Future of aquaculture?

[aqua-cultured]

I've been watching this forum for a while and searched the archives. It seems that a lot of people are eighter against aquaculture or they don't see any/much benefit from it.

I'm not trying to start anything but I would like to hear your oppinions. After all you're in the business...

Some of the points made against it are:
- expensive - relative to wild collection
- not enough selection
- any more?

Some of the positives:
- healthier - less shipping stress
- helps the reefs - with every aquacultured fish purchased one is saved in the wild
- any more?

The way I see it the future could look very good for aquacultured Marine Ornamentals. Maybe with enough interest, more people would start culturing, more chances for breakthroughs, more fish available = lower price.

So much effort mental/emotional/finacial or otherwise is being put into cyanide that if the same amount of effort were to be put into aquaculture maybe thigs would be improving a lot faster.

I think aquaculture needs to have an organization, just like MAC but better, to spread the word, educate and lobby.

To me it is as clear as daylight, or am I missing something...

 

[Kalkbreath]

There are more risks involved with aquaculture .....one of the first Aquaculture live rock ventures Reef Encrustation in Destin Fla ......lost every bit of their hard work within months of setting out the thousands of tons of new base rock...{hurricane }....The warm water bleaching in Palau......and Fiji ended attempts there as well .........one good storm and your out ..The natural reefs withstand hurricanes and warm water beter then aquaculture farms with frags laying on the bottm of shallow lagoons.......having said that there are many ventures setting up all over the world ......Walt has 50,000 plus in Fiji......Bali has a Swiss gentlemen almost ready with 50,000 .......Vanuatu is busy setting up ,now that they banned wild corals from there......Solomon Islands may resume again ...........But I have found one main obstacle which still need to be over come. if aquaculture is going to ever replace wild harvest ........ the color of the corals grown must exceed the wild corals in color ......if every aquacultured coral is wild green or red white and blue with stripes.......the buying public will no longer want the dull brown wild corals.....as of today this is not the case.........most aquaculture offerings are less then spectacular........as soon as someone that really knows waht their doing .......gets going who knows......All that is needed is the correct mother stock and a back up plan for destructive weather......! Ps. :wink: "I do know of just the right person"........

 

[aqua-cultured]

Thanks for the reply. It's good to know that efforts are being undertaking for this. A couple of questions:

What about aquaculturing fish? I know its a lot more expensive and it's a real steep learning curve and it shows in the number of species being aquacultured.

I guess one way to get around this would be to maybe concentrate on hybrids. This way, you have stock that most likely is not available in nature. An example is clowns. They can inter-breed fairly easly and the offspring are able to reproduce also. Maybe after a few generations you come up with a real good combination that would pay off.
I know this is controvercial but here are some of the points:
- most likely completely new, no reliance on wild stock.
- can breed for specific traits
- will never be released in the wild so contamination should not be a problem
- Niche. Can charge a litle more because they can't be obtain from anywhere else.
- Competitions can be held just like for FW where fish are judged for specific characteristics....
- Can start with fish that are being aquacultured already. So knowledge is there.
- Aquaculture companies already in the business can add this to their line with litle overhead.

As far as corals.... I know this would be expensive but couldn't this be done in a control environment? I am refering to the states.
For example: Salten Sea in California in in the midle of the desert. Land/Space is cheap( can buy as much land as one wants), saltwater available, weather is good, no huricanes, no earhquakes... This is just an example, there are probably other places as well. Again you could frag for specific traits, colors/shapes not found (or better then) in the wild.

Coments appreciated.

P.S. I am not in the business or planning to go. Just some thoughts for consideration.

 

[JennM]

I'll preface this by stating that I DO buy aquacultured fish, corals and clams, but there are pros and cons to both sides of the issue.

Some of the problems with aquacultred fish that I've witnessed over the last few years...

-Mutations - possibly from inbreeding - but I've seen clownfishes with underbites, some that exhibit strange (atypical) behaviors, some died suddenly at a young age... colour anomalies (one fish farm sells mis-barred ocellaris at a cheaper price).

