This is beta v.7 (Post-expert review), so the citations and tone are off, we're just getting info down.
Preface
As human population grows, the demand and need for fish will grow alongside it (FAO, 2007). As such, despite developments in fishing technology, the demand and need for fish will almost certainly exceed sustainable levels. Aquaculture is poised to fill the gap between fish needs and sustainable fishing, and to be scalable to meet future demands (FAO, 2007).
Aquaculture is already economically viable, with with 40% of all food fish and 22% of all trade in fish already raised in aquaculture facilities, mostly from developing countries (1World Bank, 2007). However, some forms of aquaculture are far from sustainable.
The Some of the most pressing environmental issues are antibiotics used on fish leading to antibiotic-resistant strains of disease germs due to widespread use and the collapse of aquatic ecosystem ecosystems around aquaculture facilities collapsing. Some other issues that must be resolved are include the escape of genetically modified fish escaping into the wild , and the need to feed the fish in aquaculture facilities (2Aquaculture: fulfilling its promise, 2007). Our goal is to develop guidelines for an individual country to follow when creating an aquaculture industry , that would remove that is both free from as many environmental dangers as possible , while remaining and scalable to meet growing fish demand in the future in an economically viable way.
Since our goal for aquaculture is to replace wild fish as a food source with farmed fish, we focused primarily on fish farming, rather than all forms of raising aquatic organisms. Meeting fish demand through aquaculture will involve replacing the consumption of wild fish with that of farmed fish. For the purposes of this plan, we looked at two general types of fish farming, : cage farming and intensive farming. The first type, cage farming, which uses cages in large bodies of water, relinquishing control over water quality for a cheaper, simpler system. The second type, intensive, uses closed or nearly closed-loop water filtering systems, so that the fish do not interact with any natural environments.
Extensive Aquaculture
Cage farming has the virtue of being farming is comparatively simple to set up and maintain , as because there is no need for advanced water quality control systems. However, the this reliance on nature for water management causes many greater environmental problems, notably the risk of algae blooms caused by the concentrated waste and nutrients and then remove nearly all nutrients from the ecosystem(2). The level of these risks are very dependent on site selection and the staying within (Aquaculture: fulfilling its promise, 2007). The severity of these risks depend on site selection, whether the captive population is limited to the carrying capacity of the body of water, and the levels of pollution from industrial and other sources. Near-shore waters nearby sources such as industry. Ocean waters near the shore with good tidal flushing can be suitable, however are most suitable for this type of aquaculture, and more exposed sites and attention to cage density can prevent risks to the environment . Other solutions we have found are either to (C. Goudey, personal communication, November 20, 2007). Other strategies to lessen the risk of environmental damage use shellfish, sponges, or other filter feeders for local to improve water quality management (3Shin, 2005), or to make the cages mobile so waste does not concentrate in any one location(4). By dispersing the waste and nutrients, it is much easier for the environment to absorb. . Also, it may be possible to use mobile cages to reduce the effects of unhealthy waste concentration (MIT Sea Grant, 1998). The first option would work well for countries where the right species are already native to the area, while the second option would allow landlocked nations or nations with little coastline a shot at chance to develop aquaculture, as the mobile cages can could be deployed in the open ocean in international water. There remains the question of the waters. The current economic feasibility of the mobile cages described in (4), especially in regards to developing nations. is unclear. While we are not currently able to provide an answer, we believe that should sufficient commercial and governmental pressure develop, means of reducing the cost of mobile-cage aquaculture would arise. These two options should provide most nations a means of performing extensive this type of aquaculture while preserving the environment.
