96
R.S.V. Pullin
Aquaculture, like agriculture and forestry and in concert with them and other
natural resources sectors, must become more responsible and sustainable, and less
environmentally damaging. Some forms of aquaculture have had a bad history of
booms and busts and environmental damage: over-abstraction of surface and ground
waters; destroying mangrove and other wetlands to establish production units, some
of which then fail anyway; exposing acid sulphate soils; increasing salinization of
lands and aquifers; causing eutrophication of inland and coastal waters; introducing
invasive alien species; spreading parasites and diseases; changing wild genetic
resources by interbreeding etc.
Many of the same charges can be laid against other sectors; for example, shrimp
aquaculture was found to be contributing only 1.5 and 0.9% respectively of the total
anthropogenic sources of nitrogen and phosphorus entering Mexican coastal waters
(Páez-Osuna et al. 1998 ) . Aquaculture has a particularly bad image and gets a bad press
where it is blamed, whether entirely correctly or not, for adverse impacts on nature and
natural resources; for example, salmon farming on wild salmon stocks and fi sheries
(e.g., Ford and Myers 2008 ) . Costa-Pierce summarized the solutions to this problem as
follows: “the aquaculture world community needs to focus its attention on a new paradigm, in order to evolve an ‘aquaculture revolution’ that is technically sophisticated,
knowledge-based, and ecologically and socially responsible” ( 2002 , 364–365).
Aquaculture is indeed changing for the better, following the provisions of the
FAO CCRF (FAO 1995b ) and its Technical Guidelines. There are some excellent
commentaries on what this change implies (e.g., Consensus 2006 ) . In particular,
there is a huge effort underway to replace with cheaper and more sustainable sources
of lipids the fi sh oils that are used in farmed fi sh feeds (Turchini et al. 2009 ) .
Similarly, the use of vegetable proteins in farmed fi sh feeds is increasing, with a
view to making large reductions in fi shmeal and trash fi sh requirements. According
to Finley and Fry ( 2009 ) , soy protein will provide half of the protein requirements
of farmed fi sh feeds by 2020. Aquaculture products are included in the organic food
movement (e.g., www.ifoam.org ) and the criteria for them being accredited as
organically farmed often include broad assessments of the earth-friendliness of their
production systems and not just the avoidance of use of chemicals etc.
Ahmed and Lorica ( 2002 ) and FAO ( 2009b ) pointed to the high importance of
aquaculture for food security, especially in Asia. Moreover, inland aquaculture is an
obvious way to add value to scarce water resources, through their multipurpose use.
It is therefore certain that the contributions of aquaculture to food fi sh security will
continue to increase and will soon exceed those of capture fi sheries. Aquaculture of
plants and of herbivorous or omnivorous aquatic animals (mainly fi n fi sh, molluscs
and crustaceans) is more feed- and energy-ef fi cient than other ways of producing
animal protein. As Brown put it: “The big winner in the animal protein stakes has
been aquaculture, largely because herbivorous fi sh convert feed into protein so
ef fi ciently” ( 2006 , 171).
Subasinghe et al. ( 2009 ) reviewed positively the future prospects for expansion
of aquaculture, in spite of its many challenges, especially climate change. They
concluded that aquaculture was expected to:
Contribute more effectively to food security, nutritional well-being, poverty reduction by
producing…with minimum impact on the environment and maximum bene fi t to society, 85
R.S.V. Pullin
Aquaculture, like agriculture and forestry and in concert with them and other
natural resources sectors, must become more responsible and sustainable, and less
environmentally damaging. Some forms of aquaculture have had a bad history of
booms and busts and environmental damage: over-abstraction of surface and ground
waters; destroying mangrove and other wetlands to establish production units, some
of which then fail anyway; exposing acid sulphate soils; increasing salinization of
lands and aquifers; causing eutrophication of inland and coastal waters; introducing
invasive alien species; spreading parasites and diseases; changing wild genetic
resources by interbreeding etc.
Many of the same charges can be laid against other sectors; for example, shrimp
aquaculture was found to be contributing only 1.5 and 0.9% respectively of the total
anthropogenic sources of nitrogen and phosphorus entering Mexican coastal waters
(Páez-Osuna et al. 1998 ) . Aquaculture has a particularly bad image and gets a bad press
where it is blamed, whether entirely correctly or not, for adverse impacts on nature and
natural resources; for example, salmon farming on wild salmon stocks and fi sheries
(e.g., Ford and Myers 2008 ) . Costa-Pierce summarized the solutions to this problem as
follows: “the aquaculture world community needs to focus its attention on a new paradigm, in order to evolve an ‘aquaculture revolution’ that is technically sophisticated,
knowledge-based, and ecologically and socially responsible” ( 2002 , 364–365).
Aquaculture is indeed changing for the better, following the provisions of the
FAO CCRF (FAO 1995b ) and its Technical Guidelines. There are some excellent
commentaries on what this change implies (e.g., Consensus 2006 ) . In particular,
there is a huge effort underway to replace with cheaper and more sustainable sources
of lipids the fi sh oils that are used in farmed fi sh feeds (Turchini et al. 2009 ) .
Similarly, the use of vegetable proteins in farmed fi sh feeds is increasing, with a
view to making large reductions in fi shmeal and trash fi sh requirements. According
to Finley and Fry ( 2009 ) , soy protein will provide half of the protein requirements
of farmed fi sh feeds by 2020. Aquaculture products are included in the organic food
movement (e.g., www.ifoam.org ) and the criteria for them being accredited as
organically farmed often include broad assessments of the earth-friendliness of their
production systems and not just the avoidance of use of chemicals etc.
Ahmed and Lorica ( 2002 ) and FAO ( 2009b ) pointed to the high importance of
aquaculture for food security, especially in Asia. Moreover, inland aquaculture is an
obvious way to add value to scarce water resources, through their multipurpose use.
It is therefore certain that the contributions of aquaculture to food fi sh security will
continue to increase and will soon exceed those of capture fi sheries. Aquaculture of
plants and of herbivorous or omnivorous aquatic animals (mainly fi n fi sh, molluscs
and crustaceans) is more feed- and energy-ef fi cient than other ways of producing
animal protein. As Brown put it: “The big winner in the animal protein stakes has
been aquaculture, largely because herbivorous fi sh convert feed into protein so
ef fi ciently” ( 2006 , 171).
Subasinghe et al. ( 2009 ) reviewed positively the future prospects for expansion
of aquaculture, in spite of its many challenges, especially climate change. They
concluded that aquaculture was expected to:
Contribute more effectively to food security, nutritional well-being, poverty reduction by
producing…with minimum impact on the environment and maximum bene fi t to society, 85