Aquafarming: salmon and shrimp highlight risks and potential

Aquafarming, also known as aquaculture. To some it holds the key to truly sustainable seafood; to others it represents an ecological threat. On the one hand, aquafarming shifts the burden off wild fish populations but it also introduces potential ecological imbalances with excess antibiotic use, concentrated fish waste, and an unattractive ratio of the amount of feed required for a pound of fish.

Long time readers of this blog know what my position is. I favor aquafarming as I believe it holds the best potential, the best alternative to today's industrial fishing. As I see it, the concept of sustainable seafood indeed does relieve some of the pressure off declining fish populations, but it is only postponing the inevitable. So long as mankind interjects itself as a predator in a naturally balanced marine ecosystem, that system will ultimately suffer. Any seafood taken from the wild is "bushmeat" as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it and, on land, we stopped taking bushmeat to feed the bulk of the population centuries ago.

While I am a supporter, I will also be the first to say that current aquafarming is beset with major problems that need to be addressed to protect surrounding waters and/or improve the quality of the end product. Take, for example, farmed salmon.

Genetically-Altered Salmon
While most of the salmon that is sold in markets is farmed, it is not done in the most efficient manner. It takes approximately 3 pounds of feed (usually fish meal products, which cuts into the populations of those fish used as feed) to produce 1 pound of salmon. Being sensitive to these types of imbalances (like the large amounts of CO2 produced to generate a gallon of CO2-reducing ethanol), researchers have been using gene-splicing to produce variants that grow faster - as much as twice as fast - thereby requiring less feed to reach a commercially marketable size. TIME magazine listed the new salmon as one of the top 50 best inventions of the year.

But would you consume genetically-altered salmon (or "Frankenfish" as its critics have dubbed it)? Well, we have been consuming genetically altered plants, like rice and corn for some time. And it would appear that the fast-growing salmon will likely gain approval for sale from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); open hearings have now concluded but there are still some FDA committees that are looking into health issues such as allergies to the new salmon.

Some environmentalists opposed to genetically-engineered seafood are focusing arguments on the impact to wild populations if the new salmon were to be accidentally introduced into open water. Farmed salmon is usually raised on land but the potential is there for it to be inadvertantly introduced and the fear is that the new salmon would quickly come to dominate and eradicate the wild species. There has been talk of a "Trojan Gene" effect, used to describe the genetic advantage of the new salmon to take over.

This is being hotly contested, coming from an unusual source: the scientist first responsible for proposing the Trojan Gene hypothesis. The Los Angeles Times reported that Professor William Muir of Purdue claims his work on the Trojan Gene is being misrepresented. His original hypothesis was based on a genetically-altered salmon that grew faster and bigger, with size giving it a potentially distinct advantage. But the salmon that has been developed does not grower larger, simply faster.

According to the Times, "Muir told the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee evaluating the GE salmon that 'the data conclusively shows that there is no Trojan Gene effect as expected. The data in fact suggest that the transgene will be purged by natural selection. In other words the risk of harm here is low.'”

Exaggeration or misrepresentation, like negative politics, always succeeds in clouding the issue, so I suspect it will take some time before it is sorted out by the FDA and a decision is rendered as to whether genetically-altered fish will be available to the consumer. And then it will need to prove itself in the open marketplace.

Shrimp: Wild Caught or Farmed
The market demand for shrimp is another example of how aquafarming holds great potential but must address some serious issues. Shrimp is some of the most popular and affordable seafood in the world; but the two primary methods for harvesting shrimp leave much to be desired. For one, shrimp is caught in the wild using bottom trawling nets which rake across the ocean floor catching the bottom-dwelling shrimp but also a wide range of bycatch - from fish to sharks and rays to sea turtles. In the process, this fishing technique leaves behind a shattered and leveled seafloor, making it one of the must destructive fishing techniques currently used.

The other technique, typically found in Asian countries, is aquafarming shrimp in large but densely packed ponds. The possibility of disease in this situation is extremely high and so a variety of antibiotics get introduced - many of which can pose a threat to humans. The use of antibiotics has been a major issue throughout all of aquafarming because of the potential for diseases to develop drug-resistant strains.

