MBA SeafoodWatch FarmedBarramundiReport

Seafood Watch Seafood Report

Farmed Barramundi Lates calcarifer

(Illustration Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scandfish.com)

Final Report December 19, 2006

Corey Peet Aquaculture Research Analyst

Monterey Bay Aquarium

MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedBarramundi_FinalReport December 19, 2006

1

About Seafood Watch and the Seafood Reports

Monterey Bay Aquariums Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch program by emailing [email protected]. The programs goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the programs conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of Best Choices, Good Alternatives, or Avoid. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watchs sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling (831) 647-6873 or emailing [email protected]. Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science, and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.


2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary....3

II. Introduction.........................4 i. Production....5

ii. Production Methods.............6 iii. Scope of the recommendation..8 iv. Availability of Science.8 v. Market Availability..8

III. Analysis of Seafood Watch Sustainability Criteria for Farmed Species

Criterion 1: Use of Marine Resources...9 Criterion 2: Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks...16 Criterion 3: Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks.........18 Criterion 4: Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects...21 Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime...23

IV. Overall Recommendation and Seafood Evaluation..................25

V. References..27


3

I. Executive Summary Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) or the Asian sea bass is native to the tropical waters of northern Australia, Southeast Asia, and southern China. Barramundi are a prize sport fish in Australia and are widely known for their good taste and texture. Farmed barramundi has been produced in Southeast Asia since the late 1960s and in Australia since the early 1980s. Barramundi is not yet listed as an import by NOAA, but has been rising in popularity as a United States (U.S.) seafood item since the late 1990s. Domestic production of barramundi in the U.S. began in 2005 and is currently twice that of barramundi imports. In the U.S. and parts of Australia, barramundi are farmed in closed recirculating systems, while in Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and other parts of Australia, barramundi are farmed in open net pens that are located in freshwater lakes or coastal marine areas. Enclosed ponds are also used for production in Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and Australia but will not be addressed in this report because barramundi imported to the U.S. is mainly produced in open systems.

Barramundi farmed in closed recirculating systems in the U.S. ranks as a Best Choice according to Seafood Watch criteria. Barramundi require less fishmeal (


4

potentially significant ecological risks. Seafood Watch will be monitoring this expansion as well as any new developments in barramundi farming both in the U.S. and overseas. Table of Sustainability Ranks Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical

Use of Marine Resources Closed Recirc. (U.S.) Open Net Pen, Closed Recirc.

(Australia)

Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks

Closed Recirc.

Open Net Pen Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Management Effectiveness Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Overall Seafood Recommendation:

Seafood Watch Recommendation Where Farmed and Technique Used

Best Choice Closed Recirculating (U.S.)

Good Alternative Closed Recirculating (Australia)

Avoid Open Net Pen / Cage (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan)


5

II. Introduction Barramundi or Asian sea bass (Lates calcarifer) is an estuarine species of the family Centropomidae (Lates: perches). Barramundi is native to the Indo-Pacific region and its range extends north as far as Taiwan, south to the eastern Australian coast, east to Papua New Guinea, and as far west as the Persian Gulf (Greenwood 1976; Tucker et al. 2002). Barramundi is both caught commercially and produced by aquaculture. It is renowned as a prized sport fish in northern Australia and is capable of reaching up to six and a half feet in length, can live for twenty years, and can weigh in excess of 50 kilograms (kg) (Shaklee et al. 1993). Barramundi are catadromous fish (fish that migrate from fresh water to salt water to spawn or reproduce) and move between fresh and saltwater during the various stages of their life cycle. Mature barramundi live in estuaries and associated coastal waters or in the lower reaches of rivers. Barramundi prefer slow-moving water in rivers, creeks, swamps and estuaries, but are adaptable and may often be found around near shore islands and reefs. Barramundi are protandrous hermaphrodites (i.e., juveniles develop into males first and then into females). Most barramundi start life as males and then undergo sexual inversion to become functional females at around six years of age. Barramundi are highly fecund; a single female may produce 3040 million eggs per spawning event (Moore 1982). Consequently, only relatively small numbers of broodstock are necessary to provide adequate numbers of larvae for hatchery production. Barramundi are well suited to aquaculture as they are hardy, fast-growing (Boonyaratpalin 1991), and universally regarded as a fine table fish. Additionally, barramundi have the uncommon ability to synthesize long chain omega-3 fatty acids, whose contribution to human health has been found to be increasingly important. They can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions as well as high population densities. Barramundi can reach 500 grams (g) within 12 months, but some studies have suggested that 800 g may be possible within the same time frame at higher temperatures. Large barramundi (2-3 kg) are possible within 18-24 months (Tucker et al. 2002; Barlow 1997). Production Worldwide aquaculture production of barramundi began in the late 1960s (FAO 2004). Barramundi are currently farmed in Australia, Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore), Taiwan, Israel, and more recently in the United States. In 2004, the Barramundi aquaculture industry produced 29,856 metric tons (mt) of product, valued at U.S. $77,733,000. Thailand was the largest producer (14,550 mt), followed by Taiwan (4,985 mt), Indonesia (4,663 mt), Malaysia (4,001 mt), Australia (1,567 mt), Singapore (77 mt), Brunei Darussalam (43 mt), and Israel (15 mt) (FIGIS 2006). Vietnam is also producing barramundi; however, their production is not registered in the FAO database. Until recently, China was a producer of Barramundi (peak production of 224 mt 1993) but it registered no production in 2004 (FIGIS 2006). Worldwide production of barramundi grew fifteen fold between 1985 and 2000 (1,970 mt 29,856 mt).


6

The vast majority of worldwide barramundi production is consumed domestically in producing countries, with only minor quantities being exported (e.g., Australia: 97% domestic, 3% export). However, as the profile of barramundi increases worldwide, production for export, mainly in open systems, is expected to increase in Australia, Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Singapore), and Taiwan (Goldman pers. comm.).

Worldwide Farmed Barramundi Production

05000

100001500020000250003000035000

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Year

Met

ric T

ons

Figure 1 Worldwide production of farmed barramundi from 1950 2004 (FIGIS 2006).

Farmed Barramundi Production (by country)

ThailandTaiwan IndonesiaMalaysiaAustraliaUSSingaporeIsrael

Figure 2 Production of farmed barramundi by country from 1950 2004 (FIGIS 2006). (Note: production for the U.S. is based on 2005 reports from the producer and not FAO).


7

Production methods Barramundi are farmed within enclosed artificial ponds, closed recirculating systems, and open-net pens in coastal marine areas, estuaries, or freshwater lakes. The bulk of barramundi culture is currently taking place in closed systems and ponds. In 2004, world barramundi production was 3,479 mt in freshwater, 24,580 mt in brackish water, and 1,825 mt in salt water (FIGIS 2006). Open net pens/cages This type of production mechanism is widely used in the salmon farming industry and is very attractive to producers as it costs less to construct and may have operational cost advantages relative to other production systems. Similar to salmon farming, barramundi cage culture in coastal areas or natural lakes has a broad range of potential environmental issues, including: escaped fish, disease transfer, waste discharge, chemical pollution, and interactions with other species. However, the differences in trophic energy levels between tropical and cold-water systems may result in the potential impacts being lower for barramundi in open systems than for salmon (Glencross pers. comm.). Open-net pen barramundi culture operations are currently expanding in Southeast Asia to supply the demand for export markets (U.S. and Europe). Open net pen production in Southeast Asia has been growing the fastest of all production systems and can involve culturing a mixture of species, including barramundi and snappers. Open net cage culture of barramundi was established in Southeast Asia in the late 1970s and continues to expand rapidly (Tendencia 2002; Alongi et al. 2003). Open net pens in Southeast Asia are typically poorly constructed and at high stocking densities (>60 kg/m3) (Glencross pers. comm.). In contrast, in Australia, cage culture in estuarine waters has been slow given the difficulty of getting permits for farming in public waters and it is unclear how much open net pen farming of barramundi will occur in Australian waters. Australian net pens and cages are different from those in Southeast Asia as stocking density is low to ensure high health (