-Less disease resistance - not so much now, but a few years ago, where I was working, when we put aquacultured clowns and gobies into the general population with wild caught fishes, the aquacultured ones got sick every time - even though the wild specimens appeared healthy and parasite free. Could be that the sterile envorinment of the hatchery, didn't cause the fish to test their immune systems? I don't see that anymore, but it can be an issue.

-Economics - everybody focuses on the costs involved in maintaining an aquaculture facility, but does anybody (besides a few of us here..) think about the economies of the countries, villages and families who make their living fishing for ornamentals? It's fine and dandy to set up a Stateside, state-of-the-art hatchery, but what will the fishermen and women do? The idea that a fish not taken for the trade, is one saved, is somewhat of a misnomer - fishing is a way of life - if the ornamental trade is shut down, it's likely that the fisherman is going to seek another catch.

-Hybrids - hmmm I don't think that would be a good idea. Yes it happens in Nature from time to time, but IMO that's a decision left up to Nature, not me. If you think that nobody would ever release a hybrid specimen into the wild, or any other captive specimen... you're mistaken. People do stupid things all the time. Just the other day somebody asked me if I thought the Jack Dempsy they released into the pond last fall would still be alive... I've heard of people spotting lionfish in the keys... it would not be a stretch to think that somebody's "Clark's ocellaris" wouldn't turn up off some US coastline... :roll:

If aquaculture is the way of the future, I'd rather see it done in the places where the fishes occur naturally. If you're going to divert the fisherman's livelihood, at least give him a chance to have another job in the industry.

There is definitely a place for aquacultured livestock - I just don't think that neither aquacultured nor wild caught have to be mutually exclusive.

JMO

Jenn

 

[aqua-cultured]

Nice reply Jenn.

-Mutations - possibly from inbreeding - but I've seen clownfishes with underbites, some that exhibit strange (atypical) behaviors, some died suddenly at a young age... colour anomalies (one fish farm sells mis-barred ocellaris at a cheaper price).

If aquaculture would be economical, culling should be a part of doing business.

if the ornamental trade is shut down, it's likely that the fisherman is going to seek another catch.

I agree it is a tough choise. On one side it provides jobs in the states... including low paying to research jobs. On the other side, by not taking so many fish, wild populations would be higher which in turn, at least in some places, could bring in more turism.

Another way one could get around this is like high tech or other industries. Do the research stateside, and the "manufacturing" so to speak overseas. This would be a win/win for everybody.

it would not be a stretch to think that somebody's "Clark's ocellaris" wouldn't turn up off some US coastline...

I see your point and I agree. I guess it would depend on the fish and its characteristics, but it might not survive all that long in the wild. You could breed for fish that is more suited to aquarium life, i.e. less flighty, eating flake food, more colors, less aggresive which will make them less likely that they would survive in the wild very long.

I just don't think that neither aquacultured nor wild caught have to be mutually exclusive.

I tend to agree. There will always be fish that could not be aquacultured eighter due to technical challenges or otherwise. And new species are being introduced all the time.

I think for aquaculture to be succesfull, a lot of players have to be involved in order for the industry to grow. After that it becomes a matter of efficiency. But I believe that if a lot of people/companies become involved, each specializing on different species a lot could be accomplished.

I know this is not very feasable because when a store is ordering fish, they want quantity and selection, but with a lot of small "producers" serving their individual markets (local at first) a movement would take place. Kind of like a stone roling downhill.

Another area could be (there might be people already doing this) that of research. People could research and figure out specifics the species then sell the "IP" to the producers. This way everybody wins, producers get IP while the researcheser keep doing research. At the moment this would be quite hard because there are only 2-3 companies that would buy this IP, but if there would be more buyers, it could spur more research....

At the moment a lot of things are going on in the commercial food aquaculture industry. It is groing like mad. There are probably a lot of lessons to be learned form them.

I appoligize for my rant, but I feel quite strongly about this subject, it's just that I don't have the means to do anything about it.

 

[mkirda]

I agree it is a tough choise. On one side it provides jobs in the states... including low paying to research jobs. On the other side, by not taking so many fish, wild populations would be higher which in turn, at least in some places, could bring in more turism.

Another way one could get around this is like high tech or other industries. Do the research stateside, and the "manufacturing" so to speak overseas. This would be a win/win for everybody.