The website ShrimpSuck.org takes the position that consumers should choose not to purchase or consume shrimp at all because of the dangerous or destructive outcomes of either shrimp fishing with bottom trawling nets or aquafarming. That would seem to be a logical position at first blush. However, with demand high and cost cheap, it is likely that the market for shrimp will remain for some time. Therefore, I would propose that efforts be concentrated on improving shrimp aquafarming as there does not seem to be another viable and effective method for catching wild shrimp that excludes bycatch or damage to the seafloor. Larger ponds, better water filtration, different or lower dosage antibiotics - there are many steps that could be researched.

Aquafarming: fraught with serious issues that need to be addressed if it is to be a viable alternative to destructive commercial over-fishing or to seafood bans, whether voluntary or imposed by species extinction. Economics and the need to feed a growing populace compels us to get aquafarming on a productive and environmentally-safe track.

Read about inventions in TIME.
Read about genetically-altered salmon in the Los Angeles Times.
Read about shrimp at ShrimpSuck.org.

Protecting the Environment: from phosphorus to fish farming - we have an impact

Today, we are experiencing a significant environmental and ecological movement, and well we should, as more and more evidence of our poor stewardship of earth's natural resources continues to mount. But for many movements there is a maturation process that is occurring where we are moving beyond building an emotional groundswell of awareness to realizing concrete, quantitative results. And that means developing successful strategies that can ward off intransigent corporate interests and get decision-makers to do what we elect them to do - to look out for the best interests of their constituencies.

While we look to others for tangible results, there are still personal decisions that we can make which can have an impact. Here are a couple that I came across.

Phosphate-Free Detergent
Ever wonder how your dishwasher gets your glasses sparkling free of spots? Phosphorus - one of those better-living-through-chemicals that binds to food particles and minerals, allowing dishes to rinse off free of residue. As much as a third of the phosphorus that makes its way as treated wastewater - which ends up in rivers and other waterways - comes from dishwasher detergent. The rest comes from fertilizers and our own body waste.

The problem with phosphorus is what it does in open water. It stimulates the growth of algae and this, in turn, impacts other aquatic life by either forcing them out in a territorial tug-of-war or by depleting the oxygen levels in the water - one component to the oxygen-free "dead zones" you may have read about.

Phosphorus detergents are slowly being phased out in many countries and U.S. states. But it has been a slow step-by-step process as chemical companies push hard to resist. By choosing to purchase phosphate-free detergent and living with a spot or two on your wine glasses, you are not only doing your part to protect the environment but you are telling the chemical companies, through the marketplace, how they need to adapt their business models to changing realities.

Plastic Bag Ban in Los Angeles County
In the United States, the groundswell toward banning the single-use plastic bag is in its infancy but slowly making progress. The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors has initiated a plastic bag ban in unincorporated areas under its control which should produce an annual reduction of 600 million bags.

Several other cities have tried for bans and seen them defeated due to the concerted efforts of plastic bag lobbyists, so plastic bag ban supporters learned from those mistakes and focused less on the big picture issues of greenhouse gases and ocean pollution/biodegradability associated with plastic bags. Instead, they built convincing arguments regarding local pollution/litter, contaminant-free reusable bags, the failure of plastic bag recycling programs, and the right of stores to charge customers a modest 10-cents for recycled paper bags.

As these represent the efforts of environmental organizations and politicians, what should be our personal contribution? Support. At the very least, ask for paper bags instead of plastic when you go to the market. Use reusable cloth bags when you can (make sure they can be easily washed or disinfected). Keep one in your car for those unplanned runs to the store which often result in one more small plastic bag entering the environment.

But aren't single-use plastic bags convenient? Sure they are. However, it is a convenience that we are now seeing takes a heavy toll on the health and aesthetic appearance of the environment - from floating garbage patches at sea to roadside eyesores.

Favor Buying Farmed Fish
While international organizations work to limit the catches of dwindling species like tuna, swordfish, and many, many others, we can lend our support by buying farmed fish whenever we can. Commercial fishing, like many other industries, is slow, if not outright resistant, to the necessary transition from fishing to farming. The idea that a particular species will literally disappear does not resonate within the industry as well as changes in market demand does.