8

20% of standing culture volume per day. Wastewater is treated and can be beneficially reused for irrigation, and manure solids can be used as fertilizer (ANON 1999). Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation: This report focuses on farmed barramundi that is produced or imported into the United States. U.S. domestic production of barramundi involves the use of closed recirculating systems, while the majority of imported barramundi comes from open net systems. Although barramundi produced in enclosed ponds represents a large proportion of worldwide production, it was not included in this report because of its lack of representation on the U.S. market and limited access to information on its environmental impacts. Should this type of barramundi become a larger fraction of the U.S. marketplace, further analysis will be warranted. This report will focus heavily on closed recirculating systems, which are known to eliminate many of the environmental concerns associated with open net pen aquaculture. However, closed recirculating systems are relatively energy intensive, requiring electricity for water recirculation, thus these systems could fall short of meeting sustainability criteria. Energy use was not evaluated within the context of this report. Availability of Science Limited scientific information is available on the production of farmed barramundi in Southeast Asia, where production has occurred for over 30 years. The information covers the topics of feed inputs, escapes, nutrient pollution, disease transfer, and management. However, literature on the ecological effects of open net pen salmon farming is generally applicable to pen-base production of barramundi given the similarities of the production systems, and their associated risk of ecological impacts (genetic diversity, escapes, trophic position, etc.). Market Availability Common and market names: Scientific name: Lates calcarifer Common names: Asian seabass, barramundi (Australia) Market names: barra, silver barramundi, giant perch, Asian seabass, seabass, giant seabass, white seabass, twofin seabass, blind seabass, two finned seabass, giant palmer, narifish, kokop putih, bekti apahap, palakapong, nokogirihata. In some cases, Nile perch from Africa may be mislabeled as barramundi. Seasonal availability: Farmed barramundi is available year-round. Product forms: Most farmed barramundi is sold as either plate-sized fish (1+ lbs) or fillet-sized fish (1 to 5 lbs, or more). In Asia, barramundi are most frequently marketed at 500900 g, although small numbers of larger fish (14 kg) are also sold. Barramundi are sold live, whole, gilled and gutted, chilled, or smoked. Smaller plate-sized barramundi offer some sustainability advantages, since


9

these are most often raised in recirculation systems, and less feed is required to produce smaller fish than larger ones. There has been little effort spent on developing value-added products for barramundi. In Australia, there are a few suppliers of smoked barramundi. Throughout its cultured range, live barramundi are sold to restaurants that specialize in live seafood products, but this is a relatively small portion of the total market. Import and export sources and statistics: Although production of farmed barramundi began in Southeast Asia in the late 1960s, barramundi imports into the United States did not begin until the late 1990s. Barramundi imports have slowly risen to approximately 200 mt per annum (Anonymous pers. comm., Goldman pers. comm.). Domestic production of farmed barramundi began in 2005 in closed recirculating systems in Massachusetts. Production began at approximately 200 mt and is expected to be at 800 mt by the end of 2007 (Australis Aquaculture 2006). Other companies have announced their intention to produce barramundi in the U.S. within the coming years, which will likely result in even larger domestic consumption of barramundi. Barramundi need to be raised at temperatures ranging from 25 35 oC (77 95 oF), which necessitates the use of closed recirculating systems in temperate climates (e.g., U.S., Australiasouthern states). Around the world, most farmed barramundi is consumed close to the source of production, with little export (e.g., Australia 97% domestic consumption). Traditionally, Australia has been the largest exporter to the U.S., followed by Taiwan and Indonesia. However, as the U.S. dollar declined in value in the early 2000s, importers shifted to sourcing barramundi from open net systems in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Singapore. The amount of barramundi being produced in open net systems is increasing and most likely geared towards supplying export markets in Europe and the United States (Anonymous pers. comm., Goldman pers. comm.). III. Analysis of Seafood Watch Sustainability Criteria for Farmed Species Criterion 1: Use of Marine Resources1 Worldwide aquaculture production includes a wide variety of species, ranging from autotrophic seaweeds, to filter-feeding shellfish and finfish, to omnivorous and carnivorous shellfish and finfish (FAO 2000). Historically, aquaculture has added to global seafood supplies; however, the culture of carnivorous fish increased by 70% from 1991 to 1998 (FAO 2000) and this trend threatens to erode this net protein gain (Naylor et al. 1998; Naylor et al. 2000). Leading scientists have warned about the inherent unsustainability of farming up the food web, declaring it an inefficient use of marine resources that are already used by humans (commercially) and other organisms (Pauly et al. 2002; Pauly et al. 2005). The major concern with farming carnivores is that wild fish inputs are larger than farmed fish outputs (Naylor et al. 1 Parts of this section have been adapted from ONeil 2006 (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedTroutReport.pdf).


10

2000; Pauly et al. 2002; Weber 2003; Naylor and Burke 2005), which could result in increased pressure on wild fisheries to make the feeds for farmed carnivores. While some economists, researchers, and activists have criticized aquaculture of carnivores as an inefficient use of resources, other researchers and members of the aquaculture industry have pointed out that aquaculture systems are much more efficient than natural systems (Tidwell and Allan 2001). In terrestrial systems in nature, conversion efficiency from one trophic level to the next is believed to be around 10 to 1 and it has become common practice for those defending the farming of carnivores to favorably compare these seemingly inefficient natural systems with the feed conversion efficiency of aquaculture, generally in the range of 1-3:1. This may be an over-simplification, however, as it fails to take into account that aquaculture of carnivores is an industrial system that has externalized many of its costs, while the natural conversion from one trophic level to another forms an integral part of a functioning ecosystem, providing much more than food for human consumption. It also may not be a valid comparison because farmed carnivores often feed at a much higher trophic level than their wild counterparts (for example, farmed salmon are provided a diet consisting mainly of other fish while in the wild they feed primarily on low trophic level organisms such as insects and crustaceans). Additionally, little is known about trophic conversion efficiencies in aquatic systems, though they are believed to be better than in terrestrial systems. Regardless, it is important to note that aquaculture is a very efficient means of producing protein, likely far more efficient than most other animal agriculture systems (Forster and Hardy 2001), though useful comparative measures of ecological efficiency have rarely been applied. Much of the protein and fat in feeds for carnivorous fish are sourced from reduction fisheries for wild fish such as anchovy, herring, menhaden, and mackerel. These fisheries, like many around the world, are believed to be at their maximum sustainable levels, leading some to question the sustainability of further development of an industry based on feeding wild-caught fish to farmed fish (Naylor et al. 2000; Weber 2003; Naylor and Burke 2005). Naylor and Burke (2005) have suggested that if the farming of carnivorous fish continues to grow at its current rate, the demand for fish oil is expected to outstrip supply within a decade, with a similar result expected for fish meal by 2050 (IFFO 2001). Clearly, the issue of feeding wild fish to farmed animals is not isolated to the aquaculture industry. Fishmeal and fish oil obtained from these fisheries are in high demand and are used in many different feed applications, including poultry, pigs, and pet foods (IFFO 2001; Tacon 2005). In 2002, aquaculture used 46% and 81% of the global supplies of fishmeal and fish oil, respectively, though aquaculture feeds account for a small amount (3% in 2004) of total industrial feed production (Tacon 2005). Other agricultural uses, such as chickens and pigs, use a smaller amount of fishmeal and fish oil in their feed formulations, but since the industries are so large, they still consume a large percentage of the overall supply, especially of fish meal. Future projections estimate that the aquaculture feed industry, primarily led by increases in marine production, will use an increasingly large share of the fishmeal and fish oil supply, possibly as high as 56% of the fishmeal and 97% of the fish oil by 2010 (IFFO 2001).


