slowly and reached the United Kingdom in the 1830s and Norway by 1850 when it
led to a short burst of mostly failed experiments (Hovland et al. 2014). This was a
time of great expansion of cities and markets. However, this was also a time when
oceanic fisheries made great strides forward in the development of trawling and
propulsion (Cushing 1988). Steam trawlers soon provided such abundant landings
that interest in aquaculture subsided in Europe except for a minor trout industry.
Only in the 1960s did a new and sustained push for aquaculture begin. It came
about as a result of independent developments in many regions of the world
including Japan, China, the United States, and Europe. The origin of these developments is so far poorly researched with the notable exception of the important
Norwegian case (Hovland et al. 2014). Our lack of knowledge is compounded by
the fact that the statistical evidence for aquaculture only becomes solid in the 1980s.
Nevertheless, it is safe to say that the first major increase took place in Southeast
Asia. The expansion built on traditional techniques, but was supported by state
policies. The widespread use of explosives and poison in local fisheries had led to a
rapid depletion of marine resources. The governments of the Philippines, Indonesia
and Thailand saw aquaculture as a means to feed a growing population and as a
source of employment for fishermen who were losing their jobs. This local
development prepared fish farmers to seize the opportunity when—as a consequence of overfishing—the market for penaeid shrimp soared in Japanese and
Western markets around 1970. Over the next twenty years, coastal mangrove forests were cut down to give way for fish and shrimp ponds that were used for
extensive practices relying on the natural productivity of the environment. In the
mid to late 1980s a new intensive form of cultivation in Southeast Asia gained
ground. Intensive farming involves controlling the environment by means of
pumps, aerators and generators as well as access to quality feed. Globalisation of
markets enabled the injection of capital into an industry that rapidly became
dominated by a few large business groups. The giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) was the most profitable commodity and quickly dominated production
(Butcher 2004). With concentration came, however, increased threats from diseases
that caused heavy losses to the industry, which responded by injections of antibiotics, salinization of lands and expanding production to new fertile mangrove
forests (Zink 2013; Hall 2003). In short, the environmental consequences of this
early success of the industry were dire while profits were high.
The rise of aquaculture depended on a concomitant dramatic increase in the
availability of feed. In the early 1970s, Peruvian (Glantz 1986) and Danish (Holm
et al. 1998) fish reduction operations provided millions of tonnes of fishmeal and
fish oil as cheap and efficient feed for agriculture as well as aquaculture. As these
pelagic resources proved volatile and vulnerable to overexploitation, the aquaculture industry faced a potentially limiting factor to growth. Despite massive
improvements in feed technology and the introduction of vegetable (but omega
3-deficient) protein, the feed problem remains a major challenge both to future
growth and public perception (Natale et al. 2013).
Science and technological innovation pointed to a way forward. Aquaculture
science developed in the United States in particular, and by 1969 the World
1 Introduction: New Approaches to Sustainable Offshore …
5
led to a short burst of mostly failed experiments (Hovland et al. 2014). This was a
time of great expansion of cities and markets. However, this was also a time when
oceanic fisheries made great strides forward in the development of trawling and
propulsion (Cushing 1988). Steam trawlers soon provided such abundant landings
that interest in aquaculture subsided in Europe except for a minor trout industry.
Only in the 1960s did a new and sustained push for aquaculture begin. It came
about as a result of independent developments in many regions of the world
including Japan, China, the United States, and Europe. The origin of these developments is so far poorly researched with the notable exception of the important
Norwegian case (Hovland et al. 2014). Our lack of knowledge is compounded by
the fact that the statistical evidence for aquaculture only becomes solid in the 1980s.
Nevertheless, it is safe to say that the first major increase took place in Southeast
Asia. The expansion built on traditional techniques, but was supported by state
policies. The widespread use of explosives and poison in local fisheries had led to a
rapid depletion of marine resources. The governments of the Philippines, Indonesia
and Thailand saw aquaculture as a means to feed a growing population and as a
source of employment for fishermen who were losing their jobs. This local
development prepared fish farmers to seize the opportunity when—as a consequence of overfishing—the market for penaeid shrimp soared in Japanese and
Western markets around 1970. Over the next twenty years, coastal mangrove forests were cut down to give way for fish and shrimp ponds that were used for
extensive practices relying on the natural productivity of the environment. In the
mid to late 1980s a new intensive form of cultivation in Southeast Asia gained
ground. Intensive farming involves controlling the environment by means of
pumps, aerators and generators as well as access to quality feed. Globalisation of
markets enabled the injection of capital into an industry that rapidly became
dominated by a few large business groups. The giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) was the most profitable commodity and quickly dominated production
(Butcher 2004). With concentration came, however, increased threats from diseases
that caused heavy losses to the industry, which responded by injections of antibiotics, salinization of lands and expanding production to new fertile mangrove
forests (Zink 2013; Hall 2003). In short, the environmental consequences of this
early success of the industry were dire while profits were high.
The rise of aquaculture depended on a concomitant dramatic increase in the
availability of feed. In the early 1970s, Peruvian (Glantz 1986) and Danish (Holm
et al. 1998) fish reduction operations provided millions of tonnes of fishmeal and
fish oil as cheap and efficient feed for agriculture as well as aquaculture. As these
pelagic resources proved volatile and vulnerable to overexploitation, the aquaculture industry faced a potentially limiting factor to growth. Despite massive
improvements in feed technology and the introduction of vegetable (but omega
3-deficient) protein, the feed problem remains a major challenge both to future
growth and public perception (Natale et al. 2013).
Science and technological innovation pointed to a way forward. Aquaculture
science developed in the United States in particular, and by 1969 the World
1 Introduction: New Approaches to Sustainable Offshore …
5