The logic behind aquafarming is simple, really. Imagine where we would be today if there was no cattle ranching or chicken farming - all beef and poultry came from what was caught right out of the forests and fields. What do you think those wilderness areas would look like today? Raising cattle and poultry was inevitable to meet the demand of a growing population. It wasn't without its problems or issues but it was better than a land devoid of animal life.

It's the same situation with seafood, with one crucial difference. That being, we can see what is happening on land but we don't see what is happening beneath the waves. And so, one after another, commercial aquatic species are facing literal extinction. Aquafarming is not without its problems. But if the market demand is there, the solutions will follow if for no other reason but to make it sustainably profitable. I hope to touch on some of those in future posts.

We turn to the policy- and decision-makers to take the steps necessary to secure a future for the planet and the generations that will inhabit it. But we must be prepared to show them that we can change our personal behaviors to fit a new appreciation of our limited resources.

Read about phosphorus in TIME.
Read about L.A. County's plastic bag ban at Heal The Bay

Tilapia Aquafarming: new standards to protect the environment

Tilapia is one of the more common seafoods being aquafarmed nowadays. In fact, 75% of this fish that is consumed comes from ocean- or inland-based farms. But, as with much of the aquafarming taking place today, it is beset with challenges that impact the environment - from feed and waste pollution to the threat of invasive species (escaping tilapia).

While there have been several standards of practice instituted in the past, a new set of standards recently put in place by the Tilapia Aquaculture Dialogue (TAD), is purported to be more comprehensive and up-to-date in addressing the many issues faced by this growing industry. TAD is a collective of commercial, scientific, and conservation experts and the new standards cover a wide range of issues that would benefit the environment and the people involved in tilapia farming (some of the farming takes place in developing countries and so employee concerns were also included).

Tilapia aqua farmers who meet and maintain the standards can become certified through a process that will be established and monitored by GLOBALGAP and, ultimately, by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) which is currently being created. These new standards are a major step forward because they apply measurable metrics as opposed to more vague environmental "goals."

“We support the tilapia standards because they will help us tell our customers the story they want and deserve to hear – that they are eating tilapia which was raised in an environmentally friendly way,” said Craig Watson, Vice President of Agricultural Sustainability of Sysco Corporation, the largest foodservice distributor in the United States. “And with the ASC in place, we will have the assurance that the standards will be adhered to properly, which will bring credibility and longevity to the standards.”

Regular readers of this blog know that I am an advocate of aquaculture as it potentially can offset or possibly replace the damage caused by open ocean commercial fishing. These standards are an important step towards addressing the challenges aquaculture faces as it grows to meet demand.

Read World Wildlife Fund press release. The press release provides a link to download the complete standards.

Aquafarming Standards: new U.S. legislation to clean up a mess

I have mentioned in several past posts, my enthusiasm for the development of responsible aquafarming, also called aquaculture. It comes from a simple realization that man has learned to raise cattle and poultry to feed its population through the understanding that the continued taking of wild animals would not suffice.

Unfortunately, centuries ago, man did not make that same intellectual leap when it came to seafood. And we have been, as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it, eating ocean "bushmeat" ever since, all to the ultimate detriment of the ocean's ecology.

But there are some very serious challenges that aquafarming must overcome for it to be truly commercially successful without harming the environment. This requires the cautious and well-thought out use of science and technology to insure maximum yield will also protecting the environment within which the aquafarm exists. Once you determine just how it is to be done right, then there must be regulations and enforcement to insure it is done properly. This requires government oversight and this is where it can get a bit tricky.

The Ocean Conservancy has an excellent article explaining the problems in developing national standards for aquafarming. Currently, there are several issues of concern regarding aquafarming: ocean pollution due to feed waste, fish waste, and medications; keeping farmed fished contained and not entering a wild fish population accidentally; responsibility for the maintenance and/or dismantling of an aquafarm (dismantling due perhaps to severe ocean weather or storms); and impacts on other fish populations that are required to act as feed sources for the farms. Many of these issues could be regulated by several different agencies but, without a unifying national policy of standards, we're only setting ourselves up for a bureaucratic nightmare with overlapping agencies, jurisdictions, criteria, and responsibilities.