11

Alternative feeds Protein alternatives, including plant-based proteins and those derived from processing wastes (e.g., abattoir) (Williams et al. 2003a), will have to be developed if aquaculture production of organisms requiring fishmeal and fish oil is to expand (Tacon 2005; Hardy and Tacon 2002; Watanabe 2002). In fact the use of plant proteins and rendered animal products in fish feeds is now widespread throughout the world (most diets for salmon have 15 30% vegetable products and 10 40% rendered animal products); however, it is not currently possible to completely eliminate the use of fish meal and fish oil without negatively impacting fish welfare or their nutritional profile (i.e., affecting the concentration of omega three fatty acids) (Tacon 2005). Formulating alternative feeds to a specific nutrient profile has been found to be possible in the case of fishmeal, but it has been more problematic for fish oil as there are no commercial alternatives (of sufficient commercial scale of production) currently available (Tacon 2005). Although research continues into alternative feeds, it will be a major challenge for the aquaculture industry to continue to grow in the future while reducing its dependence on wild fish for feeds. Farmed barramundi feed use Feeds for barramundi have developed considerably since the inception of the industry. Feed use initially consisted of baitfish or feed fish (i.e., trash fish) and has progressed to a modern, extruded high energy pellet, which is used today by farmers in the U.S. and Australia (Glencross 2006). In Australia, floating extruded pellets are preferred by commercial farmers, although clear waters can inhibit barramundi feeding activities, forcing farmers to utilize the more traditional sinking pellets (Tucker et al. 2002). In Asia, the use of sinking soft-moist or dry pellets is increasing, but trash fish is still widely used in areas where it is cheaper or more available than pellet diets. Barramundi broodstock in Asia are usually fed with trash fish or commercially available baitfish. Barramundi larvae can be reared in hatchery tanks or extensively in resized marine ponds. The larvae feed on zooplankton, including copepods, rotifers, and brine shrimp (Stickney 2000). Both rotifers and brine shrimp (Daphnia and Moina) have been used as prey items for intensively reared barramundi larvae. Feeding behavior Food and feeding method are the most important factors affecting growth, health, size variation, and survival for barramundi larvae and fry. Barramundi larvae have a high feeding efficiency and a long period from first feeding until yolk and oil are exhausted, which infers relatively high survival ability (Tucker et al. 2002). Fifty percent survival from hatchling to juvenile is common for intensive tank rearing. Cannibalism, however, can be a major cause of mortalities during the nursery phase and during early grow-out because barramundi will cannibalize fish of up to 61-67% of their own length. Cannibalism may start during the later stages of larval rearing and is most pronounced in fish less than 100 mm in length. Cannibalism is reduced by grading the fish at regular intervals (usually at least every seventen days) to ensure that the fish in each cage are of similar size.


12

Inclusion rates Barramundi are less dependent on fishmeal and fish oil (25-35% and 5-15%, respectively) in their feed than other farmed carnivores like salmon (30-40% fishmeal and 20-30% fish oil) (Boonyaratpalin 1991; Tucker et al. 2002; Williams et al. 2003a; Glencross 2006). For U.S. operations, inclusion rates of fishmeal and fish oil in feed are 30% and 8%, respectively (Goldman pers. comm.; Levin 2005). Additionally, feed in the U.S. operation contains 1/3 fisheries byproducts, typically from herring fisheries. The use of open systems in Southeast Asia and Australia are likely to have similar inclusion rates but are unlikely to use fisheries byproducts in their feeds. For the purpose of this report, the U.S. and the open systems calculations will be conducted separately. Specific numbers provided by the U.S. operations (i.e., Goldmann pers. comm. and Levin 2005) will be used, while a range of possible inclusion rates will be explored for open systems (30-35% fishmeal and 5-15% fish oil). Feed conversion ratio (FCR) Feed conversion ratio (FCR), or the ratio of feed inputs (dry weight) to farmed fish output (wet weight) for barramundi may vary considerably depending on the quality of feed and feeding practices. FCRs have improved greatly over the past couple of decades, especially with changes to high-energy feeds. Australian fish feed manufacturers have reported FCRs under experimental conditions of about 0.7:1; however, FCRs of 1.2:1 to 1.5:1 are more common throughout the industry. FCRs for barramundi have been found to vary seasonally and can increase to over 2.0:1 during winter (FIRI 2006). Reports from the U.S. closed containment operation indicate an FCR for farmed barramundi of 0.8:1 to 1.0:1 (Australis 2006). The ability to achieve low FCRs is driven by a range of factors, including a nutrient-dense diet (relatively high lipid levels), constant ideal water temperature, constant ideal salinity, good health management, high dissolved oxygen levels (all of which reduce the fishs energetic needs), and precise feed management so that sufficient feed is applied to maximize growth after meeting the fishs energetic needs while avoiding any excess, which leads to feed loss. Open net systems are unable to control these factors as well as closed systems, generally produce larger fish; thus, open systems have substantially higher FCRs. It is important to note that when trash fish are used, very high FCRs of 4:1 to 8:1 have been recorded, as the use of trash fish increases the use of marine resources substantially. Although the use of high energy pellets is increasing, the use of trash fish is still occurring in Southeast Asia operations (FIRI 2006). For the purpose of this analysis, an FCR of 1.0:1 will used for calculations for U.S. closed recirculating systems and an FCR of 1.5:1 will be used for calculations involving Australian closed recirculating systems and open net pen systems, as it represents an average FCR from published reports (Barlow et al. 1996; ANON 1999; Tucker et al. 2002; FIRI 2006; ANON 2006).


13

Notes on feed calculations To avoid double-counting, calculations were performed separately for fishmeal and fish oil, and the larger of the two final calculations were used to assess the fish-in to fish-out ratio (WI:FO). Some researchers have added the fishmeal and fish oil inclusion rates together for a total inclusion rate and then used this figure in calculating the fish-in to fish-out ratio, but this fails to take into account that reduction fisheries are for both fishmeal and fish oil. In other words, the same fish are used to produce fishmeal and fish oil, so adding the inclusion rates together ignores the fact that they are products from the same fisheries and in effect double-counts the amount of wild fish inputs consumed. Yield rates Other important figures for these calculations are the yield rates of fishmeal and fish oil from reduction fisheries. Yield rates can vary based on the species of fish, season, condition of fish, and efficiency of the reduction plants (Tyedmers 2000). For this analysis, a fishmeal yield rate of 22% is used. This has been suggested by Tyedmers (2000) as a reasonable year-round average yield rate and means that 4.5 units (kg, lb, mt, etc.) of wild fish from reduction fisheries are needed to produce 1 unit of fishmeal. This analysis also used a fish oil yield rate of 12%, or 8.3 units of wild fish to produce 1 unit of fish oil, suggested by Tyedmers (2000) as a representative year-round average for Gulf of Mexico menhaden. Wild fish in:farmed fish out Formula: Calculate and enter the larger of two resultant values:

Meal: [Yield Rate] meal x [Inclusion rate] meal x [FCR] = ____ Oil: [Yield Rate] oil x [Inclusion rate] oil x [FCR] = ____

WI:FO = ____ Closed containment (U.S.): Conversion for fishmeal: 3.0 kg* of wild fish X 0.30 kg fishmeal X 1.0 kg feed = 0.90 kg wild fish / kg of Barra 1 kg fishmeal 1 kg feed 1 kg Barra

Conversion for fish oil: 5.5 kg* of wild fish X 0.08 kg fish oil X 1.0 kg feed = 0.44 kg wild fish / kg of Barra 1 kg of fish oil 1 kg feed 1 kg of Barra

* Amount of wild fish reduced, due to one third inclusion of fishery byproducts in feed Open net systems (Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Australia); closed containment (Australia): Conversion for fishmeal: 4.5 kg of wild fish X 0.30-0.35 kg fishmeal X 1.5 kg feed = 2.0-2.4 kg wild fish / kg of Barra 1 kg fishmeal 1 kg feed 1 kg Barra

Conversion for fish oil: 8.3 kg of wild fish X 0.05-0.15 kg fish oil X 1.5 kg feed = 0.6-1.9 kg wild fish / kg of Barra 1 kg of fish oil 1 kg feed 1 kg of Barra