Aquaculture has problems, at least in all of the low-tech methods such as cage culture or coastal ponds. In the Philippines during the 70's and 80's, many areas set up shoreline ponds for aquaculture. Doing so eliminated the mangroves from a very large percentage of the coastline, which in turn led to increased siltation and run-off, which in turn led to a huge decline in the reef productivity.

You could argue here that aquaculture is one of the leading causes of reef decline, and that your argument that wild populations increased is baseless.

You could also argue that the net productivity loss due to aquaculture is rather extreme- Fish meal is still harvested from the wild in order to feed the aquacultured fish. There is a net loss in protein.

That being said, I have to make clear that I am not against aquaculture.
Practiced correctly, the negative effects can be minimized. This is what we should aim for.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[aqua-cultured]

Practiced correctly, the negative effects can be minimized. This is what we should aim for.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think that is true with collecting from the wild, and we see how hard that's going

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that people are not setting high standards (of morale) for themselves. I for one, could not do something that I know to be wrong or hamfull. People like to take shortcuts, fastest way is the most profitable.... But I guess that's true statesides also, if it wasn't for the regulations you'd have a lot of problems also (i.e. oil siplls, look at MTBE)

So then what would be the best course of auction. Let's say that what you say is true and aquaculture has a devastating effect on the reefs, it just shows that there has to be a two prong solution to this. Not just cyanide and using nets.

Question: The aquaculture industry that you're talking about, is this for marine ornamentals, fw food or sw food?

My guess is that it is for sw food. That is a hugely growing industry here in the sates also. In eighter case, there are low cost solutions to the run off, things that are eighter being implemented or have been implemented here in the states.

Another Question: Is MAC working on the aquaculture problem? Is anybody working on it?

I can see a huge resistance to change in the part of food aquculture companies due to the shier groth and the amount of money the industry makes. But there might be ways of convincing them what the right thing to do is. For example: show them ways to improve productivity by adopting some of the non polluting methods. If they benefit financially from this it would be easier to be adopted.[/i]

 

[mkirda]

it just shows that there has to be a two prong solution to this. Not just cyanide and using nets.

Question: The aquaculture industry that you're talking about, is this for marine ornamentals, fw food or sw food?

My guess is that it is for sw food. That is a hugely growing industry here in the sates also. In eighter case, there are low cost solutions to the run off, things that are eighter being implemented or have been implemented here in the states.

Another Question: Is MAC working on the aquaculture problem? Is anybody working on it?

I can see a huge resistance to change in the part of food aquculture companies due to the shier groth and the amount of money the industry makes. But there might be ways of convincing them what the right thing to do is. For example: show them ways to improve productivity by adopting some of the non polluting methods. If they benefit financially from this it would be easier to be adopted.

Net use only addresses one issue: Cyanide collection of MO fish.

AFAIK, there is no MO aquaculture using ponds in the Philippines. I believe there is some going on in Taiwan, but they ain't exactly talking. :wink:

The pond aquaculture in the Philippines was mostly for shrimp, although some were for fish.

The runoff problem is easily fixed- Just replant the mangroves. And the trees up on the mountains.

MAC has not strayed into this area, and I hope they do not.
I think their modest foray into the LRFF trade is quite ill-advised, and will be a setback to MO reform.

As far as the food fish production, already you can find Tilapia at prices in grocery stores around Chicago as low as 69 cents a pound. How the producers can make any money at all at that rate is beyond me. In places like Hong Kong, I had several people remark to me (family members of Chinese friends) that they wouldn't buy aquaculture fish because there feel there is a major taste difference. The flesh isn't as nice, they said. Even if the prices were higher, they would buy ocean fish. So the problem exists in the market as well. Aquaculture needs to find solutions to these problems.

I think some of the issues can be overcome. Others will be quite difficult.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[aqua-cultured]

n places like Hong Kong, I had several people remark to me (family members of Chinese friends) that they wouldn't buy aquaculture fish because there feel there is a major taste difference. The flesh isn't as nice, they said. Even if the prices were higher, they would buy ocean fish. So the problem exists in the market as well. Aquaculture needs to find solutions to these problems.

