Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Shellfish and catfish; Bio-engineering technologies; Herbivorous and omnivorous; Natural resources

Introduction

Over the past 50 years, aquaculture has expanded tremendously, reaching 52.5 million tonnes in 2008, valued at US$98.5 billion, and providing around 50% of the world’s fish food. Asia accounts for 89% of the volume and 79% of the value of this industry, with China being by far the greatest producer [1]. Numerous reasons, such as preexisting aquaculture techniques, population and economic expansion, permissive regulatory environment, and growing export potential, have contributed to the region’s rapid rise.

While fish and seafood markets have continued to expand, aquaculture development in Europe and North America has slowed since the 1980s and 1990s. This is likely due to governmental constraints on sites and other competitive considerations [2]. Aquaculture expanded at a 6.9% annual pace between 1970 and 2006, while this growth rate appears to be declining. This illustrates the typical pattern of adoption followed by fast development, which ultimately declines due to escalating competition and other restraints.

The nations with relatively low levels of production, such as Lesotho, Rwanda, and Ukraine, experienced the largest relative growth rates between 2006 and 2007. Although these can be helpful indicators of new initiatives, countries with already significant production are more affected by smaller percentage growth [3]. For instance, China’s 5.2% rise accounted for 52.3% of the overall increase in the world’s aquaculture output in 2007. Vietnam, which provided 16.7% of the increased aquaculture production and had a growth rate of 30.1%, was the second-most significant nation in this regard.

Most notably, Thailand, Spain, and Canada were among the few nations with significant production that saw a decline in 2007. While sickness and sporadic environmental catastrophes can sometimes affect single-year results, market conditions and competitiveness were the key factors contributing to this. These cuts totalled 1.6% of world supplies, which is the total amount of the reductions.

FAO listed 310 species as being farmed in 2008, excluding aquatic plants. However, the top five species accounted for about 33% of the output, the top 10 for 53%, and the top 20 species for 74% of production by volume. Although tilapia and subsequently phantasies catfish have gained importance, several species of carp still account for the majority of freshwater fish output [4]. White leg and, to a lesser extent, tiger shrimp, oyster, scallop, and mussels are the main species actively produced in coastal aquaculture, with Atlantic salmon as the leader.

Discussion

All predictions for the future assume a requirement for greater fish protein supply to satisfy societal needs for health and general goals. Additionally, this must be priced affordably in light of income and other proteins. Due to the higher trophic level, fish protein production is more environmentally costly than plant protein production, although some systems (such as enriched polyculture ponds) compare extremely favourably [5]. Bivalve shellfish should not be disregarded either as an animal protein that scores highly on sustainability standards.

In the context of fisheries and aquaculture, it might be useful to divide the market into commodities such as whitefish, salmon, tuna, and prawns that are used in a variety of food presentations and outlets, and products that stand out through distinctive characteristics and have smaller production and market bases [6]. Bulk supply is most likely to increase through expansion of the globalised, scale-based commodity items, whereas expansion of the more specialised products would occur through product and production system diversity. Improving the fundamental conversion of feed materials into consumable fish flesh and minimising the use and conversion of premium resources are prerequisites for the development of sustainable aquaculture of all kinds, but notably of commodity products. Animal genetics, production techniques, species selection, animal health management, and optimum feed and feeding are all included [7]. Through the expanding knowledge of animal wellbeing, which is also influencing other physiologic and environmental interactions, they are also connected to some extent [8]. The interactions of aquaculture with the environment, in terms of both products and services, are equally crucial and must be assessed rationally so that the advantages of environmental services can be utilised without being overused and negatively impacted.

Important issues regarding the relative importance of environmental preservation vs the exploitation of natural resources for food production occurs at the policy level [9]. The environmental impact is passed to other countries whose alternatives or control is more constrained, even though wealthier nations in Europe may be able to offset decreased food production by increasing imports. High environmental criteria for imports and local production would promote the development and use of new technologies, but most certainly at the expense of higher food prices.

There is growing momentum to inform and sway market demand to play a more responsible part in determining future production systems since the market is crucial to the path of future development [10]. On particular problems, a lot of campaign organisations are active, which at least encourages discussion and future advancements. Most significantly, there is a noticeable tendency toward the creation of various standards that can be evaluated, followed, and certified by independent authorities to give producers clear rules and customers and market chain players’ confidence in the product’s social or environmental origins [11]. However, creating adequate criteria might be difficult. There are now numerous projects pertaining to aquaculture, with GLOBALGAP: a private sector-based businessto- business certification programme concentrating on standards for food quality, animal welfare, environmental protection, and social risk assessment possibly being the most notable. There are currently certification programmes for shrimp, salmon, phantasies, and tilapia, and a standard for aquaculture feeds is being developed. Despite the widespread adoption of GLOBALGAP, it does not entail any particular consumer labels like “Friend of the Sea,” “Freedom Foods,” or different organic labels [12]. There is currently no consumer label for aquaculture products that has the same level of recognition as the Marine Stewardship Council mark for sustainable catch fisheries. With the creation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council7, which is advancing a lengthy programme of stakeholder talks hosted by the WWF8 on standards for 12 major aquaculture products and developing a consumer-oriented certification scheme, this is anticipated to change.