14

Alternative feed for barramundi Feed constitutes 40% of the cost of barramundi farming; thus, to lower production costs and help make the industry more sustainable (i.e., less dependent on wild fish inputs), research into alternative feeds is ongoing. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries (Australia) has been investigating alternative diets since 1993 and considerable progress has been made in reducing fishmeal inclusion rates to below 15% (Barlow et al. 1996). Soybean meal is considered a promising candidate for partial or total replacement of fishmeal in fish diets; however, Boonyaratpalin et al. (1998) found the feed to be less palatable to the barramundi than traditional fish-based diets. Some anti-nutritional issues have also been reported to be problematic. Experimental studies have shown that meat meal (abatotoir by-products), on the other hand, is well digested and well liked by barramundi (Williams and Barlow 1999; Williams et al. 2003b). White cowpea and green mungbean meals have also been used to replace 18% of the fishmeal in practical diets without affecting the growth of barramundi (Eusebio and Coloso 2000). Stock status of reduction fisheries It is generally believed that populations of fish used in most reduction fisheries are stable (Hardy and Tacon 2002; Huntington et al. 2004), though concerns have been raised about the potential for increased demand from expanding industries (Weber 2003), especially given that in most cases the populations are already classified as fully exploited (Tacon 2005). Additionally, concerns have been raised about the role of the fisheries in the ecosystem and how their removal could affect ecosystem dynamics, especially in regard to their importance as prey for predators such as birds and mammals (Huntington et al. 2004; Tacon 2005). Catches have been stable, with the exception of El Nino years, when declines in catches, especially in fish off the western coast of South America, contribute to declines in overall availability of fish used for reduction (Hardy and Tacon 2002). Worldwide landings of fish for reduction have ranged from 19 million mt to 28 million mt in the past decade, yielding an annual average of 6-7 million mt of fishmeal and 1.2 million mt of fish oil (Hardy and Tacon 2002). For U.S. based barramundi farms, feed is produced from Icelandic capelin, Peruvian anchovy, and the by products from the eastern Canadian herring roe fishery. Icelandic capelin and anchovies are caught with purse seines, and to the best of our knowledge they are not being fished around their Total Allowable Catches (TACs). Additionally, these fisheries cast nets directly on fish schools, which results in very little bycatch. Broodstock collection When the culture of barramundi began in the early 1980s it was common practice to collect wild fry for stocking in culture systems, but this practice was found to be unreliable and the emphasis now is to establish and maintain captive broodstock (Tucker et al. 2002). Since that time, the lifecycle has been closed and spawning can be manipulated using temperature and photoperiod (Battaglene and Fielder 1997). Barramundi are highly fecunda single female may produce 3040 million eggs (Moore 1982)thus, only small numbers of broodstock are necessary to provide adequate numbers of larvae for large-scale hatchery production.


15

Today broodstock can be easily spawned and carefully controlled. Broodstock can be kept year-round in reproductive condition through environmental manipulation. The most reliable and commonly-used method is hormone-induced tank-spawning, in which the fish spawn naturally following the introduction of reproductive hormones. Hormone treatment appears to be more necessary as distance from the equator increases. Hormones used in Barramundi broodstock production include: human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), carp pituitary, barramundi pituitary, and gonadotropin releasing hormone analog (GnRHa) (Tucker et al. 2002). The risks posed by the use of hormones in barramundi broodstock production to human consumption and the environment are unknown. Synthesis Farmed barramundi diets contain fishmeal and fish oil that is sourced from wild fisheries. Inclusion levels of fishmeal and fish oil for barramundi feed are lower than other farmed carnivores, such as Atlantic salmon, but are higher than other popular farmed fish such as catfish and tilapia. FCR for farmed barramundi can range from as low as 0.7:1 for closed containment pellet feed to as high as 4-8:1 for open system trash fish. Barramundi appear to be a good candidate for using alternative feeds and a great deal of research is being conducted on alternatives that do not depend on wild fisheries, such as feed grains and abattoir byproducts (i.e., terrestrial meat production). The overall ratio of wild fish used as feed to farmed fish produced (see calculations in this criterion section) is 0.90 for closed recirculating systems in the U.S. (mainly because of their use of fisheries by-products), making U.S. farmers net producers of fish protein, and 2.0-2.4 for open net systems, making operations of this sort net consumers of fish protein. The numbers rank U.S. closed recirculating systems as a low conservation concern, and closed recirculating systems in Australia and open net pens as a high conservation concern for this criterion. Use of Marine Resources Rank: . Closed recirculating (U.S.): Low Moderate High Open net pen (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan); Closed recirculating (Australia): Low Moderate High Criterion 2: Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks2 Aquaculture has become one of the leading vectors of exotic species introduction (Carlton 1992; Carlton 2001), and concerns have been raised about the ecological impacts of escapes of farmed fish into the wild (Volpe et al. 2000; Weber 2003; Youngson et al. 2001; Naylor et al. 2001). Most criticism has been directed at open aquaculture systems, primarily open net pens and cages used in coastal waters, especially those used to farm Atlantic salmon. Myrick (2002) described six potential negative impacts of escaped farmed fish: genetic impacts, disease impacts, competition, predation, habitat alteration, and colonization. Escaped farmed fish can negatively impact the environment and wild populations of fish whether they are native or exotic to the area 2 Parts of this section have been adapted from ONeil 2006 (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedTroutReport.pdf).


16

in which they are farmed, and the probability of significant ecological impact increases as the number of escaped individuals increases (Myrick 2002). Different aquaculture systems carry different levels of inherent risk of escapes, with open systems (such as net pen salmon farms) carrying the greatest risk and systems that are more closed having lower risk. The risks of impact to the environment from escaped farmed organisms can be reduced through proactive measures such as careful selection of sites, species, and systems; training of personnel; and development of contingency plans and monitoring systems (Myrick 2002). Farmed barramundi escapes The frequency and impact of barramundi escapes is dependent on the type of production facility and whether or not the production system is located within the native habitat of barramundi. Escapes from closed production systems are unlikely if multi-staged barriers are employed to stop fish from escaping from culture tanks. Production utilizing closed systems in cold climates provides a high degree of safety against escape, as barramundi stop feeding below 20 oC (69 oF) and death occurs below 13 oC (58 oF) (Tucker et al. 2002). In addition, barramundi larvae and eggs cannot survive in freshwater. Therefore, even if escapes were to occur from closed containment sites in the U.S. it would not be possible for barramundi to survive because of the low temperatures and lack of suitable habitat. When barramundi culture began in the mid 1980s in Australia, the goal was to develop a farming industry and supply fingerlings for enhancement of recreational fisheries in lakes and rivers in the tropical regions of the country (Barlow et al. 1996). Stock enhancement to help mitigate the apparent decline in Australian recreational barramundi fisheries has received wide support in Australia. The first attempt at stock enhancement was in 1985 in Queensland and has continued until the present time. Approximately one million barramundi are stocked per year in Australia, mostly in Queensland (Tucker et al. 2002). Fish used for enhancement are required to be from indigenous gene pools and it is important to note that there are more hatchery introductions of barramundi than aquaculture escapees into Australias coastal waters. Substantial population differentiation has been found across barramundis natural range in Australia (Doupe et al. 1999). Research in Queensland and the Northern Territory has identified at least 14 genetically distinct stocks of barramundi in various major river systems, which it has been suggested is the result of long-term reproductive isolation between barramundi in the different regions (Shaklee et al. 1993; Salini and Shaklee 1988). Given this genetic diversity, researchers have suggested that aquaculture escapes may pose significant threats because wild and cultured barramundi are likely to interbreed freely (Shaklee et al. 1993; Cross 2000). A similar situation exists with escaped farmed salmon, which have been documented to have negative effects on wild salmon through breeding (Krueger and May 1991; Youngson and Verspoor 1998; Fleming et al. 2000; Einum and Fleming 1997; Einum and Fleming 2001) and through competitive interactions with other native salmonids (Jacobsen et al. 2001; Volpe and Anholt 1999; Volpe et al. 2000; Volpe et al. 2001). Doupe and Lymbery (1999) found evidence that suggested barramundi were escaping from local lake-based barramundi farms and were interacting with wild populations in Western Australia. In early 2006, thousands of barramundi escaped from open net pen farms in northern Australia when extreme tides broke open cages (Francis 2006). Escapes of cultured fish are known to