That is quite true and I've noticed it myself. The interesting part is that I think consumers "learn" that taste. Look at the chicken industry: consumers learned to eat bland tasting chichen. Free range taste a whole lot different. Same thing with: chicken eggs, milk, cheese and vegetables. I believe consumers will just get used to the new taste. Of course some will not, but I do believe that what happened in the other industries may be applicable here.

So then, if aquaculture is having a major impact on the reefs, and I believe that I've read somewhere a report to that effect, it should be addressed, eighter by MAC or other body.

Question: Historicaly, has anybody tried to tackle this problem? Meaning aquaculture run off into reefs?

 

[mkirda]

So then, if aquaculture is having a major impact on the reefs, and I believe that I've read somewhere a report to that effect, it should be addressed, eighter by MAC or other body.

Sure. I vote for another body. MAC hasn't shown that they can solve the problem they were tasked with. I certainly hope they don't try to tackle more...

Question: Historicaly, has anybody tried to tackle this problem? Meaning aquaculture run off into reefs?

Not that I am aware of. Reason being that mostly it would involve the pond destruction and replanting of mangroves.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[aqua-cultured]

Reason being that mostly it would involve the pond destruction and replanting of mangroves.

Not necessarily. I believe that one can construct a wetland of sorts where all the excess nutrients get absorbed by fish/birds/plants and what is returned to the ocean can be cleaner that the water that was taken out in the first place. I believe that could be a very inexpensive alternative, providing habitat (including mangroves) and biodiversity among other things.

I am not exactly sure of the ratio of contaminated water vs. wetland that would be required, but I believe that it would not take that much space. From some reports that I've read, most farms could benefit from a 10-20ac wetland.

Another solution would be that the run off water from the aquafarm is then used to grow other things like rice(?), seaweed, vegetables and so on, each system's run off going into the next. This way the land is not "wasted" instead it is used to produce other crops. In this scenario it could be "sold" so to speak to a farmer, which would get water/fertilizer for very low cost...

As I've said before, if you can show them that there is return for the extra effort they should/would be more willing to invest into alternatives. Here is where government sponsorship could play an important role by providing tax brakes or even just education among other things.

I appreciate your open mildness as I was expecting to encounter quite a lot of resistance on this board. Thanks Mike. Thanks Kalk. Thanks Jenn

 

[mkirda]

I am not exactly sure of the ratio of contaminated water vs. wetland that would be required, but I believe that it would not take that much space. From some reports that I've read, most farms could benefit from a 10-20ac wetland.

You should fly over Cavite someday, or see some aerial photos of it.
The ponds are built right in Manila Bay. There is no place for mangroves without filling in the ponds. From what I understand, the area around Bolinao is similar. There is no place to put wetlands, nor are there very many species of rice that grow in salt water. In inland ponds where they raise bagus or tilapia or even pacu, the runoff can be used as described. Freshwater aquaculture is more environmentally friendly in this sense...

Anyway, hope you found the discussion helpful.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

This thread sparked a memory in my brain from when I was touring a sturgeon farm here in CA. The males are sold solely for their meat. At this particular farm, they were transferred from a recirculating system to a small flow through system about a week before being shipped out as food. The farmer told me the week in cleaner water makes their flesh taste better. I have no idea if there's any basis behind it. They certainly spend a lot of money to transfer them, so it must have some merit. Apparently the dirtier water doesn't affect the females' egg taste, as they leave them in the same tanks.

The farmers that were raising Tilapia and catfish did not use the same method, however, they simply kept them in ponds until ready for harvest.

 

[mkirda]

At this particular farm, they were transferred from a recirculating system to a small flow through system about a week before being shipped out as food. The farmer told me the week in cleaner water makes their flesh taste better. I have no idea if there's any basis behind it.

Matt,

I believe that there is... And according to the folks on an aquaculture list I once subscribed to... They certainly thought so. Especially Tilapia and catfish.
Not sure if there is any scientific basis for it either, but the aquaculturists said that the public noticed the taste difference and paid higher prices for the cleaner-tasting fish.

Would be interesting to do a taste-test, wouldn't it?

Regards.
Mike Kirda