According to the Ocean Conservancy, one of the last acts of the Bush Administration was to put forward a U.S. plan to increase aquafarming from $900 million to $5 billion by 2025. This plan provided for the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue permits to meet the goal but did not specifically or clearly address how it was to be done responsibly, ie: regulation and enforcement. Pollution or water quality issues would be handled by one agency, often using terrestrial standards in place of a non-existent marine standard; environmental impacts would be handled by another, and so on. It was basically putting the cart before the horse, and many scientific, conservation, public advocacy and even commercial fishing groups objected. This stalled the roll out of the plan, halting it on several occasions, but it was eventually put into place in September of 2009 - flaws and all.

Earlier this month, California Representative Lois Capps introduced The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 (H.R. 4363). According to Representative Capps' office, the submitted piece of legislation will,

"Establish an overarching, federal regulatory system for offshore aquaculture that includes standardized, precautionary measures to protect the environment and coastal communities. The key provisions of the legislation include:

1. Establishing a clear, streamlined regulatory process for offshore aquaculture with specific provisions and permit terms to protect marine ecosystems and coastal communities;

2. Requiring coordinated, regional programmatic environmental impact statements to provide regulatory certainty, ensure environmental protection for sensitive marine areas, and reduce conflicts among competing uses of the marine environment; and

3. Authorizing new funds for research to provide the crucial feedback needed for adaptive, environmentally-sound management of this new use of offshore waters."

Right now, this is just proposed legislation, newly introduced. Watch how it develops and stay on top of the efforts of groups, like the Ocean Conservancy, in retracting the current piecemeal plan. And you can expect to hear more in this blog as I continue to promote aquafarming as our best chance at attaining sustainable commercial seafood levels while protecting the ocean's wild populations from decline and possible extinction.

Tuna Populations: new ICCAT assessment and new Hawaiian venture

In September, I posted information on the status of the Bluefin Tuna and the efforts by Monaco to have this highly depleted fish listed by CITES as endangered, thereby initiating a commercial ban on the species. Unfortunately, the EU was not providing much support but Monaco was still moving ahead with the request.

Many countries turn to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) for guidance regarding commercial limits but their quotas have often fallen short of levels recommended by many research groups, showing a bias towards the commercial tuna fishing industry. But that may be changing.

An analysis by ICCAT's own advisers reports that stocks of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna are probably less than 15% of their original size.

According to an article in the online BBC News, "For a number of years, ICCAT has set quotas higher than scientists' recommendations. The pressure this puts on stocks has been compounded by illegal fishing for this valuable species, which according to some estimates adds 30% to the official quota. Atlantic bluefin tuna are mainly caught from countries around the Mediterranean Sea, but most of the meat is consumed in Asia, particularly Japan. Japan has previously argued that commercial fish species should be controlled by bodies like ICCAT rather than CITES. 'The right thing would be to impose a zero quota,' said Sue Lieberman, director of international policy for the Pew Environment Group."

Read the BBC news article.

And in a related development, Hawaii Oceanic Technology has received permission to establish the first Bigeye Tuna farm near the big island of Hawaii. The company intends to breed juvenile or tuna "fry" in a lab then transfer them to large pens three miles offshore.

By feeding the tuna only sustainable feeder fish species, resisting the use of antibiotics, and placing the tuna pens in water that is over a thousand feet deep, they hope to avoid some of the environmental concerns that have been raised by some ocean conservation groups about this operation and others worldwide.

It is important that 1.) we realize that traditional commercial tuna fishing is no longer a viable option as tuna populations are being drastically depleted worldwide, and 2.) raising tuna in an aquafarming operation is probably our best bet. But serious issues regarding ocean pollution and disease must be addressed if it is to have a viable future.

Read the MNN/AP article.