17

occur frequently with the use of open systems due to the effects of weather events or the effects of predator interactions (e.g., sharks, crocodiles, dolphins, puffer fish, and turtles), which can make holes in the nets allowing fish to escape (Barlow 1997). Australia has been taking steps to rectify this problem with the use of steel nets (Glencross pers. comm.). Some have suggested that escaped or hatchery-introduced barramundi are not a significant problem because some research suggests that barramundi have low genetic differentiation, have high levels of gene flow between populations, and show little evidence of adaptation or out breeding depression in Australia (Keenan 2000). However, Marshall and Gill (2005) recently found evidence that barramundi populations may have been substantially isolated over long periods of time and may represent independently-evolving populations, which has implications for fisheries management and potential aquaculture introductions. Given the history of escape concerns with open net pens, the direct evidence of the impact of escaped salmon on wild populations, and the uncertainty surrounding the potential impacts of interactions between escaped and wild barramundi, Seafood Watch employs the precautionary principle for assessing the risk of escaped barramundi to wild stocks in Australia and Southeast Asia. Synthesis Escapes of farmed barramundi from closed recirculating systems are highly unlikely due to a lack of connection to local waters, the use of multi-staged barriers that prevent escapes, and the presence of unsuitable temperatures and habitat in the surrounding environment, which would prevent survival of any escaped fish. Closed recirculating barramundi farms thus rank as a low conservation concern for the risk of escaped fish criterion. Open net pens or cages, on the other hand, have a long history of concerns with escapes due to their use by the salmon aquaculture industry. Barramundi are farmed in open net pens in their native habitats in northern Australia, Southeast Asia (Indonesia and Singapore), and Taiwan. Research from Australia suggests that genetic differentiation may be an important factor in the biology of barramundi and that potential interbreeding between escaped barramundi and wild barramundi may affect this diversity. Research has found that escaped barramundi are interacting with wild barramundi, although the consequences of these interactions have not yet been quantified. Although no information is available regarding escapes from open net farms in Southeast Asia and Taiwan, an experimental farm in Australia has had two major escapes due to weather events. Given these escapes and the risks posed to the genetic diversity of wild barramundi, open net pen barramundi farms rank as a high conservation concern for this criterion. Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks: Closed recirculating (U.S., Australia): Low Moderate High Open net pen (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan): Low Moderate High


18

Criterion 3: Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks3 According to Blazer and LaPatra (2002), intensive fish culture, particularly of non-native species, can and has been involved in the introduction and/or amplification of pathogens and disease in wild populations. In recent years, increasingly more concern has been raised over the spread of disease and parasites from aquaculture to wild fish populations, with the spread of parasitic sea lice from marine salmon farms to wild salmon gaining the most attention as of late (Krkosek et al. 2005; Weber 2003; Paone 2000; Carr and Whoriskey 2004). Like the issue of escapes, the risk of the spread of disease appears to be dependent on the type of aquaculture system used, with open systems carrying the greatest risk. Blazer and LaPatra (2002) identified three types of potential interactions of cultured and wild fish populations in terms of pathogen transmission. First, the importation of exotic organisms for culture can introduce pathogens to an area. Second, movement of cultured fish, native and non-native, can introduce new pathogens or new strains of pathogens. Lastly, intensive fish culture, which can include crowding, poor living conditions, and other stressors, can lead to the amplification of pathogens that already exist in wild populations and their transmission between wild and cultured populations. Very little is known about the distribution and frequency of diseases in wild fish populations (Blazer and LaPatra 2002). Unlike aquaculture, where dead or dying fish are easily observed and diagnosed, sick fish in the wild often go unnoticed since they likely become easy prey for predators. Without the background knowledge of what diseases exist pre-aquaculture, it is difficult to determine whether aquaculture is responsible for introducing or transferring a disease to wild populations. Additionally, as with exotic species introduction, there are other means of disease introduction besides aquaculture, including ballast water transfer, fish processing, and fish transport. Closed and semi-closed aquaculture systems have the lowest potential for releasing pathogens into the environment (Blazer and LaPatra 2002). Wastewater from these systems can be treated, and intermediate hosts and carriers (for example birds, snails, and worms) can be excluded from the culture facility. Pond and flow-through systems, on the other hand, pose some risk in terms of pathogen transfer to wild populations of fish, as both systems can spread diseases through discharges of wastewater and escapes of farmed fish. Additionally, these systems are sometimes open to intermediate hosts (such as birds), which can potentially transport pathogens from one farm to another and between farms and the wild. Diseases of farmed barramundi Like other cultured animals, barramundi is subject to a host of bacterial, fungal, viral and parasitic diseases usually associated with some sort of stress, such as extremes of temperature, low dissolved oxygen, poor nutrition, or poor handling of the fish. Bacterial infection is the most common cause of disease in barramundi aquaculture (Barlow 1997). Many diseases affect juvenile barramundi during their rearing stages. Columnaris disease is common in small fingerlings held in water below about 25 oC (Barlow 1997). Viral diseases, such as the picornalike virus, have also been reported and can cause devastating hatchery losses. 3 Parts of this section have been adapted from ONeil 2006 (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedTroutReport.pdf).


19

Concerns that the picornalike virus can be transferred to other native fish have led to the current stringent controls on barramundi farming (Battaglene and Fielder 1997; ANON 1999; Stickney 2000). The rapid expansion of open net cage culture in Southeast Asia has resulted in several concerns including infectious diseases (Leong 1992; Tendencia 2002). The bacterium Vibrio harveyi, is widely distributed in the marine environment in the region and is an opportunistic pathogen that infects fish when they are stressed and has been reported in cage cultured barramundi (Tendencia 2002). The expansion and concentration of fish farms have also caused severe problems resulting from parasitic infections in Southeast Asia (Leong 1997). Although parasites often occur in small numbers on barramundi farms, outbreaks are uncommon; though when they do occur they must be rapidly assessed and treated if large losses are to be avoided. The most common parasitic disease is white spot in broodstock held in salt water. It is caused by Crypotocaryon irritans (Barlow 1997). Deveney et al. (2001) reported the first outbreak of another parasite, Neobenedenia melleni, which occurred on barramundi cultivated in northern Australia. The outbreak resulted in the loss of 200,000 fish and had not been previously documented in either wild or farmed species. The authors suggest that the disease was from the wild and their study serves as an example of farm amplification of a native parasite. The most important bacterial species affecting the culture of barramundi throughout the tropics in Australia is streptococcus iniae. The bacterium can cause losses between 8-15% of production per year (although 1% is more common) and has resulted in losses up to 70% of production (Bromage et al. 1999). This bacterium has grown to be a major limiting agent in the successful culture of a variety of temperate-water fish species (Bromage et al. 1999; Bromage and Owens 2002). In Australia, autogenous vaccines for S. iniae are now available and being used by major farms. The biggest theoretical risk to wild fish from farmed barramundi would be the nodavirus (viral encephalopathy and retinopathy), which effects their nervous system and spinal cord. Little information exists on the prevalence of the nodavirus in wild populations, however, making it difficult to assess this risk (ANON 1999; Jones pers. comm.). The use of closed recirculating systems (Australia, U.S.) does not eliminate disease problems and in fact may exacerbate disease problems for farmed barramundi due to water management problems. However, as long as the effluent is appropriately treated (e.g., ozonation, etc.), closed recirculating systems do eliminate the potential transfer or amplification of disease or parasites to wild stocks. U.S. based operations discharge very little effluent to the external environment. Effluent that is discharged is treated with ozone, which has been found to be highly effective in eliminating bacteria and pathogens of carnivorous fish like salmon (Timmons 2002). Synthesis Closed containment systems in the U.S. and Australia carry extremely low risks of transferring and amplifying natural diseases and parasites to wild fish, as they are able to disinfect their wastewater with the use of ozonation. Based on this information, closed recirculating