To attempt to reduce the risks from genetically modified fish, we recommend that genetically modified fish not be used in extensive systems, as the risk of escape is too great. Instead, we recommend that low-trophic level fish that also naturally school are farmed, especially herbivores and omnivores (i.e. tilapia). Many of these fish also tend to be more resistant to disease than other fish given similar disease prevention techniques(5), as they are used to living with poor water quality. When coupled with vaccines (already used in Norwegian salmon farms(1)), careful fish selection will reduce or eliminate the need for antibiotics and the corresponding risk of resistant strains of diseases forming. Since the selected fish should be herbivores, they can also be fed plants from land or sea, meaning that fish would not have to be taken out of the ocean to support the farming. While these fish are not necessarily popular in the open market, they can certainly provide necessary protein for many people, and can be used as feed for higher trophic level farmed fish.
Intensive Aquaculture
Intensive Aquaculture
We also encourage the use of The second form of aquaculture we want to utilize is intensive, closed-loop systems for aquaculture. In these systems, almost all the water is recycled, with at most 5-10% of water being replaced each day (1Changing the face of the waters). This also means that escape of genetically modified stock is nigh impossible, much more difficult and that , with careful monitoring , antibiotic-resistant diseases can be contained, and not spread into the wild allowing the safe use of genetically modified fish and antibiotics. Furthermore, as the water is in a closed loop, the waste and nutrients from the fish do waste from the fish will not impact the surrounding environments. The ability to stack shallow tanks makes intensive farming particularly well suited to flat fish such as flounder (C. Goudey, personal communication, November 20, 2007). The primary downside is the complexity of the recycling systems. However, intensive aquaculture provides an opportunity for landlocked nations to become involved, and stacking tanks allows for large numbers of fish in a single facility.
Genetics and Feeding
There is a growing fear that genetically modified fish escaping from cage farms could seriously impact the surrounding environment. As fish from aquaculture come from broodstock, this broodstock is often selected to produce the best fish for aquaculture. SadlyAquaculture broodstock (fish selected for breeding) is often chosen to create fish with traits optimized for aquaculture. However, these traits are often less useful, if not harmful, in the natural environment. As such, there There is a fear the that escaped fish from farms may displace natural native species, either through interbreeding or putting too much pressure on the local ecosystem (http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n7/full/7400197.html). However, there is little evidence to support these claimsThe threats and benefits of G.M. fish). But this claim is not well supported. Though some farmed fish may interbreed with wild fish, there is little evidence that these news new genes are harmful (C. Goudey, personal communication, November 20, 2007). However, the risk still exists, so we recommend mixing randomly selected wild fish with the broodstock, to minimize the divergence differences between the two groups.
On the issue of feed, there is great work being done on the subject of Great work is being done to find replacements for wild-caught fish in farm feed. According to ( http://soyaqua.org/quickfacts.html ) "Soybean meal can replace all or most animal meals in the feeds for the majority of cultured omnivorous freshwater fish" (Quick facts). " We encourage such efforts, as they may prove key to separating aquaculture from wild fisheries and allowing near indefinite scalabilityto ending aquaculture's dependence on capture fisheries. We also recommend using low trophic level farmed fish to feed higher trophic level fish.
Solving the Problem on a Global Scale
To solve these problems, we propose that developing countries use cage farming to raise a large number numbers of low trophic level fish, using plants as feed and our previous suggestions to prevent negatively impacting the environmentnegative environmental impacts. These fish would be used both as a source of protein for locals , as well and as food for higher trophic level fish farmed in more wealthy nations. The purchase of fish from developing nations would allow those nations The money from exporting fish would allow the developing countries to keep the fish farms operating, thus (hopefully) providing food, for free, to their citizens. Corporations in developed nations, then, would use the fish from developing nations to raise higher tropic-level fish, selling them for a profit to consumers in wealthier nationshelping supply food to their citizens. In this manner, developing nations would have get both food for their citizens as well as and a new revenue stream, while developed nations could continue to consume higher trophic level , fish with very little negative environmental impact. Enforcing Implementing this plan would hinge on involve encouraging companies in developed countries to move to intensive high trophic level farming , thus producing a marked for extensive farming in developing nations and encouraging them to participateand to purchase farmed feed fish from developing nations. In the United States, NOAA, due to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is already authorized under the Merchant Marine Act , is already authorized to provide loans to help build aquaculture facilities (6), if nessecary to get the market startedNOAA 10-year plan for marine aquaculture), which could help motivate corporations. By controlling the types of facilities they grant it grants loans to, they NOAA could encourage the creation of intensive, high trophic level farms . However, this suggestion is tentative, as the manner of best enforcement is highly dependent on other aspects of the solution, particularly in regard to international treaties and bodies. On the issue of international bodies, we propose that use only sustainable feed. We also urge the creation of an international team of aquaculture experts to assist nations in with farm design and placement, ensuring the most environmentally friendly farm possiblefarms possible and making them even more economically feasible for developing nations.