Common Fisheries Policy & World Aquaculture 2009: charting new courses in commercial fishing

On a similar note to Monday's post, there is a push to revise the European Union's overall fisheries management and an important conference coming up this month regarding aquaculture.

In the 70's, EU fishermen began working together to determine fishing ground rights and levels of equal access. Out of that came the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983 which was supposed to conserve marine resources to, both, protect the environment and sustain the EU commercial fishing industry. Unfortunately, even with several revisions, it has failed to live up to its expectations and populations of popular commercial seafood like cod, sole, and other species are in rapid decline.

So, another reformation of the policy is being considered by the European Commission, following the release of a critical report, Green Paper on a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The key challenge: too many boats, too little fish. To meet demand, the fishing industry expanded capacity (more boats), but without sensible catch limits in place or enforced, then this expanded capacity has greatly reduced the population of many commercial species. Rather than reduce capacity, the industry was subsidized - which means the expanded fleet was able to continue overfishing a dwindling population since their lost revenue was being covered by the government. That may have made business sense, but from a conservation point of view it meant a grim future for many marine species.

To provide any future for the various marine species and the commercial fishing industry as well, there will have to be some tough decisions that will have to be made regarding an industry that has expanded itself to the point of collapse.

And this is where the next bit of news comes in. Perhaps those in the commercial fishing industry who are faced with a loss of business can consider making a transition into aquaculture (aquafarming). There will be a major conference on aquaculture on September 25-29. Sponsored by the World Aquaculture Society, World Aquaculture 2009 will be held in Veracruz, Mexico. Kind of an industry convention for aquaculture, the event will include speakers, panels, and symposiums along with displays from various suppliers in the industry.

As a proponent of aquaculture but one who also recognizes that it is in its infancy and has some major environmental hurdles to overcome, I hope there will be some good that comes out of the event. In my mind, aquaculture is the only viable option that we have in supplying seafood products without damaging the ocean populations and the supporting ecosystems. Unfortunately, I believe that "sustainable seafood" is only a stop gap measure - placing a finger in the dike, as it were - and to make any truly sustainable effort to meet demand, aquafarming must be aggressively pursued and all its technological and environmental issues must be addressed and solved.

Dr. Sylvia Earle: discussing the limits of the ocean's bounty

At last month's BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to videotape an interview with Dr. Sylvia Earle on behalf of planSEA.com, an organization dedicated to teaching ocean conservation to the next generation: the children.

Dr. Earle is one of the leading figures of ocean exploration and conservation and we touched on a great many subjects in our interview. Here is a segment that addressed the need for education and also an important perspective regarding the taking of seafood.



I found her viewpoint in comparing seafood to "bushmeat" very enlightening. I've always said we rely on raising cattle and poultry as a way to feed the masses and Sylvia backs that up with the idea that we long ago realized that simply taking wild terrestrial animals (bushmeat) would not work, that it could not be sustained.

But that is exactly what we do with the ocean's bounty - and it is a very limited bounty, limited in the sense that it was never meant to feed the human population. That is why I have always been a supporter of aquaculture or aquafarming, recognizing that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed regarding the practice but convinced that the ultimate future of seafood harvesting will need to come from these controlled methods.

I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Earle and her staff on several occasions and let me tell you, she is one busy person. As explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society, she works 24/7 with major ocean conservation organizations and with the prominent decision-makers to help shape the future of our oceans.

It must be frustrating at times because the bureaucratic wheels can seem to turn so slowly. But I take heart in something I read recently in TIME magazine regarding political decision-making and the control of power. In an article about FDR, David Kennedy wrote,

"As the historian Henry Adams wrote, the greatest fear 'was power; not merely power in the hands of a president or a prince, of one assembly or several, of many citizens or a few, but power in the abstract, wherever it existed and under whatever form it was known.' That's why the framers of the Constitution constructed a political order based on 'checks and balances.' That arrangement has conspicuous virtues, but it also designs a measure of paralysis into the American political system. It impedes swift adjustment to changing economic and social realities. It sustains a chronic deadlock in which trauma and shock become necessary preconditions for effective political action. To a degree not found in other political cultures, it forges a perverse partnership between danger and opportunity."