20

barramundi farms rank as a low conservation concern based on Seafood Watch criteria for risk of disease transfer. As is the case with escapes, open net systems, on the other hand, have a long history of amplifying and transferring natural parasites to wild hosts. Research from Southeast Asia suggests that intensive culture has led to serious concerns over disease since its inception. Farming native species creates scenarios whereby natural parasites and diseases are easily amplified and possibly transferred to wild species migrating in adjacent waters. Although there is no direct evidence that barramundi farms are transferring disease or parasites to wild fish, there is some evidence that disease and parasite amplification is occurring on barramundi farms. Therefore, open net pen barramundi farms rank as a high conservation concern based on Seafood Watch criteria for risk of disease transfer. Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks Rank: Closed recirculating (U.S., Australia): Low Moderate High Open net pen (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan): Low Moderate High Criterion 4: Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects4 Pollution from fish farming facilities is a concern as waste products from aquaculture have the potential to impact the surrounding environment (Gowen et al. 1990; Costa-Pierce 1996; Beveridge 1996). Like other forms of agriculture, aquaculture creates waste that can be released into the environment; however, wastes from some types of aquaculture systems are released untreated directly into nearby bodies of water. Pollution from aquaculture can take several forms, including nutrients, suspended solids, and chemicals. In recent years, biological pollution, including the release of farmed fish and diseases into the wild (addressed in other sections of this report), has become recognized as an aspect of waste discharge (Byrd 2003). The potential for impact from aquaculture waste largely depends on the type of system used (Costa-Pierce 1996). Intensive systems, especially those that are open to natural bodies of water (i.e., open net pens), represent the greatest potential for polluting the environment, while there is little potential impact from closed or semi-closed systems, in which discharges are infrequent and wastes can be treated and disposed of (Costa-Pierce 1996). High volumes of effluent are discharged from flow-through aquaculture facilities but the effluent typically contains low concentrations of pollutants (EPA 2002). The quality of effluents leaving flow-through facilities can also vary widely depending on the activity that is taking place. During times of cleaning or other activities waste levels can be higher than under normal conditions. Most aquaculture waste is the result of excretion or excess feed (Beveridge 1996). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists several pollutants of concern from aquaculture facilities, including sediments and solids, nutrients, organic compounds and biological oxygen demand, and metals (EPA 2002). 4Parts of this section have been adapted from ONeil 2006 (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedTroutReport.pdf).


21

Wastes from barramundi farms Pollution and habitat impacts associated with marine finfish cage aquaculture derive mainly from nutrient inputs from uneaten fish feed and fish wastes. For example, a salmon farm of 200,000 fish releases an amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal matter roughly equivalent to the waste from cities ranging from 20,000 65,000 people in size (Hardy 2000). Studies carried out in Hong Kong indicate that 85 percent of phosphorus, 8088 percent of carbon, and 5295 percent of nitrogen inputs to open net cages may be lost through uneaten food and fecal wastes (FIRI 2006). In severe cases, this self pollution can lead to cage farms exceeding the capacity of the local environment to assimilate wastes and provide inputs such as dissolved oxygen, which in turn can contribute to fish disease outbreaks. In tropical regions of Southeast Asia and Australia, where the growth of open net cage culture is the most rapid, the impacts of fish cages on coastal water quality and planktonic processes is virtually unknown (DeSilva 1998; Alongi et al. 2003). One study in Malaysia has found increased concentrations of dissolved inorganic and particulate nutrients around barramundi farms (Alongi et al. 2003), but no significant impacts on local ecosystem processes. It has been suggested that the lack of impacts observed may be due to differences between tropical and temperate systems, as bacterial turnover under tropical conditions may be several orders of magnitude above that seen in temperate systems (Glencross pers. comm.). Although no direct evidence of pollution or habitat impacts from open net barramundi farms was available for this report, there is a vast body of literature documenting for other species, such as farmed salmon, how open net pens contribute to pollution and alter local habitats. Open net barramundi farms may have similar effects, with the degree of effect depending on management, feed inputs (e.g., the use of trash fish results in high waste loading), farm siting (current flows, etc.), and culture density. Seafood Watch will continue to monitor data on the effects of open net barramundi farms on the local environment. The use of closed recirculating systems enables very high levels of water re-use; in some cases, these systems discharge less than 1% of the water required by conventional intensive aquaculture methods per unit fish produced (Australis BMP 2004). In the U.S. and Australia, closed recirculation facilities also treat effluent water substantially before discharge. Recent information from the U.S. operation demonstrates discharges containing levels of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) greatly below regulated levels. In some cases, the effluent from recirculating systems can also be used for other purposes, such as agriculture. In addition, closed systems often occur in developed areas and thus do not impact areas of high ecological sensitivity. The potential for significant pollution or habitat effects is very low for closed recirculating systems. Synthesis The high re-use of water, low discharges, and effective effluent treatment in closed recirculating systems result in a very low chance of potential pollution and habitat impacts from farming barramundi in the U.S. and Australia. Therefore, as it is currently practiced farming barramundi in closed systems in the U.S. and Australia ranks as a low conservation concern for the nutrient pollution and habitat impacts criterion.


22

The lack of assessment of the impacts of open net barramundi farms on the surrounding environment and the vast amount of literature available documenting the negative effects of other species cultured in open systems is cause for concern. The risk of pollution and habitat effects from barramundi farmed in open net pens ranks as a moderate conservation concern based on Seafood Watch criteria. Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects: Closed recirculating (U.S., Australia): Low Moderate High Open net pen (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan): Low Moderate High Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime 5 United States Barramundi farming, like other forms of aquaculture in the United States, falls under a wide range of regulatory regimes. Regulation, or more specifically over-regulation, has been identified as one of the main impediments to an expanded aquaculture industry in the United States and some have called for a clarification of agency roles and regulatory structures (Devoe 1999; Rychlak and Peel 1993). In addition to numerous state permits that are required to operate a barramundi farm, several federal agencies have some degree of oversight, including:

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

According to the Aquaculture Act of 1980, the USDA has the lead role in federal aquaculture policy and is responsible for coordinating national aquaculture policy (Buck and Becker 1993). USDAs role is primarily promotional, providing assistance to industry through research, information, and extension services.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under recently established effluent limitation guidelines, the EPA regulates discharges of wastes from aquaculture facilities (EPA 2004). The rule requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs).

Fisheries and Wildlife Service (FWS)

The FWS regulates the introduction and transport of fish and shellfish through the Lacey Act (Buck and Becker 1993) and assists aquaculturists with the control of fish-eating birds through the issue of depredation permits (Curtis et al. 1996).

5 Parts of this section have been adapted from ONeil 2006 (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_FarmedTroutReport.pdf)


23

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine is responsible for approving and monitoring the use of drugs and medicated feeds used in the aquaculture industry (Buck and Becker 1993).

At present, barramundi farmed in the U.S. adheres to all applicable local and federal laws and the facility has a well developed Best Management Plan that has proven to be very effective. The use of closed systems in the U.S. eliminates any negative interactions with predators, and continuous ozonation and fish health monitoring has resulted in no significant disease outbreaks to date. Additionally, no therapeutics are used for U.S. farmed barramundi. Australia In Australia, aquaculture is managed by both state and federal governments. In general, comprehensive environmental assessment procedures are in place, which, although expensive and time consuming, are designed to ensure a high level of environmental protection and improve prospects for the long-term viability of the industry (ANON 1999). All new aquaculture ventures require an environment impact statement. For closed recirculating systems, management measures include flood inundation controls and retaining walls to prevent accidental release into the surrounding environment. Australia also has strict guidelines on the movement of live organisms. Four areas of concern must be addressed before a permit can be issued: prevention of fish escape, control of and disposal of effluent, prevention of disease transfer, and the provision of a sound business plan. On the issue of predators, major pest problems can occur with fresh water rats and with predatory birds for inland and marine systems. In open cage systems, significant wildlife interactions can occur when marine predators (e.g., sharks, crocodiles, dolphins, puffer fish, and turtles) make holes in the net allowing fish to escape (Barlow 1997). Open net cage barramundi farms in Australia have recently begun using steel nets, which has improved these predator interaction issues. In Australia, an environmental code of practice for freshwater finfish aquaculture has been prepared and adopted by the Aquaculture Association of Queensland. This code is likely to provide the basis for a similar code of practice for barramundi farmed in freshwater ponds, though it has not yet been adopted by the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association. The Australian Barramundi Farmers Association has, however, developed and adopted a Code of Practice for Post-Harvest Handling of Farmed Barramundi, aimed at improving product quality through best post-harvest practices. Southeast Asia / Taiwan Very little information is available to assess the management effectiveness of barramundi farms in Southeast Asia. At this time, Seafood Watch is not in a position to evaluate the management effectiveness for Southeast Asian and Taiwanese farms but will continue to monitor the region for new information.