The difficulties in creating reliable indicators of sustainability have been brought to light by the WWF aquaculture talks, particularly when definitions go from straightforward measures of environmental impact to more intricate evaluations of ecological efficiency [13]. Therefore, the creation of assessment tools has been the subject of parallel endeavours by international governmental and academic groups. One of the most important methods is life cycle assessment, which measures variables like overall energy consumption or carbon emissions during the production, distribution, consumption, or disposal of specific products. This makes it easy to compare products and identifies points in the product life cycle where efficiency gains may be possible.

While LCA offers a helpful top line number, it is less helpful for comprehending how products are linked to other production processes or how they depend on services and natural resources [14]. Because of this, the FAO and its collaborators are creating assessment frameworks based on the idea of an EAA. This makes use of a variety of metrics, such as the idea of ecological footprints, which aid in determining how dependent on ecosystem support particular activities are [15]. The “Global Aquaculture Performance Index,” created by the University of Victoria in Canada and based on the Environmental Performance Index of Yale and Columbia Universities, is another tool that can be helpful. This generates comparative scores for evaluating species selections or performance variations between nations or areas using a range of weighted indicators and statistical analysis.

International standards may seem irrelevant to smallholder systems in many countries, but there is a chance that by preventing them from accessing larger markets, they could really obstruct progress significantly [16]. The SEAT project, which is supported by the European Commission and aims to develop a more comprehensive scoring system encompassing a range of ethical issues, is researching the implications of globalising trade, standards and certification, development, and sustainability and how these interrelate.

Conclusion

It will be obvious that future policy formulation needs to go beyond straightforward goals like environmental protection and conservation or economic development and employment. With the right kind of regulatory backing, the complexity of the seafood business shows that there are several chances for segmentation and creative, sustainable aquaculture methods.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Butler WR (2000) Nutritional interactions with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Anim Reprod Sci 60–61: 449–457.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Delgado C (2005) Rising demand for meat and milk in developing countries: implications for grasslands-based livestock production.

Google Scholar

3. Dumas A, Dijkstra J, France J (2008) Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition: a centenary review. J Agric Sci 146 123–142 

Google Scholar, Crossref

4. FAO (2007) Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken Declaration.

Google Scholar

5. Dey MM, Paraguas FJ, Kambewa P, Pemsl DE (2010) The impact of integrated aquaculture–agriculture on small-scale farms in Southern Malawi. Agric Econ 41: 67–79. 

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Gatesoupe EJ (2009) Diet and husbandry techniques to improve disease resistance: new technologies and prospects.

Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Halwart M, Soto D, Arthur JR (eds) (2007) Cage aquaculture: regional reviews and global overview. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

Google Scholar

8. Lorenzen K (2005) Population dynamics and potential of fisheries stock enhancement: practical theory for assessment and policy analysis. Phil Trans R Soc B 360: 171–189.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Muir J (2005) Managing to harvest? Perspectives on the potential of aquaculture. Phil Trans R Soc B 360: 191–218.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Naylor RL,  Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M, et al. (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 15103–15110. 

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

11. Phillips MJ, Beveridge MCM, Clarke R (1991) Impact of aquaculture on water resources. Advances in world aquaculture 3. 

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

12. Soto D (2009) Integrated mariculture: a global review. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper no. 529 Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Google Scholar

13. Sturrock H, Newton R, Paffrath S, Bostock J, Muir J, et al. (2008) Prospective analysis of the aquaculture sector in the EU. Part 2: characterisation of emerging aquaculture systems. Spain: European Commission Joint Research Centre 

Google Scholar

14. Tacon AGJ, Metian M (2009) Fishing for feed or fishing for food: increasing global competition for small pelagic forage fish. Ambio 38: 294–302

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

15. Troell M, Tyedmers P, Kautsky N, Rönnbäck P (2004) Aquaculture and energy use. In Encyclopedia of energy 1: 97–108.

Google Scholar

16. erdegem MCJ, Bosma RH (2009) Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and options to produce more fish in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11: 52–68. 

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at