Okay, in essence, it is saying that our political bureaucracy is structured to prevent the concentration of power and avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that's a good thing. Maddening, but a good thing. Particularly if we wait for environmental "trauma and shock" to elicit a political response, we know that it won't be an isolated event but a harbinger of many more, catastrophic events.

That's why we must persevere with both generating broader public awareness and motivating our leaders to act. Enough "events" have already occurred, there is enough evidence, enough data needed to act; we don't need to wait for the roof to cave in on us.

Marine Life and Supply Side Economics: another reason for aquaculture

Both, the Shark Divers and Beqa Adventures blogs picked up on this post from the Southern Fried Science, a South Carolina marine biology grad student. It's a disturbing look at supply and demand economics regarding fisheries and it bolsters my attitudes regarding the importance of developing successful aquaculture. Here's a portion of the post:

"The basic premise is that many fisheries are completely supply limited. Even if we were to reduce 90% of the demand for certain fish, the remaining demand would still be great enough to consume 100% of the supply. If 100 people all love grouper, but only 10 grouper are being produced at any given time, then even if you convinced 90 people to never eat grouper, the other ten would still eat the 10 grouper being produced, and nothing would change. I was surprised that it’s taken me this long to start understanding what that means."

This also relates to shark products, particularly regarding the dollar value that increases with their continuing scarceness, even with reduced consumer demand. You can read the entire post here.

Aquaculture News: greenhouse gas emmissions and fish meal substitutes

A lot of interesting discussions have come out of the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This one was reported in Science News and concerned the carbon footprint of aquaculture operations.

I am one of those who is a firm believer in aquaculture as a method to meet seafood demands without decimating wild populations, but it is in its infancy and is experiencing all of the growing pains associated with a new technological enterprise. According to the AAAS panel, in the growing/feeding process there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with the type of food used (in addition to harvesting/catching and shipping methods). Monitoring aquaculture operations in several countries, it was determined that when certain types of plant-based meal are introduced, there is a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. However, not all plant-based meal produces positive results; wheat gluten or palm oil produced higher gas levels.

However, there are others hard at work at other possible beneficial substitutes. Reported in the Coloradoan, a Fort Collins brewery is developing a technique in which a portion of it's brewery waste products can be converted into a fish meal substitute. (Not sure if you end up with drunken fish, though!) The significance of finding a replacement for fish meal is due to the declining populations of anchovies and sardines. These "feeder fish" not only support the fish meal trade but are important prey items for larger fish, all the way up to tuna and dolphins (not to mention its value to low-income human populations).

There are those who say that fish raised on fish meal, as opposed to plant meal, tastes better. This may be due to the different oils found in each. According to the Fish Site, a Brazilian soybean processor is developing a technique for extracting oil from algae which would be high in omega-3 fatty acids, similar to fish meal. An acre of algae can produce up to 42,000 gallons of oil compared to only 210 gallons from an acre of soybean. The company is also looking into methods for capturing the CO2 emissions given off by the processing plant and directing it to the algae which uses it in photosynthesis.

With industrial open water fishing continuing to deplete fish populations worldwide, each stride to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of aquaculture is a great step forward.

Many thanks to Seaweb.org for the heads up on these news items.

Forage Fish: challenged to support aquafarming and the marine ecosystem balance

In previous posts I have referred to the challenges and potential of aquafarming. While it holds considerable promise in meeting the commercial demand for seafood, it is an industry in its infancy and is experiencing its technological growing pains as it addresses issues from parasite control to pollution from the waste products of concentrated, confined fish populations.

Another challenge cited in a recent issue of Annual Review of Environment and Resources has to do with the feeding of aquafarmed fish. Small to medium-size fish like anchovies, sardines, and mackerel - often referred to as forage fish - are being harvested in great numbers to feed poultry, pigs and other terrestrial animals. That puts enough pressure on the populations of forage fish as it is, but now there is the added pressure of supplying them to the growing aquafarm industry. This further deprives pelagic predators and many seabirds of a primary food source.