There still remains the question of scale. Farms have produced anywhere from 63,000 to over two million pounds of tilapia per year (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/alt-ag/tilapia.htm). Sell, 1993). At an average per capita per year consumption of about about 35 pounds, a single farm could feed as many as 50,000 people . (http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index5.html). Using the Maldives as an example, assuming an average per capita per year fish consumption, their population of 369,031 (http://www.aneki.com/Maldives.html) could (Availability and consumption of fish). This would allow the entire population of the Maldives, more than 350,000 people, (Maldives information, 2007) to be fed with as few as eight large fish farms.
...
In some cases, it may be possible to produce a even better system for a given nation. In the case of Indiasystems for particular nations. In India, for example, some cities have integrated their waste water treatment and aquaculture systems , so that human waste is used as feed for the fish , thus solving two problems simultaneously(1(Changing the face of the waters). However, such specialized multi-trophic multitrophic solutions are dependent on many factors, including local climate and the species involved, and are thus hard to create general guidelines for. While such systems can be very useful, designing one them is a task best done on a case-by-case basis.
As a final note, NOAA recently released a 10-year plan for aquaculture in the United States (6NOAA, 2007). We agree with their its goal of increased usage of farming, particularly in terms of educating the public and in using the use of aquaculture to rebuild stocks of wild fish. As their plan seemed As the plan seems to be focused more on production and research goals, we feel it can still work under is compatible with our plan , and as such encourage its adoption.
World Bank. (2007). 1- Changing the face of the waters: the the promise and challenge of sustainable aquaculture. WashingtonWashington, DC: World Bank, c2007.The World Bank.
Aquaculture: fulfilling its promise. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: 2- http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-92632/Aquaculture-Fulfilling-Its-Promise
Shin, P. K. S. (2005). Shellfish used as a fish farm biofilter. In Research Frontiers. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from 3-http://www.ugc.edu.hk/rgc/rgcnews10/Pages/2b%20Biofilter-E.html4-
MIT Sea Grant. (1998). Model Tests and Operational Optimization of Self-Propelled Open-Ocean Fish Farm. Haifa, Israel: Goudey.
Tilapia Disease 101. In AmeriCulture, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://seagrantwww.mitamericulture.edu/cfer/oceandrifter/Israel_paper.pdfcom/Disease.htm
NOAA. (2007). NOAA 10-year plan for Marine Aquaculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Purdue University. (2004). The Threats and Benefits of G.M. Fish. West Lafayette, Indiana: Muir
Muir, W. (2004). The threats and benefits of GM fish. EMBO reports 5(7). 654-659. Retrieved 26 November 2007, from 5-http://www.americulturenature.com/Disease.htm
6-http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/finalnoaa10yrrweb.pdf
Low trophic fish:
/embor/journal/v5/n7/full/7400197.html
Quick Facts. In Soy In Aquaculture. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://soyaqua.org/quickfacts.html
Sell, R. (1993). Tilapia. In NDSU. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/alt-ag/tilapia.htm
Availability and Consumption of Fish. (2007). Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends. Retrieved 25 November 2007, from catfish
tilapia
grey mullets
carp
trout
anchoveta
herring
mackerel
sardinella
anchovy
http://www.esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issue8.pdfwho.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index5.html
Maldives information. (2007). In Rankings, Records, Countries of the World. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.aneki.com/Maldives.html