wearemci.com

Registration: registrationeaap2023@wearemci.com

Sponsorship and exhibition opportunities: jean-marc.perez0000@ orange.fr

W: https://eaap2023.org/

SEPTEMBER 2023

GLOBAL SHRIMP FORUM

Sept. 5-7, 2023 Utrecht, Netherlands

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

SEAGRICULTURE USA 2023

Sept. 6-7, 2023

Portland, ME, U.S.A.

T: +31 85 401 73 97

E: info@dlg-benelux.com

W: https://seagriculture-usa.com/

EXPOPESCA ACUIPERU/SEAFOOD LIMA

Sept. 6-8, 2023

Lima, Peru

T: (511) 989-177-352

E: thais@thaiscorp.com

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

SEAFOOD EXPO ASIA 2023

Sept. 11-13, 2023

Singapur

T: +1 207-842-5517

E: sales-asia@seafoodexpo.com

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

BALANCED DIVERSITY IN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT

Sept. 18-21, 2023

Vienna, Austria

T: +1 760 751 5003

E: worldaqua@was.org

W: www.aquaeas.org

WORLD SEAFOOD CONGRESS 2023

In association with International Conference on Molluscan

Shellfish Safety

Sept. 25-27, 2023

Peniche, Portugal

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

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

AQUACULTURE INNOVATION CONFERENCE, INNAQUA CHILE 2023

Sept. 26-28, 2023

Puerto Varas, Chile

E: innaqua@clubinnovacionacuicola.cl

W: www.innaquaconference.cl

OCTOBER 2023

11º INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS CONXEMAR-FAO

October 2, 2023

Vigo, Spain

T: +34 986 433 351

E: conxemar@conxemar.com

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

AQUAEXPO GUAYAQUIL

October 23-26, 2023

Guayaquil, Ecuador

T: (+593) 99 597-2885

E: gnivelo@cna-ecuador.com

W: www.aquaexpo.com.ec

CHINA FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD EXPO

October 25-27, 2023

Hongdao, China

T: +86 10 58672620

E: info@seafarechina.com

W: www.chinaseafoodexpo.com

NOVEMBER 2023

AQUACULTURE TAIWAN EXPO & FORUM

Nov. 1-3, 2023

Taipei, Taiwan

T: +886 2 2738 3898

E: aat-tw@ubm.com

W:https://www.cantonfair.net/event/1683-aquaculture-taiwanexpo-forum

BUSAN INTERNATIONAL SEAFOOD AND FISHERIES EXPO (BIFE)

Nov. 1-3, 2023

Busan, Korea

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

E: bisfe@bexco.co.kr

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

AERATION EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, FILTERS AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, ETC

DELTA HYDRONICS LLC.................................................................9

T: 727 861 2421

www.deltahydro.com

ANTIBIOTICS, PROBIOTICS AND FEED ADDITIVES

SÓMA..........................................................................................11

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

E-mail : somafeednadditive@gmail.com

T: 043-878-0591

www.ssoma.co.kr

EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS

AQUACULTURE AFRICA AFRAQ 2023........................INSIDE COVER November, 13-16, 2023.

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

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUACULTURE AMERICA 2024................................INSIDE COVER February, 18-21, 2024.

San Antonio Marriot Rivercenter, San Antonio Texas.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUA 2024 BLUE FOOD / GREEN SOLUTION...........INSIDE COVER

August 26 - 30, 2024.

Copenhagen, Denmark.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

www.was.org

AQUA EXPO GUAYAQUIL 2023.......................................................1

October 23-26, 2023. Convention Center, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Tel: +593 99 597 2885

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

ASIAN PACIFIC AQUACULTURE 2024........................INSIDE COVER

June 11 -14, 2023.

Grand City, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Tel: +1 760 751 5005

E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com www.was.org

TANKS AND NETWORKING FOR AQUACULTURE

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

9209 Almeda Genoa Road Z.C. 7075, Houston, Texas, USA. Contact: Gina Quevedo/Mark Young/ Jeff Garza.

T: Toll Free 1 (800) 231-6074

T: Local (713) 507-4250

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

AQUACULTURE MAGAZINE........................5, INSIDE BACK COVER Design Publications International Inc. 401 E Sonterra Blvd. Sté. 375 San Antonio, TX. 78258, USA

Office: +210 504 3642

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

Subscriptions: iwantasubscription@dpinternationalinc.com

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

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

PANORAMA ACUÍCOLA MAGAZINE

Empresarios No. #135 Int. Piso 7 Oficina 723

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

Office: +52 (33) 8000 0578

Contact 1: Subscriptions

E-mail: suscripciones@panoramaacuicola.com

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

Contact 2: Sales & Marketing Coordinator.

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

Contact 3: Sales Support Expert

E-mail: sse@dpinternationalinc.com

www.panoramaacuicola.com