When I engage audiences in discussing the importance of apex predators like sharks, I often refer to the predator-prey pyramid. This hierarchy of survival is depicted as a pyramid because at the wide base of the pyramid are the plankton and small forage fish - available in large numbers because of a high reproductive rate - which serve as a foundation. And as you ascend up the pyramid to larger and larger predators, the pyramid narrows, representing nature's ability to control those populations through reduced reproductivity.

All well and good but as we continue to harvest more and more forage fish, which are relatively easy to catch, we begin to undermine the foundations of that pyramid. This not only impacts nature's balance and reduces the forage fish populations and potentially the animals that feed on them, but it also affects commercial demand and the price of forage fish can increase - which hampers developing nations who rely on forage fish for food and to build aquafarming as a viable alternative to other negative fishing practices.

As we jockey resources in an attempt to fulfill our needs, we may ultimately have to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room that we have tried to ignore: 6.7 billion people and rising.

Seafood Watch Guides: help you make sensible seafood choices

Besides being asked about mercury levels in seafood, which I touched on in a recent posting, I also get asked about which seafood to buy in restaurants or markets based on population of the species, healthy aquafarmed, etc. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has for many years provided terrific Seafood Watch pocket guides. These guides, which cover national and regional areas, can be printed and carried in your wallet or purse and are updated annually. It's a great way to have a quick reference to insure that your are making sensible choices in healthy seafood. I always carry a couple of guides in my wallet.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has also released a new Sushi Guide and you can view all of the guides on your mobile device browser. Add http://www.seafoodwatch.org to your mobile device's browser list and you'll have the guides right there at the touch of a button.

The concept of "sustainable seafood" works only when we choice seafood that is aquafarmed or whose reproductive capability has not been negatively impacted by overfishing. The Seafood Watch Guides are a great way for all of us to make sensible choices regarding seafood.

United Nations and World Bank: weigh in on the future of commercial fisheries

One of the ways to get commercial interests to move in more eco-friendly directions is to appeal to base instincts. In this case, economic viability. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, part of the United Nations), in conjunction with the World Bank, has released an assessment of marine fisheries and, as one might suspect, it shows a massive loss of revenue due to a decline in catch. (Read the press release.)

But poor management is as much to blame as is declining seafood populations. Commercial fisheries are plagued by over-capacity and over-efficiency - too many boats and advanced fishing techniques. The rising cost of fuel might be a nail in the coffin, but the problems were brewing long before fuel became an issue. Basic business economics says when you have a limited market (or resource, as in the case of seafood) and you expand operations, at some point the rate of revenue will decline. How many businesses have we seen become victims of expansion beyond what the market can bear? From computer chips to coffee shops.

The commercial fishing industry must address the need to scale back its operations to become more efficient - which will have a positive effect on seafood populations and can actually prevent market prices for seafood from skyrocketing. But it requires a shift in the industry, moving and retraining manpower and resources into other related areas, such as aquaculture/aquafarming.

(Read the complete report.)

Aquaculture: the key to true "sustainable" seafood

I was having a discussion with some people the other night about marine conservation issues and commercial overfishing. These folks were quite convinced that even sticking with "sustainable seafood species" was ultimately a lost cause - by removing fish without giving something back, you are upsetting the natural marine order and depletion of any species is inevitable.

That may or may not be true in every case, but it certainly is one reason why I support the aquaculture or aquafarming efforts taking place around the world. The logic behind these activities is pretty simple: we are giving something back.

• We raise cattle to insure we have a supply of beef.
• We raise chickens to insure we have a supply of poultry.
• And we do the same for fruits and vegetables.
  

But when it comes to the sea, for centuries we have just taken. Aquaculture can reverse that approach. But it's not without its challenges. Whether on land or at sea, there are issues of potential pollution from feed or animal waste, introduction of diseases or parasites, logistical challenges because of the required size of the facilities, and so on.

These are challenges that must be conquered and there are some definite strides being made. I have mentioned some in past postings regarding the Indian Ocean's bluefin tuna, Chesapeake Bay's blue crab, and more. I would strongly recommend that you support the companies and organizations involved in aquaculture. As the demand for seafood increases, it's the only logical answer.