24

Synthesis As currently practiced, closed system barramundi farming in the United States and Australia is well regulated and management can be deemed highly effective. It therefore ranks as a low conservation concern based on Seafood Watch criteria. Management problems have occurred, however, with open net pen operations in Australia, and information from Southeast Asia and Taiwan operations was unavailable at the time this report was produced. The management of open net farms in Australia, Southeast Asia, and Taiwan therefore ranks as a moderate conservation concern based on Seafood Watch criteria. Effectiveness of Management Rank: Closed recirculating (U.S., Australia): Low Moderate High Open net pen (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan): Low Moderate High


25

IV. Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation Barramundi farmed in closed recirculating systems in the U.S. ranks as a Best Choice according to Seafood Watch criteria. Barramundi require less fishmeal (


26

Table of Sustainability Ranks Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical

Use of Marine Resources Closed Recirc. (U.S.) Open Net Pen, Closed Recirc.

(Australia)

Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks

Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Management Effectiveness Closed Recirc. Open Net Pen Overall Seafood Recommendation

Seafood Watch Recommendation Where Farmed and Technique Used

Best Choice Closed Recirculating (U.S.)

Good Alternative Closed Recirculating (Australia)

Avoid Open Net Pen / Cage (Australia, SE Asia, Taiwan) Acknowledgements Seafood Watch thanks Brendan ONeil (Independent Consultant), Brett Glencross (University of Western Australia), and Josh Goldman (Australis Aquaculture, Inc.) for helping with information and review of this report. Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.


27

V. References Alongi, D. M., V. C. Chong, P. Dixon, A. Saskekumar, and F. Tirendi. 2003. The influence of

fish cage aquaculture on pelagic carbon flow and water chemistry in tidally dominated mangrove estuaries of peninsular Malaysia. Marine Environmental Research 55:313-333.

Anonymous 1999. Barramundi farming in South Australia. Primary Industries and Resources

South Australia. Available: www.pir.sa.gov.au Anonymous 2006. Australis Board Update. Australis Aquaculture LLC. 2006. Best Management Practices Barlow, C. G., K. C. Williams, and M. Rimmer. 1996. Sea bass culture in Australia. Infofish

International 2: 26-33. Barlow, C. 1997. Barramundi. In: The new rural industries: a handbook for farmers and

investors. Ed: Hyde, K. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Australia. Available at: http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/barramundi.html

Battaglene, S. and S. Fielder. 1997. The status of marine fish larval-rearing technology in

Australia. Hydrobiologia 358: 1-5. Beveridge, M.C.M. 1996. Cage aquaculture (2nd edition). Edinburgh, Scotland: Fishing News

Books, 346 pp. Blazer, V.S., and S.E. LaPatra. 2002. Pathogens of cultured fishes: potential risks to wild fish

populations. Pages 197-224 in J. Tomasso, ed. Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

Boonyaratpalin, M. 1991. Asian seabass, Lates calcarifer, Pages 5-11 In R.P. Wilson, editor.

Handbook of Nutrient Requirements of Finfish. CRC Press, Bocan Raton, Florida, USA. Boonyaratpalin, M., P. Suraneiranat, and T. Tunpibal. 1998. Replacement of fish meal with

various types of soybean products in diets for the Asian seabass, Lates calcarifer. Aquaculture 161:67-78.

Bromage, E. S., A. Thomas, and L. Owens. 1999. Streptococcus iniae, a bacterial infection in

barramundi Lates calcarifer. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 36:177-181. Bromage, E. S., and L. Owens. 2002. Infection of barramundi, Lates calcarifer, with

Streptococcus iniae: effects of different routes of exposure. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 52:199-205.


28

Buck, E. and G. Becker. 1993. Aquaculture and the Federal Role. Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 15pp.

Byrd, S. 2003. U.S. PIRG v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine: Non-native fish as "biological

pollutants" under the clean water act and the potential repercussions for Louisiana aquaculture. Louisiana Coastal Law 82:10-12.

Carlton, J. T. 1992. The dispersal of living organisms into aquatic ecosystems as mediated by

aquaculture and fisheries activities. Pages 13-45 in A. Rosenfield and R. Mann, eds. Dispersal of living organisms into aquatic ecosystems. Maryland Sea Grant Publication, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Carlton, J.T. 1992. Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: Environmental impacts and

management priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia. Carr, J. and F. Whoriskey. 2004. Sea lice infestation rates on wild and escaped farmed Atlantic

salmon (Salmo salar L.) entering the Magaguadavic River, New Brunswick. Aquaculture Research 35:723-729.

Cheng, Z. and R. Hardy. 2002. Apparent digestibility coefficients and nutritional value of

cottonseed meal for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 212:361372. Costa-Pierce, B.A. 1996. Environmental impacts of nutrients from aquaculture: Towards the

evolution of sustainable aquaculture systems. Pages 81-113 in D.J. Baird, ed. Aquaculture and water resource management. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Cross, T. F. 2000. Genetic implications of translocation and stocking of fish species, with

particular reference to Western Australia. Aquaculture Research 31:83-94. Curtis, K.S., W.C. Pitt, and M.R. Conover. 1996. Overview of techniques for reducing bird

predation at aquaculture facilities. The Jack Berryman Institute Publication 12, Utah State University, Logan, 20pp.

DeSilva, S.S. 1998. Tropical mariculture: current status and prospects. In: S.S. DeSilva (Ed.),

Tropical mariculture (pp. 1-16). San Diego: Academic Press. Deveney, M. R., L. A. Chisholm, and I. D. Whittington. 2001. First published record of the

pathogenic mongenean parasite Neobenedienia melleni (Capsalidae) from Australia. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 46:79-82.

DeVoe, M. R. 1999. Marine aquaculture in the United States: Current and future policy and

management challenges. Pages 85-93 in B. Cicin-Sain, R. Knecht, and N. Foster, editors. Trends and future challenges for U.S. National ocean and coastal policy. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Doupe, R. G., P. Horwitz, and A. J. Lymbery. 1999. Mitochondrial genealogy of Western


29

Australian barramundi: applications of inbreeding coefficients and coalescent analysis for separating temporal population processes. Journal of Fish Biology 54:1197-1209.

Doupe, R. G., and A. J. Lymbery. 1999. Escape of cultured barramundi (Lates calcarifer Bloch)

into impoundments of the Ord River system, Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 82:131-136.

Einum, S. and I.A. Fleming. 1997. Genetic divergence and interactions in the wild among native,

farmed, and hybrid Atlantic salmon. J. Fish. Biol. 50: 634-651. Eusebio, P.S. and R.M. Coloso RM. 2000. Nutritional evaluation of various plant protein sources

in diets for Asian sea bass Lates calcarifer. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 16(2): 56-60.

Fleming, I.A., Hindar, K., Mjolnerod, I.B., Jonsson, B., Balstad, T., and A. Lamberg. 2000. Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmonids invading a native population. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 1517-1523.

Einum, S. and I. Fleming. 2001. Implications of stocking: ecological interactions between wild

and released salmonids. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 75:56-70. FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI). 2006.Rimmer, M.A.

Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme - Lates calcarifer. Cultured Aquatic Species Fact Sheets. FAO - Rome. Updated Fri Sep 01 15:46:19 CEST 2006. Available:http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=culturespecies&xml=Lates_calcarifer.xml

FAO. 2000. FAO Yearbook 1998, Fisheries statistics. Aquaculture production 1998. Food and

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. FIGIS 2006. Global Aquaculture production 1950-2004. Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations, Rome. Francis, A. 2006. Fisheries minister confirms barra escape. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nt/content/2006/s1564365.htm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2002. The State of World

Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Available online: www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2004. The State of World

Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004. Available online: www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm Forster, J. and Hardy, R. 2001. Measuring efficiency in intensive aquaculture. World

Aquaculture 32(2):41-45. Glencross, B. 2006. The nutritional management of barramundi, Lates calcarifer - a review.

Aquaculture Nutrition 12:291-309.


30

Goldman, J. 2006. Managing Director. Australis Aquaculture, Turner Falls, MA. Gowen, R.J., H. Rosenthal, T. Makinen and I. Ezzi. 1990. The environmental impact of

aquaculture activities. Pages 257-283 in N. De Pauw and R. Billard, eds. Aquaculture Europe '89 - Business Joins Science. Bredene, Belgium, European Aquaculture Society, Special Publication 12.

Greenwood, P. H. 1976. A review of the family Centropomidae (Pisces, Perciformes). Bulletin

of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 29:1-81. Hardy, R.W. 2000. Urban legends and fish nutrition. Aquaculture Magazine 26(6): 47-50. Hardy, R.W. and A. Tacon. 2002. Fish meal: historical uses, production trends and future

outlook for supplies. Pages 311-325 in Stickney, R. and J. McVey, eds. Responsible Marine Aquaculture. CABI Publishing, New York. 391 pp.

Harvey, D. 2005. Aquaculture Outlook. United States Department of Agriculture Economic

Research Service, Washington, DC. pp. 27. Huntington, T., C. Frid, R. Banks, C. Scott, and O. Paramor. 2004. Assessment of the

Sustainability of Industrial Fisheries Producing Fish Meal and Fish Oil. Report to The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 119 pp.

International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization (IFFO). 2001. Sustainability of Fishmeal and

Oil Supply. Paper presented at Scottish-Norwegian Conference on Sustainable Futures for Marine Fish Farming.

Jacobsen, J.A. and L.P. Gaard. 2001. Feeding habits of wild and escaped farmed Atlantic

salmon, Salmo salar L., in the northeast Atlantic. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 58: 916-933. Jones, B. 2006. Personal Communication. Fish Health Unit. Government of Western Australia. Keenan, C. P. 2000. Should we allow human-induced migration of the Indo-West Pacific fish,

barramundi Lates calcarifer (Bloch) within Australia? Aquaculture Research 31:121-131. Krkosek, M., M. Lewis, and J. Volpe. 2005. Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from

farm to wild salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272:689-696.

Krueger, C. and B. May. 1991. Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introductions in

North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl. 1):66-77. Leong, T. 1992. Diseases of brackishwater and marine fish cultured in some Asian Countries.

Pages 223-236 in M. Shariff, R. P. Subasinghe, and J. R. Arthur, editors. Diseases in Asian Aquaculture. Fish Health Section, Asian Fisheries Society, Manila.


31

Leong, T. S. 1997. Control of parasites in cultured marine finfishes in Southeast Asia - an

overview. International Journal for Parasitology 27:1177-1184. Levin, E. 2005. Big scaled breakthrough. Food Arts: 1-3. Marshall, C. and H. Gill. 2005. Evolutionary genetics of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) in the

Australian region. PhD Thesis Murdoch University Australia. McAllister, P. and J. Bebak. 1997. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in the environment:

relationship to effluent from aquaculture facilities. Journal of Fish Diseases 20:201-207. Moore, R. 1982. Spawning and early life history of barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), in

Papua New Guinea. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33:647-661. Myrick, C.A. 2002. Ecological impacts of escaped organisms. Pages 225-245 in J. Tomasso, ed.

Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

Naylor, R.L, R.J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky, J.

Lubchenco, J. H. Primavera, and M. Williams. 1998. Natures subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science 282: 883-884.

Naylor, R.L, R.J. Goldburg, J. H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke,

J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Troell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405:10171024.

Naylor, R., S. Williams, and D. R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture--A gateway for exotic species.

Science 294:1655-1656. Naylor, R. and M. Burke. 2005. Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigers of the Sea,

Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, in press. Paone, S. 2000. Industrial Disease: The Risk of Disease Transfer from farmed Salmon to Wild

Salmon. Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Tofino, BC, Canada. 16 pp. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, and C. J. Walters, et al.

2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418:689-695. Pauly, D., Watson, R., and J. Alder. 2005. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine

ecosystems and food security. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 360: 5-12. Rychlak, R. and E.M. Peel. 1993. Swimming past the hook: Navigating legal obstacles in the

aquaculture industry. Environmental Law 23:837-868. Salini, J., and J. B. Shaklee. 1988. Genetic structure of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) stocks from


32

northern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39:317-329. Shaklee, J. B., J. Salini, and R. Garrett. 1993. Electrophoretic characterization of multiple genetic

stocks of barramundi perch in Queensland, Australia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:685-701.

Stickney, B. 2000. Encyclopedia of Aquaculture. Pg. 105. Tacon, A. 2005. State of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment. Report

to the WWF Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. Tendencia, E. A. 2002. Vibrio harveyi isolated from cage-cultured seabass Lates calcarifer

Bloch in the Philippines. Aquaculture Research 33:455-458. Tidwell, J.H. and G.L. Allan. 2001. Fish as food: aquaculture's contribution. EMBO reports

2(11):958-963. Timmons et al. 2002. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (2nd Edition). Cayuga Aqua Ventures. Tucker, J. W., D. J. Russell, and M. A. Rimmer. 2002. Barramundi culture: A success story for

aquaculture in Asia and Australia. World Aquaculture 33:53-59. Tyedmers, P. H. 2000. Salmon and Sustainability: The biophysical cost of producing salmon

through the commercial salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of British Columbia: 272 pages.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Development Document for

Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. U.S. EPA, Washington DC, Publication EPA-821-R-02-016. 571 pp.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category; Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 451. 40pp.

Volpe, J.P. and B.R. Anholt. 1999. Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. Proceedings of the 1st

National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions. Jan. 24-27, 1999.

Volpe, J.P., Taylor, E.B., Rimmer, D.W., and B.W. Glickman. 2000. Evidence of natural reproduction of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river. Conservation Biology 14(3): 899-903.

Volpe, J.P., Anholt, B.R., and B.W. Glickman. 2001. Competition among juvenile Atlantic

salmon and steelhead: relevance to invasion potential in British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 197-201.


33

Watanabe, T. 2002. Strategies for further development of aquatic feeds. Fisheries Science 68:242252.

Weber, M. L. 2003. What price farmed fish: a review of the environmental and social costs of

farming carnivorous fish. SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse, Providence, RI. 52 pp. Williams, K.C., and C.G. Barlow. 1999. Dietary requirement and optimal feeding practices for

barramundi (Lates calcarifer), 95 p. Project 92/63, Final report to Fisheries R & D Corporation, Canberra, Australia.

Williams, K. C., C. G. Barlow, L. J. Rodgers, and I. Ruscoe. 2003. Potential of meat meal to

replace fish meal in extruded dry diets for barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch). I Growth Performance. Aquaculture Research 34:23-32.

Williams, K. C., C. G. Barlow, L. J. Rodgers, I. Hockings, C. Agcopra, and I. Ruscoe. 2003.

Asian seabass Lates calcarifer perform well when fed pelleted diets high in protein and lipid. Aquaculture 225:191-206.

Youngson, A.F. and E. Verspoor. 1998. Interactions between wild and introduced Atlantic

salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 153-160. Youngson, A., A. Dosdat, M. Saroglia, and W. C. Jordan. 2001. Genetic interactions between

marine finfish species in European aquaculture and wild conspecifics. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 17:155-162.

Documents

MBA SeafoodWatch FarmedBarramundiReport